I had to laugh. Did you actually read the links you provided(most of which are based on the outdated and widely discredited Aryan invasion theory) Here let me help you:
First link:
The caste system in India can be described as an elaborately stratified social hierarchy distinguishing India’s social structure from any other nation. Its history is multifaceted and complex.
Caste is a term, which is used to specify a group of people having a specific social rank and dates back to 1200 BCE. The Indian term for caste is jati, and generally designates a group that can vary in size from a handful to many thousands. There are thousands of jatis each with its own rules and customs. The various jatis are traditionally arranged in hierarchical order and fit into one of the four basic varnas the (Sanskrit word for “colors”).
–The varna of Brahmans, commonly identified with priests and the learned class
–The varna of Kshatriyas, associated with rulers and warriors including property owners.
–The varna of Vaishyas, associated with commercial livelihoods (i.e. traders)
–The varna of Shudras, the servile laborers
It can be argued that the composers of the Vedas, especially those sections within the Vedas called the Brahmanas, were concerned with the interconnections that organized reality (Smith, 7). This way of looking at the varnas allows us to see how such a system can survive several millennia. It classifies people not only in terms of their different qualities but also with respect to their different privileges. Each class thus has a special role to play in society as well as a unique function: this structure is a means of creating and organizing an effective society.
The varna system is inter-linked with creation, lending itself a great deal of reverence and validity.
If space, time the congregation of the gods and goddesses, the natural world, scripture and ritual, and the human body itself- if all these realms bear classification according to varna, how could an organization of society be regarded as anything other than the way things should be? (Smith 59)
An important thing to note is that the Vedas do NOT mention a concept such as Untouchability. It is a part of the system that has been created by society itself.
Link 2:
A study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups. The study concludes, based on the impossibility of identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any mythical Aryan Invasion and subjugation of Dravidian people.[8]
The caste system as we know today is not from the classical Hindu system. According to classical Hindu system, the society was divided into four “Varnas” (classes or categories), purely based on profession.
Brahmins – the clergy, teacher, religious authority
Kshatriya – the warriors, administrators, political authority
Vaisyas – the merchants, farmers, the business persons
Shudras – the servants, laborers
The Varna system was originally evolved for the classification of human duties in a healthy society. The system allowed free movement within the Varnas. So a Brahmin’s son can be a Khatriya or Vaisya or a shudra.Simillarly a shudra’s son can be a brahmin or a vaisya. The caste system practiced today is not mentioned anywhere in any of the Hindu scriptures.
The most ancient scriptures—the Shruti texts, or Vedas, place very little importance on the caste system, mentioning caste only sparingly and descriptively (i.e., not prescriptive). Indeed, the only verse in the Rigveda which mentions all four varnas is 10.90, the Purushasūkta. The other varnas, the Brahmā (i.e. Brahmins) and Rājanya (i.e. Kshatriyas) are mentioned separately in some other verses in the Rigveda (e.g. RV 10.80.1) and the other Vedas, and rarely in the Upanishads. Some—definitely including most Smriti texts—have interpreted these as prescribing the division of society in the four varnas. A hymn from the Rig Veda seems to indicate that one’s caste is not necessarily determined by that of one’s family:
Rig Veda 9.112.3
—I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother’s job is to grind the corn.
In the Vedic period, there also seems to no discrimination against the Shudras (which later became an ensemble of the so-called low-castes) on the issue of hearing the sacred words of the Vedas and fully participating in all religious rights, something which became totally banned in the later times.[9]
Later scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita and Manusmriti state that the four varnas are created by God. However, at the same time, the Gita says that one’s varna is to be understood from one’s personal qualities and one’s karma (work), not one’s birth. Some scholars believe that, in its initial period, the caste system was flexible and it was merit and job based. One could migrate from one caste to other caste by changing one’s profession. This view is supported by records of sages who became Brahmins. For example, the sage Vishwamitra belonged to a Kshatriya caste, and only later became recognized as a great Brahmin sage, indicating that his caste was not determined by birth. Similarly, Valmiki, once a low-caste robber, became a great sage. Veda Vyasa, another sage, was the son of a fisherwoman.[10] Vasishtha was a shudra and he became sage later.
Manusmriti, dated between 200 BCE and 100 AD, contains some laws that codified the caste system. The Manu Smriti belongs to a class of books that are geared towards ethics, morals, and social conduct - NOT religion. The content of these texts reflects the thinking of philosophers (like Manu) belonging to that age regarding issues pertaining to ethics, morals and social conduct. In this non-religious text (the Manu Smriti), the sage Manu explains that society is like the human body, where all body parts are required to function optimally in order to ensure the optimal function of society as a whole. He divided this metaphoric body into 4 main constituent parts: Head, Arms, Torso, Legs. The head of a body is required for thinking, planning, and decision making. Thus the metaphoric head of society (the Brahmins) were also responsible for these things. The arms of a body are responsible for protection of the body. Thus the arms of society were the Kshatriyas who were responsible for protection of the society. The torso of the body is responsible for consumption, production, and to hold society together as a whole. Thus, the Vaishya class was likened to the torso and constituted of the peasants, farmers, merchants, etc. Finally, the legs of a body are what carry the entire body altogether without which the body can make no movement or progress. These legs are the hardest physically working part of the body. The Shudra class of laborers was likened to the legs and was responsible for most physical labor jobs.
