Indians never revolted because caste disabled the lower classes from bearing arms

Evidence

Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils to which they have been subjected? There have been social revolutions in other countries of the world. Why have there not been social revolutions in India, is a question that has incessantly troubled me. There is only one answer which I can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched caste system. They could not bear arms, and without arms they could not rebel. They were all ploughmen—or rather condemned to be ploughmen—and they were never allowed to convert their ploughshares into swords. They had no bayonets, and therefore everyone who chose, could and did sit upon them. On account of the caste system, they could receive no education. They could not think out or know the way to their salvation. They were condemned to be lowly; and not knowing the way of escape, and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 303

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s work on caste annihilation as a scaling problem - this is Ambedkar’s diagnosis of why the masses stayed passive.
• DEEPTHINKING: The causal chain is dense: arms-bearing → education → knowledge of escape → reconciliation to fate. A paradigm for why the excluded don’t revolt, worth sitting with.
• SEED: Possible angle: comparing imperial bans on native arms (e.g. firearms acts) with caste-based disarmament of the lower classes in India as twin descalings of rebellion potential.