Opinion Clothes,convenience and culture

It was noticeable that almost all the fuming over the supposed slight to the sari emanated from men,not from women. Which reflects the chauvinistic double standards of the Indian male.

New DelhiJuly 15, 2009 05:15 PM IST First published on: Jul 15, 2009 at 05:15 PM IST

A wise man once remarked that on the subject of dress few are indifferent,if their own clothes do not concern them but somebody else’s do. Judging by the indignant responses to a light-hearted,admittedly unstructured,piece I wrote last week on the gradual disappearance of the sari,this is so very true.

It was noticeable that almost all the fuming over the supposed slight to the sari emanated from men,not from women. Which reflects the chauvinistic double standards of the Indian male. Men assume that it is up to women to preserve our cultural traditions and heritage,while they can merrily modernise and adapt to convenience. We also need to introspect as to why questioning the practicality of the sari as a mode of dress should be read as a slap on our culture.

Before proceeding further on the subject of clothes,convenience and culture,I want to set the record straight. I certainly never disparaged the sari in last week’s blog. For most of my adult life,whether in college or at work,I have worn a sari. I belong to a generation where the sari was the most acceptable form of dress if you wanted to be taken seriously in your profession. I conformed to convention,even if I would have preferred to come to office occasionally in more casual attire. It is only in later life that I realised the advantages of other less restrictive forms of clothing.

Incidentally,there is also the question of cost. Only a woman knows just how expensive it can be to wear a simple,crisp

cotton sari daily. It is not just about stitching matching sari blouses,petticoats and falls. Every time you want to iron a starched cotton sari in Delhi,the neighbourhood dhobi charges Rs 8 and in Mumbai I understand the rate is Rs 10. Which is why our beautiful aesthetic cotton handlooms — Maheshwaris,Chanderis,Upadas,Sambhalpuris,Daccas — are slowly disappearing and you opt instead for wash and wear mill-made synthetic fabrics with bright colours and jarring prints. These do not reflect our rich artistic traditions at all.

Work clothes have different requirements,but for formal occasions I would never think of wearing anything other than the sari. But I don’t expect the younger generation to follow suit.

In fact,today social restrictions on sticking to the sari are slowly disappearing in all sections of society. I would not agree with the letter writer who feels that the sari is a garment of subjugation.

On the other hand,I do feel that covering your head with the pallu,ghunghat or hijab is a form of subservience to the male. And the burkha a clear symbol of subjugation. These dress practices are forms of male hegemony. Claims of religious sanction and tradition are used simply to enforce compliance.

In ancient India,there was no custom of a woman covering her head with a sari. The practice seems to have evolved in medieval times and was perhaps imported from Central Asia and the Middle East. In South India,which was relatively insulated from invading armies,there is no tradition of women covering their heads with a pallu as a mark of respect. In fact,in Kerala villages the pallu disappears altogether,since the sari is not used to cover the torso.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy made a valid point recently when he said the burkha is not welcome in France and is a form of debasement of women. His remark that “In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen,cut off from social life,deprived of all identity” created a furore. The counter view is that the burkha is simply an expression of your identity,a woman’s personal choice in keeping with her religious teachings.

While many of us may agree with Sarkozy,it is another matter whether a government has the right to dictate what people wear. Though I personally believe that a dress code for state-run establishments is not an interference in a person’s personal liberty. France has faced much flak for its law that in state run-schools conspicuous religious symbols are not allowed,which includes not just veils,but also turbans,kadhas and crosses. In France and most of Germany women teachers are not allowed to wear veils. Not many are aware that two Muslim countries have far more stringent restrictions on wearing the veil than Christian Europe. In Turkey,women students may not cover their heads at university and women legislators cannot enter Parliament with their heads covered. In Tunis,a woman is prohibited by law from wearing a veil in a public place.