Of course it would still be easier to discover instances of the tyranny of caste than the assertion of liberty, even among highly educated men.  In this matter of emancipation also, North India is far ahead of the South.  While minister at the court of Indore, 1872-75, the late Sir T. Madhava Rao, a native of South India, was invited to go to England to give evidence on Indian Finance before a Committee of the House of Commons. On religious grounds he was not able to accept the invitation.[14] Nor is it generally known that the Bengali nobleman who represented his country at the King’s coronation in London belongs to a family that is out of caste.  If the newspapers are to be believed, an orthodox Bengali Hindu was first invited to attend the coronation, and was “unable to accept.”  Had that gentleman accepted and gone, his example might at once have emancipated his countrymen.  But he did not know his hour.  “There is a venial as well as a damning sin,” we may note, in regard to this crossing of the sea.  “A man may cross the Indian Ocean to Africa and still remain an orthodox Hindu.  The sanctity of caste is not affected.  But let him go to Europe, and his caste as well as his creed is lost in the sea."[15] An orthodox Hindu has never been seen in Britain.

It is worth noting also, that in earlier times it involved loss of caste to go away South, even within India itself, among the Dravidean peoples beyond the known Aryan pale in the North.  Thus, slowly the cords of serfdom lengthen.

Towards the fourth of the offences against caste, namely, the adoption of a new religion, the general attitude has likewise changed, although to a less degree.  In large towns, at least, the convert to Christianity is not so rigidly or so instantaneously excluded from society as he used to be, and the Indian Christian community, although small, is now in many places one of the recognised sections of the community.

This certainly may be asserted, that the modern Hindus are being familiarised as never before with non-brahman leaders, religious and social.  Neither of the recent Br[=a]hma (Theistic) leaders, the late Keshub Chunder Sen and the late Protap Chunder Mozumdar, was brahman by caste.  The great Bombay reformer, the Parsee, Malabari, is not even a Hindu.  The founder of the Arya sect, the late Dyanand Saraswati, was out of caste altogether, being the son of a brahman father and a low-caste mother.  The late Swami Vivekananda (Narendranath Dutt, B.A.), who represented Hinduism at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, was not a brahman, as his real surname plainly declares.  While, most wonderful of all, the accepted leaders of the pro-Hindu Theosophists, champions of Hinduism more Hindu than the Hindus, after whom the educated Hindus flock, are not even Indians; alas, they belong, the most prominent of them, to the inferior female sex!  I mean the Russian lady, the late Madame Blavatsky, the English ladies Mrs.