One idea that needs to die is the idea that Brahmins taking up secular professions led to the collapse of Varnashrama and is the source of hatred against Brahmins. Secular here refers to any non priestly job.

This view rather popular among many religious Brahmins especially Tambrahms gained popularity from the early 1900s onwards. What started off as an exhortation by religious authorities to promote orthodoxy soon came to be used to explain the rise of Anti Brahmin politics.

This view completely failed to take into account the reality of Brahmins in most of the country. Brahmins have been engaged in non religious professions since as long as recorded history.

Most Brahmins were medium land owners and non secular professions like village accountancy, tax collection were as common as those of priests. Such professions had been the monopoly of Brahmins since long before British rule.

It is recorded in the earliest censuses that a majority of Brahmins in United Province returned their profession as land owning farmer. The case was similar in much of North India.

Demographics made it such that in most areas where B population was even 5% it was simply infeasible for most Bs to engage in religious activities as their primary profession. The need for priests in society was such that no more than a handful of Bs were needed for it.

This state of affairs meant that the vast majority of Bs had at any point in history been engaged in non religious professions. This wasn't a sudden transformation under British rule. If this didn't historically cause the rise of Anti B movements why did it do so in 20th century?

It would be worthwhile to ponder this question instead of seeking simplistic explanations that fail to take historical reality into account.