For instance, you say “The implication of this particular grammar rule.” But prescribed grammar rules are not inherent to languages – they are by their nature descriptive. I'm sure native Hindi speakers don't have it hardcoded in their heads that they should use “ko” for states of being and “ke paas” for portable and tangible objects, etc. These are just convenient guidelines for us gringos (um. . . how does one say in Hindi?) to understand how to use multiple verbs to express “to have”.

In other words, it just so happens that “ke paas” is used for portable and tangible objects and “ka/ki/ke” for people and immovable structures, which provides a useful instructional tool. What cultural significance this holds from an etymological standpoint, though, isn't at all clear. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Hindi language regards servants as chattel. For instance, I could give a different explanation for this distinction – maybe the function of “ke paas” is to denote temporary or fleeting possessions, while “ka/ki/ke” is used for more permanent possessions. A driver? There's always the possibility I'll fire him tomorrow. A brother? He may be a pain in the ass, but I can't get rid of him. Time? Always fleeting. For all I know, this may come closer to the actual spirit of these verbs. But because temporary versus permanent possessions is a rather vague distinction, no one would actually explain it to a student that way. Point is, it's not clear to me Hindi speakers are making the value statement you claim, implicitly or not. Much gets lost in translation, even in the act of just defining a Hindi word in English.

Anyway, seems like things are going well over there. Looking forward to reading more observations/musings.