It's easily past midnight, but a recent headlines in Indian newspaper shook me up and woke me up like no cup of coffee could do of late. "martial restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self expression". Find it here This came into picture after supposedly a lady filed for divorce on the grounds that she was forced to wear saris, and not allowed to wear jeans or salwars.
Now coming from a conservative north Indian family, and married into one, I know how absurd it is. No, not the fact that girls are actually dictated on what they should wear. No not even the fact that it "wasn't a case of denial of self expression" before this case. But the fact that what you should wear, esp. After marriage, and more importantly what you shouldn't, is so natural in the Indian context that it is mostly hardly an issue at all!
I never, yes, never knew something was amiss when I grew up being told that jeans, which contours your hips and bums, was evil, but a saree, which shows off your entire midriff, wasn't. And when after marriage, I visited my husband's ancestral village, I was told to cover my face, hiding even the chin and neck with my saree pallu, to "save me from eye" - and it was all an adventure for me! It was only after I visited my office premise wearing a saree, covering my head, because my in laws had come visiting - that I realized how stupid it was - to wear something that you are not comfortable wearing just because someone doesn't approve of it! And know what? My in laws understood too! It was just that they, and me, didn't know any better before!
But did it give me the freedom to choose my attire? No not really. In fact, not at all! Well, the purpose of covering your body in so many different ways, among other things, is to blend with your environment, your current ecosystem. It was the purpose of clothes in the primitive times, when clothes were a means of protection body against hostile climate or adverse topology, and in current times, it is to blend with the kind of social or environmental setup "around" you. Why else would you not wear your wedding gown on that sunny picnic, even though it would always be your most favorite dress of all time? Or your pj's in the next business meeting, even though they are your most comfiest outfit?
My point is - clothes have to be in accordance to your current ecosystem - the place your are in, the people you meet on everyday basis, and the type of work you do. And that, in context of India atleast, is changing. So you have to change too. With You - I mean the one who has to "wear" certain things, and the one who has to "see" people (females?wives? ) around them wearing things they never expected them to wear. In Hindi we have a saying "jaisa des waisa bhes" - meaning "dress as per your county". Girls can continue to dress in sari or whatever her husband/ in laws/neighbor of the aunt of the cousin whose cow mated that bull of the third son of your great grandfather expects in places where her world revolves around these people. Quite frankly, not just the girl, even if a guy gets dressed in an elvis Presley suit in a locality where he has to work hard in a farm, he will be the butt of the jokes. But where the world around you is changing, it's important that you don't come across as If from a time wrap.. Sorry, warp..
So, what is your say? Would you let your sister - in - law wear a jeans even if your mum and dad find it "uncultured"?
Now coming from a conservative north Indian family, and married into one, I know how absurd it is. No, not the fact that girls are actually dictated on what they should wear. No not even the fact that it "wasn't a case of denial of self expression" before this case. But the fact that what you should wear, esp. After marriage, and more importantly what you shouldn't, is so natural in the Indian context that it is mostly hardly an issue at all!
I never, yes, never knew something was amiss when I grew up being told that jeans, which contours your hips and bums, was evil, but a saree, which shows off your entire midriff, wasn't. And when after marriage, I visited my husband's ancestral village, I was told to cover my face, hiding even the chin and neck with my saree pallu, to "save me from eye" - and it was all an adventure for me! It was only after I visited my office premise wearing a saree, covering my head, because my in laws had come visiting - that I realized how stupid it was - to wear something that you are not comfortable wearing just because someone doesn't approve of it! And know what? My in laws understood too! It was just that they, and me, didn't know any better before!
But did it give me the freedom to choose my attire? No not really. In fact, not at all! Well, the purpose of covering your body in so many different ways, among other things, is to blend with your environment, your current ecosystem. It was the purpose of clothes in the primitive times, when clothes were a means of protection body against hostile climate or adverse topology, and in current times, it is to blend with the kind of social or environmental setup "around" you. Why else would you not wear your wedding gown on that sunny picnic, even though it would always be your most favorite dress of all time? Or your pj's in the next business meeting, even though they are your most comfiest outfit?
My point is - clothes have to be in accordance to your current ecosystem - the place your are in, the people you meet on everyday basis, and the type of work you do. And that, in context of India atleast, is changing. So you have to change too. With You - I mean the one who has to "wear" certain things, and the one who has to "see" people (females?wives? ) around them wearing things they never expected them to wear. In Hindi we have a saying "jaisa des waisa bhes" - meaning "dress as per your county". Girls can continue to dress in sari or whatever her husband/ in laws/neighbor of the aunt of the cousin whose cow mated that bull of the third son of your great grandfather expects in places where her world revolves around these people. Quite frankly, not just the girl, even if a guy gets dressed in an elvis Presley suit in a locality where he has to work hard in a farm, he will be the butt of the jokes. But where the world around you is changing, it's important that you don't come across as If from a time wrap.. Sorry, warp..
So, what is your say? Would you let your sister - in - law wear a jeans even if your mum and dad find it "uncultured"?
An exceptionally brilliant exposition of the current pseudo Indian tendencies of the Indian yesteryear masses. The tone has a characteristic tartar to it, no tongue in cheek, just the exasperation of a appalled aquatic organism, But even then, the skill to engorge the exasperation in mellifluous stockade of both irony and social askance.
ReplyDeleteMore reason to understand why the archaic tendencies are used to bastion one's ego or rather the expression of it. The intention over here is pivotal to understand.
The object of attire itself is not the point of the whole thing. It has just been selected as a means to express one's strength. And this need to prove one's strength over the woman in a relationship is gaining more and more unnecessary prevalence and is being needlessly rampant these days.
More so, since the woman in question, is nowadays of better caliber and personal strength, not to mention better looking as well; So the need to satiate the ego, becomes more pronounced. So the number of times, old "rich" cultural heritage is emphasized along with a burning need to uphold it valiantly amidst growing numbers of modernized bahu's has seen some sizable accretion.
So to put that all in English, People bringing about flimsy matter of attire and its discipline are only using it as a cheap tool to buttress their egotistical supremacy standpoint, when all other logical methods fail. So some stress busting is needed to move over the meagerness of emotional imbroglios and deal with relationships with a calm and impartial mind.