split up the social fabric into numerous independent communities, and to
prevent all national and patriotic combinations." Too much, however, may
be made of this, for the practical solidarity of Hinduism, in spite of
caste divisions, is one of the most striking of social phenomena in
India. Whatever may have brought it about, the solidarity of Hinduism is
an undeniable fact. The supremacy of the priestly caste over all may
have been a bond of union, as likewise the necessity of all castes to
employ the priests, for the Jewish ritual and the tribe of Levi were the
bonds of union among the twelve tribes of Israel. Sir Alfred Lyall
virtually defines Hinduism as _the employment of brahman priests_, and
it is the adoption of brahmans as celebrants in social and religious
ceremonies that marks the passing over of a non-Hindu community into
Hinduism. It is thus it becomes a new Hindu caste.[11] Then, uniting
further the mutually exclusive castes, many are the common heritages,
actual or adopted, of traditions and sacred books, and the common
national epics of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat. The cause of the
solidarity is not a common creed, as we shall see when we reach the
consideration of new religious ideas, ideas.

[Sidenote: New ideas opposed to caste, namely, individual liberty and
nationality.]

If Hinduism as a social system is to be moved by the modern spirit, we
may look for movement in the direction of freedom of individual action,
that is, the loosening of caste; we may look for larger ideas of
nationality and citizenship, superseding to some extent the idea of
caste. As is not infrequent in India, Government pointed out the way for
public opinion. In 1831 the Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck,
issued his fiat that no native be debarred from office on account of
caste, creed, or race, and that a son who had left his father's religion