the bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues This is an invalid argument. You are

the bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year? If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.