When it comes to classic Indian dances, it reminds us how Devdasi (spiritual dancers) system was destroyed systematically by kings on behest of their colonial masters. Now a different breed of intellectual colonizers are disconnecting Bhart Natyam from its roots by removing Ganesha idol, traditional stories. It amazes me how liberalism is just another form of silent racism and following of certain interests in certain ways.

This is probably a painting on Mica!

@Sunil Agrawal- Good for humanity that the devdasi system was destroyed. And Liberalism or liberal thinking = racism??? From which planet are these new theories?

gr8 collection!

Isha Maini -- wonderfully expressed and a very compelling analysis.

... ' @ ' Isha Maini~ I removed my previous comment upon your speculative musings for I felt that it was indelicately phrased ( ' Nonsense !' ~ and I beg your pardon)... My point really was that you would be hard pushed to define 19th century Great Britain (with or without a capital 'G') as being characterized by the spread of 'Christain evangelicism' ~ although it certainly figured large in the minds of some sections of that society. To my mind, the greater change that witnessed during that period was a steady drift towards ' secularism ' (although Victorian Britain was hardly 'secular' by the standards of today). Religion was still an important pillar of daily life ~ although one that was being increasingly questioned (along with other traditional institutions ~ such as aristocratic government and even the monarchy). As I am sure that you will know, amongst the more lasting consequences of the ‘Industrial Revolution’ (perhaps ‘ Industrial transformation’ would be a more appropriate term, for the process was certainly not instantaneous), quite apart from the clearly significant, yet slightly dull and mundane, improvements in steel production and the methods of manufacturing and so on and so on came also a fundamental restructuring of the ancient cultural fabric of the British Isles. Vastly greater efficiency in agricultural practise freed much of the population from the endless drudge of subsistence toil upon the land and encouraged migration towards the ever expanding towns and the adoption of new forms of independent employment. This process broke, once and for all, the immemorial link and relationship between the feudal landlord and his peasant, which had served as the organisational template of rural, ‘landed’ society for countless generations. Increasing urbanisation also brought with it new and broader horizons and for those who were prepared to embrace the ‘spirit of the age’ ~ characterized as it was by innovation, aspiration and entrepreneurship ~ greater opportunities for what is called in the modern world ‘social mobility’. A new order of ‘middle-man’ ~ or a ‘middle-class’ ~ was emerging consisting of successful merchants and businessmen, educated bureaucrats and legal or medical professionals. This class was able to avail of itself of such pleasures as ‘disposable income’ or ‘leisure time’ which had been almost entirely unknown to their own fathers or grandfathers and to entertain ideas of enjoying an ever greater status within society and a growing respect extended toward it by the ‘establishment’. Alas, despite their best efforts at integration and genuflection, these budding climbers tended to be frowned upon by the existing upper classes as rather vulgarian and uncouth ~as the nouveau riche ~ men who had ‘brought all their own furniture’. For all the dynamic flux and change within Britain during the 19th century it remained a country very much beholden to its own deeply conservative roots and its own archaic past, including its Christian heritage, and of all the old class snobberies that this entailed . It is in an interesting cultural phenomenon for us to observe that for all the undoubted strides and advances that the burgeoning Victorian middle class was able to make for itself in terms of wealth and well-being ,it did not shake itself loose of a long-fostered subservience in attitude to its perceived ‘social superiors’ . More to the point, it did not even really attempt to rid itself of such custom or acquire an independent identity and sought to ape, both consciously and sub-consciously, the manners and mores of the aristocracy.... To some extent these attitudes flavoured the manner in which the British conducted themselves abroad, and influenced the methods by which they administered the Empire. But to get back to your original point ~ Yes the 'middle classes' in 19th century Britain were heavily influenced and inculcated by Christian theology and, to a greater or lesser extent, they felt a certain righteous superiority towards and over the aristocracy ~ and their somewhat ‘decadent’ and disparate lifestyles. Public service and personal development, to the betterment not only of one’s self but to one’s own community and by extension one’s own nation was not just considered desirable for the sake of progress; it was considered a sacred and inescapable obligation to God. To illustrate this point I quote James Froude, who suggested in 1878 that the solemn role of the middle-classes was to: “...push on; to climb vigorously on the slippery steps of the social ladder, to raise ourselves one step, or move out of the range of life in which we were born, [this] is now converted into a duty.” To me, this is the essence of the period. Regards etc.

Thank you Julian Craig and Isha Maini...for this interesting and engaging discussion! It is such a pleasure for us readers... when the particpants excel in scholarship and erudition and retain mutual respect for one other...regardless of the differences in their opinions.

It is incorrect to say the Feudal system in Britain/Europe was broken by the Industrial revolution -- it was broken ONLY by the massacre of WW I, where the officer classes particularly took a disproportionate share of causalities, given the application of old Knight tactics in face of modern weapons of mass killings.

Isha ~ ... Yes, all in all (and with some bumps)... it would be hard to believe or accept (some cannot) that any different outcome, taking on board certain historical truths, and not predictable falsifications, would have been any better at all... and could have been much the worse.... still... history should not be made political... Indignation will not change the past, nor can it be re-written... sometimes you have to face the truth, and it can be painful... fortunately, the passing of time is always a factor... ... Anyway, you write very well ~ and I look forward to your future contributions on brighter topics.... Etc.

>> Personally, I feel, all in all, it was for the better. Personally, I really do wonder Isha Maini. This is a open question IMVHO.