In my work, I have known many Brahmins and many are smart people. I think at the end, it should be a meritocracy. People get the job based on performance regardless of caste.
When China was first found in 1949, the communists nationalized all the land and factories. My grandpa was one who was considered a landlord and land taken from him. It was a cruel process for those who own land and ran factories. This did remove the many special interest groups that would later block changes unfavorable to them. Unfortunately for India, when it was first found, the merchant class and big landlords survived intact.
As a country develops, there will always be special interests that opposed to progress. Land owners who do not want to see a road built on their land, factory owners who did not want to move because they are sitting on valuable property. Over the years, India also created weird laws like if a farmer had farmed a piece of land for ten years, then he can take the land from the owner. There is no accountability to the overall good of the public.
To break all this logjam, there need to be a revolutionary type that will forcibly take all these from people who own it and start over again. Otherwise inertia will set in soon and India will slow down due to the "low Income Trap". Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening. The system is already in place the many who are rich also wield a lot of power.
Lee Kwan Yew once said that the potential for India is 60% of China. That is under the best scenario. I just don't see that happening in the next fifty years. If anything, it is more likely that stagnation under a low growth mode. In one to two decades, the large and unskilled population of India will no longer be much of an asset due to advances in automation and AI. Those that are plugged into the Chinese manufacturing eco-system will prosper. With all the antagonism towards China, India is burning the only road it has to prosperity.
The difference between Indians overseas (who are mostly Brahmins) and Indians themselves in India is significant. Outside of India, Indians suffer less from the caste system; they're all Brahmins anyways (except for the few Shudra or Dalits who face discrimination).
It's like overseas Chinese vs Chinese themselves during the colonial era; overseas Chinese tended to be progressive and entrepreneurial, whereas vast numbers of Chinese in China at the time were addicted to opium. There's both a selection effect (if you're an opium addict you're unlikely to emigrate) and an acculturation effect (the traditions are weaker among overseas communities than in the homeland).
Among Indians, there's a vast perception that Indians themselves are stupid, that the society doesn't actually function, and it's a social mess. Beyond the DFI (Bharat Rashak seemed to have become less jingoistic over time) crowd crowing about the superiority of India on this forum, when you go to Indians talking among themselves they'll gladly admit the panoply of Indian social, economic, and political problems.
===
The difference between China and India is the absence of a truly progressive, modernizing class in India. The closest you'll get are Kshatriyas in business. Brahmins will often spout internationalist platitudes, but how willing are they to break the caste system upon which their own power relies? And when I talk of a Kshatriya-Shudra alliance, I'm not saying that the caste system should perpetuate itself, but what you'd see instead is an alliance of progressive elites (Kshatriya in practice are as conservative as any other Indian) and the downtrodden working class to break the Caste system as well as dangerous or damaging Indian traditions.