> you claim that I am wrong - but you provide no evidence whatsoever. You didn't provide any evidence either, so before you cry foul start with an actual argum

> you claim that I am wrong - but you provide no evidence whatsoever. You didn't provide any evidence either, so before you cry foul start with an actual argument. > In Hinduism, dharma is prescribed based on the person's caste and so also the punishments How is this implying "truth and morality [is] extremely subjective"? If one's dharma varies by caste, does that mean "truth" is "extremely subjective"? The degree to which one's duty, and therefore morals, vary by caste is also not such that murder is good for anyone. In the Gita, Arjuna's caste is mentioned as why killing in war is his duty, but it is also clearly stated that doesn't mean any murder is allowed. There is a clear and consistent undercurrent to the morality in Hinduism. Does dharma changing by caste mean the sun doesn't rise in the east for some castes? You're implying corruption is caused by "truth and morality" being subjective, but does Hinduism therefore imply that being corrupt is okay for some castes? > may i point out that people have gone to jail even recently for "disrespecting" the Manusmiriti. This is straight up false - your article itself says that they were arrested for the confrontation that followed the event, not for any religious intolerance. E: I just want to add - caste and casteism are evil and vile.