This is getting weirder still. The upper castes in India today have no link left to profession. They are done pretty well for themselves. Plenty of Brahmins in the army. Plenty of Kshatriyas running business and plenty of Vaishyas doing PhDs. Thanks to affirmative action, a sizable number of Dalits are also present in all these areas. Upper castes mostly don't fight each other. Inter-caste violence is mainly upper caste vs Dalits (with some overlap with Shudras).
Or did you think that this is 1650 AD and all this jobs are carefully segregated by caste?
Secondly Kshatriyas and Shudras, whatever that means, aren't suddenly 'progressive and practical'. They are just as Ah Q tier as the others. Google 'GD Bakshi' to find out what I mean. On the other hand liberal opposition can be found across the board. Some of the most vocal critics of GoI are Vaishyas. Some are Kshatriyas and Dalits. Some Muslims and some are Brahmin. Some are Sikh and Parsi.
So I ask again, why would anyone care about this bizarro 'Kshatriyas-Shudras alliance' when these roles are completely fluid today (profession wise)? How can Brahmins be 'tossed from the top of the caste hierarchy'? What fat lot of good will that do, given the current prime minister himself is from lower caste, and is out-brahimining Brahmins for last 6 years? This falls in the 'not even wrong' category.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I don't want the audience here to get such a bizarre view of India. Tell you what, you will actually be a perfect match for Bharat-Rakshak forum.
Actually, castes are still linked to privilege.
Likewise:
When I'm talking about Brahminical privilege, I'm not talking about a rigid caste implementation that was never actually the fact in India. I'm talking about the actual privilege wherein the Brahmins have taken up the class roles beyond caste roles to gain access to good jobs and education at the expense of OBCs.
===
When I criticize Brahmin domination, the two points would be a naive idealism; i.e, a willingness for theory (our great Democracy, our great nationalism) to triumph practice and actual realities (see Mao's "On Practice" and the fact that India is a shithole). The second would be a caste-based selfishness; for instance, I recall asking a Brahmin friend in GoI to do what Chinese people did during the coronavirus crisis, which was to volunteer and put themselves in the line of infection to deal with the coronavirus crisis.
Response? "Nope, not part of my Dharma, Kshatriya job, etc etc".
===
In reality, what a lot of Chinese posters are arguing for is that India needs a revolution to change its society. I am just being more concrete about how such a revolution can come; i.e, the cultivation of Kshatriya-casted intellectuals who by their right of rulership have the same sense of responsibility for their society the same way Confucian Literati and now the Communists did in China, as well as the progressive tendencies of Communists in China*. Remember, traditional India is fundamentally a Brahmin edifice, not necessarily a Kshatriya edifice. For a revolution to succeed, you'd need the support of the working classes, which is why I'm saying you need Shudras to make such a power grab succeed.
And when I talk about a Shudra-Kshatriya alliance, well, let's face it, it's impractical right now, because Kshatriya are upper caste and Shudras are the true lower caste; they are only not the lowest of the low because of the existence of Dalits. But there are many Shudra Kshatriya jatis; i.e, Shudra jatis that rebranded themselves as Kshatriya. What you need is a sort of historical awareness that many Kshatriya jatis are just glorified Shudras, and an acknowledgment of this latent historical sympathy.
Moreover, you have to realize that in any real revolution what you see in reality is a conflict within elites, i.e, elite competition gets out of control and lower elites take a stab at upper elites. Since Kshatriya are upper caste to begin with, and therefore have access to power and privilege (to an extent), they are in position to make the elite competition element of revolution work.
*And that's what I mean by Kshatriya-Shudra would be on the same wavelength as Chinese elites; i.e, the Chinese within the Indian framework would be at best considered "degenerate Kshatriya". Our historical tradition (and you seem to be from India) is that in the Shang-Zhou transition, the priestly domination of the Shang was broken by Zhou warriors, who eventually themselves became intellectuals, adopting a doctrine of class responsibility (Literati, Shi, etc) over the rest of society.
It is hegemonic and Orientalist to impose a Chinese model of development onto India, but to me it seems the best way forward for the Indians. When you look at Brahmin intellectual and political supremacy, what you see is the Hindu rate of growth, what you see is Hindu nationalism, what you see is almost 50 wasted years since Independence in which the Chinese have outgalloped India in the race for development. It is possible that India as is can, within its present social and political framework, overcome its challenges and modernize, but it is also possible that the system of Brahmin supremacy will impede India's development indefinitely. Or in other words, Indian political and intellectual elites have failed, so it's better for them to get new political and intellectual elites, and the Indians already have a caste that's almost ready-made for the job.