If India was ‘contaminated’ by ideologies of naturalised social iniquity, we know exactly where those ideologies originated from, the Occident. Occidental culture, began with sovereignty and authoritarianism, right at its root, in Mesopotamia.
The Indus Valley Civilisation, proto-India, was engaged in trade with Mesopotamia, and that, no doubt, was the vector for the infection of iniquitous, social relations, being the osmotic origin of subsequent developments such as the caste system, which was the mode of socialisation by which succeeding waves of Occidental settler-invaders, such as the Persians, Greeks, and so on, sub-colonially inserted themselves, often militarily, into Indus Valley-Indian culture, producing Vedic India.
Occidental incursions were attracted to Indus Valley-India, primarily because of its accumulations of material wealth. Occidental greed was the motivating factor for a continuing, 4000 year cycle, of Occidental depredations.
Does Karl Marx, the product of Occidental ideology, seriously have anything to say, to Indus Valley-India culture, concerning egalitarian ideas? Especially considering the following:
“Although some houses were larger than others, Indus Civilisation cities were remarkable for their apparent, if relative, egalitarianism. All the houses had access to water and drainage facilities. This gives the impression of a society with relatively low wealth concentration, though clear social levelling is seen in personal adornments.[clarification needed]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation?oldformat=true#Authority_and_governance
“Authority and governance
Archaeological records provide no immediate answers for a centre of power or for depictions of people in power in Harappan society. But, there are indications of complex decisions being taken and implemented. For instance, the majority of the cities were constructed in a highly uniform and well-planned grid pattern, suggesting they were planned by a central authority; extraordinary uniformity of Harappan artefacts as evident in pottery, seals, weights and bricks; presence of public facilities and monumental architecture; heterogeneity in the mortuary symbolism and in grave goods (items included in burials).[citation needed]
These are the major theories:[citation needed]
There was a single state, given the similarity in artefacts, the evidence for planned settlements, the standardised ratio of brick size, and the establishment of settlements near sources of raw material.
There was no single ruler but several cities like Mohenjo-daro had a separate ruler, Harappa another, and so forth.
Harappan society had no rulers, and everybody enjoyed equal status and hence some type of Democracy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation?oldformat=true#Authority_and_governance
Without Indian influences on Greek philosophy, and on European modernity, there would have been no Karl Marx. There’s a phrase about “selling sand in the Sahara”, that’s quite apt for Marx’s naive disquisitions on social equality regarding India. Marx, like so many other Western thinkers, was condemned to always recapitulate the background of default, Occidental banditry, as patronising projections of ridiculously ignorant, Occidental ideology.