During the constituent assembly debates regarding the framing of our constitution, there were several amendments made to each bill proposed, everyone voiced their opinion according to their own background. Unlike today, the members of the assembly presented their side on a very rational basis. Because unlike today, almost all of them were very well educated. There were heated debates on some crucial issues. But there were some issues which whisked past through the assembly. The reason they went unnoticed was that it was unbelievable that a problem of that sort would ever come to life in a free India, and the amendments or questions died due to their sheer simplicity. There were many such suggestions which were either centre of humour or ridicule. For example, Quota for women in Lok Sabha, Alcohol Prohibition, Cow slaughter, Quota for Muslims, etc. Among them was one very amusing amendment proposed by one Rohini Kumar Chaudhary.
"In a free India, there will be no discrimination in public places on the basis of race, religion, caste or sex". This was something deemed so important that it was included in our Fundamental Rights ( actually something very overrated ). On this Chaudhary said, " or, of dress worn by any nationality" should be added. This was a very vague amendment for the leaders at that time and it was hushed away as something trivial. But Chaudhary's argument was, and I quote, "even today, when we are at the threshold of independence, there are hotels which do not welcome people dressed in Indian style." This brings me to the present India ( apologies for the long background ) where a bill is being proposed by Smt. Jayalalitha in the Tamil Nadu assembly against the hotels, recreational clubs, etc which ban the "dhoti" wearing men to enter. Though I am sympathetic to those clubs. After all, men showing legs isnt that nice either. But still, it is discrimination.
Now, I, like my father, is a supporter of checked shirts and trousers too. But even I would prefer a pair of denims and tees when I go out. Better if they are branded. Still better if they are out of the fresh collection. It's not a matter of swadeshi or videshi attire. That question is long drowned in the Tsunami of western fashion. The question is about the dependency of our judgement about someone, on their attire. It is about how like our five basic senses, there is this "dressing sense", which has seeped in the Indian society ( above poverty line, ofcourse).
The biggest example of this facade is our politicians. The Kurta they wear is a symbol of the principles of Swadeshi and Khaadi. Outside the parliament, or inside their real lives, they wear nothing less than US Polos, Rolexes and Vuittons. Does that mean that they become law-abiding saints when they put on a traditional dress and law-bending millionaires otherwise? NO. They are always just law-bending millionaires. If we wrap a gun in a pink coloured flowery paint, it will still kill.
It's almost impossible to take away that very first impression that we frame about someone when we see their apparels. But, it's very important to let that judgement pass once they open their mouth. More important is to prevent any act of discrimination against anyone who is "differently dressed". And its not just a matter of looking down upon indian attire. A teen wearing superman shorts to his physics class is also ridiculed. The whole formula of calculating the intellect of the persons using his clothes as the variables is crooked. The case with females is still worse. For women, there's a graph in our head with only two extremes of goodness of character as the two points to be plotted. Sometimes I feel, it's really a shame that we humans, so developed scientifically, do not have the power to look into the brains of others. That would have distracted us from what they wear.
If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies. It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it. - Albert Einstein
but the question is," do these laws make any sense?" .. One other example is there was a law in bombay that more than 20 couples can not be at dance floor at the same time....and few days back i came to know that the act which was made by british rule to control the indigo production is still continuing.
ReplyDeleteI think India should tie the line of the countries like Australia...they have started celebrating biannual law repealing day , making them more than 1 million us dollars each year...