This is categorically false.
Caste has been hereditary for ~800-1200 years.
Sure, it was considered more flexible in the 4000 year old literature, but it doesn't really make sense to blame the British here.
Not so, the discriminatory aspects have existed for thousands of years. However it is always convenient to blame an unpleasant aspect such as this on a foreign scapegoat.
Paraphrasing:
Muslims who invaded/robbed the subcontinent were ALREADY divided into vocation based social "classes" , including priests, nobles and others. Further, a racial segregation demarcated the local Muslim converts from foreign origin Muslims . The foreigner Muslims claimed a superior status as they were associated with the conquerors and categorized themselves as Ashraf ("noble").
Remember two things before you post next time:
1. Wikipedia is well-cited, and social strata issues are rampant amongst all people, including Muslims.
2. Messenger of Allah said “Even if he observes Saum (fasts), performs Salat (prayer) and claims to be a Muslim, the hypocrite does three things: When he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is trusted, he betrays his trust.”
The oppression of the caste-less was not new: it is described in both Dharmasutras and Manusmriti. The English exploited it, certainly, but they didn't need to invent it.
We wouldn't have all the saints of the Warkari tradition, who fought against caste oppression, without caste oppression to fight against.
The British saw a highly fragmented society with fragmented territories, and realized that all the Divide and Conquer work they had to do was essentially already done.
They just had to get the ball rolling by making each group fight each other.
Good job! You did over 50% of their colonization work for free.