In this way, the entire body of society was complete and functional. No part of the body (society) was intended to be superior to another, just as all parts of the human body are equally important for optimal function. There was no hierarchy intended. This societal superiority/inferiority interpretation was a product of our flawed human nature which is to belittle those whom we believe are doing more menial work than we are. It was the tendency to think “Well, I’m a Brahman, and you’re just a Shudra so I’m better or higher than you are” that caused the belief that Brahmans are the highest and Shudras are the lowest. Again, an unintentional twisting of the original caste system which was nothing more than a system of equal division of social responsibilities amongst all citizens to begin with.
The view of the caste system as “static and unchanging” has been disputed by many scholars. For instance, sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[13] According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.
Some scholars believe that the relative ranking of other castes was fluid or differed from one place to another prior to the arrival of the British.[14]
The distinctions, particularly between the Brahmans and the other castes, were in theory sharper, but in practice it now appears that social restrictions were not so rigid. Brahmans often lived off the land and founded dynasties. Most of the groups claiming Kshatriya status had only recently acquired it. The conscious reference to being Kshatriya, a characteristic among Rajputs, is a noticeable feature in post-Gupta politics. The fact that many of these dynasties were of obscure origin suggests some social mobility: a person of any caste, having once acquired political power, could also acquire a genealogy connecting him with the traditional lineages and conferring Kshatriya status. A number of new castes, such as the Kayasthas (scribes) and Khatris (traders), are mentioned in the sources of this period. According to the Brahmanic sources, they originated from intercaste marriages, but this is clearly an attempt at rationalizing their rank in the hierarchy. Many of these new castes played a major role in society. The hierarchy of castes did not have a uniform distribution throughout the country.[15]
Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies.[17][18] He asserts that the caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to “rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism” i.e. adopt the customs of the higher castes. While theoretically “forbidden”, the process was not uncommon in practice. The concept of sanskritization, or the adoption of upper-caste norms by the lower castes, addressed the actual complexity and fluidity of caste relations.
Link 3: The Hindu scriptures can also be taken into consideration in this regard, which has some passages that can be interpreted to sanction the caste system. This also indicates that the caste system is not an essential part of the Hindu religion.
The Vedas or the most ancient shruti texts emphasise very less on the caste system, same is maintained in a hymn from the Rig Veda. Later scriptures like Bhagavad Gita and Manu Smriti propounds four Varnas, to be God’s creation. There is a general idea believed by scholars that may be in the initial phases the caste system was a bit flexible. Migration from one caste to the other was possible by switching jobs. Various passages from Manu Smriti and other scriptures emphasise that the caste system in India was originally non-hereditary. Therefore, through these facts one gets an impression how the caste system developed in the later stages into a firm intricate structure from a bendable one in the earlier Vedic age.
Ancient Hindu scriptures have the citations of four varnas or colour, which is the basic social class in the caste system in India. Bhagavad-Gita says that varnas are decided on the grounds of Guna which is the amalgamation of the five elements of ether, air, fire, water and earth, and Karma which is the concept of action.
Four varnas that are mentioned by other shastras are the Brahmins destined as teachers, scholars and priests, the Kshatriyas as kings and warriors, the Vaishyas were the trading class and the Shudras were agriculturists, service providers, and some artisan groups. These are further classified into jatis. Another group excluded from the main society was called Parjanya or Antyaja. This is the group of former untouchables who were considered either the lower section of Sudras or beyond the caste system altogether. Varna and jati are two different concepts. Varna actually unifies the Hindu sub communities or jatis into the four groups. Jati or community is an endogamous group where the members marry within themselves. There is a further division of the sub communities into exogamous groups in terms of gotras. There are exactly thousands of sub castes or jatis in India, often with particular ecological ranges and a governmental or corporate structure. Jatis are the way in which caste is embodied for most practical purposes.
Some scholars are of the view that the caste system in India was never so rigid until the British interfered in the caste related issues in India. They almost equated caste with the class system that exist in their country and in the process tampered with the long established caste system. Even among the Dalits there were the distinctions of high and low, and conflicts often took place. Caste system was seen as a pointer of social standing, intellectual ability and occupation. Hence the British wanted to include it in the census. Moreover, it becomes obvious that British notions of cultural purity were interwoven with these judgments of people based on caste when reactions to censuses are examined. The British policies of divide and rule were again a step towards breaking up of the unity in which caste played an important role. The listing of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census led to the stiffening of caste identities.
Your links themselves say there was no exploitative caste system, but rather say that the caste system was a merit based system, which allowed social mobility and organized society into complex divisions of labour each with their own occupation.
Now let’s compare this to your feudal system. You only had two classes: serfs and peasents.
The peasents were illiterate, subsisted on food that was throw at them, and had very low life spans. They were treated like slaves by the serfs and made to work very hard in awful conditions day in and day out.
Now shut that mouth of yours 
