Dressing Up and Dressing Down
Shorts and sneakers are not yet acceptable as corporate attire in India, unlike in the Silicon Valley. However, dressing up daily in a business suit is equally likely to invite a dressing down from colleagues. Long gone are the days when a tie – if not a jacket – was mandatory for upcoming executives, even in the hot and sultry Bombay summers. In formal meetings too, a jacket is now a rarity and ties are fast becoming a collector’s item.
The change is not limited to offices. Cricket fields, long populated by players in pristine white, have now become a riot of colour with only the ball – in the short format – being white. The players sport a range of colours, with multi-coloured uniforms covering the spectrum from violet to red. Some even have a strong dose of gold, as bright as a jewellery shop, while others have enough red to attract all the bulls in Spain.
The transformation relates not merely to clothing, and ranges literally from head to foot. Hats were dumped long back, along with our past colonial masters, while formal shoes are increasingly being replaced by slip-ons or sandals. For some, socks are optional, and many no longer carry a handkerchief. Tiepins disappeared even before ties and only fastidious dandies any longer wear cufflinks. Other accessories like pens are rarities, and wrist-watches – especially amongst the young – are as uncommon.
Dressing down seems to be the fashion of the day. One detects a slow but steady movement towards a Zen-like minimalism, with various “unnecessary” pieces of clothing – like hats, jackets and ties - being done away with. Lest much of this is seen as a male-chauvinist view, let us note that there is a broadly similar trend amongst women. The sari has substantially given way to dresses or trousers and tops. The last two, I suspect use less cloth than a sari and blouse, showing that the minimalist trend is not limited to men. Many women now dispense with the dupatta as an accompaniment to a kurta: emphasising both informality and minimalism.
Counter trends too are visible, though. For example, it is no longer a surprise to see swimming pools filled with people – both men and women - with clothing from ankle to cap and waist to wrist. This is a lot of additional clothing compared to bare-chested men, or women in bikinis! The reason is no mystery: it is to protect against the chlorine and other chemicals in the pool water.
Also bucking the minimalist trend are parts of the world where additional clothing is becoming the norm. In some societies, women have now begun wearing – whether by choice or coercion - full body cover clothing, sometimes including the face too (burkha/abhaya). In India, parts of the country have recently gone through much controversy – even riots – over the wearing of hijab (a head scarf) by girls and women. Some saw it as a religious requirement, which was merely an addition to their school uniform; others perceived it as the provocative flaunting of religious symbolism, not permitted as an accompaniment to the uniform.
India’s religious ambience has, by and large, long been easy-going, syncretic and completely tolerant of alternative practices. Of late, it has become porcupine-like, bristling at the slightest touch, with some group or the other constantly taking umbrage at a perceived provocation or disrespect. “Hurt sentiments” are as frequent as heat-waves this summer, and seem to spread as quickly as Covid’s BA 2 (stealth Omicron) version. They are taken note of by the authorities and police, with their speed of action matching that of hypersonic missiles. The Courts too seem to be especially concerned about sentiments and handle these cases with exceptional promptness. One thought that the only institution sensitive to sentiments was the stock market, but the executive and judiciary are apparently as sentimental as the Bollywood-movie mother.
The hijab controversy clearly showed that, for many, such dressing up called for a severe dressing down. As a countermeasure, some young men and women began to go around with saffron shawls or scarves. Unfortunately, all this additional clothing is a dampener to our “growing minimalism” theory. Of course, it does add to the demand for cloth and may, therefore, benefit our cotton farmers as also the textile mills. We need to be careful, though, that the sudden spurt in demand for saffron scarves and hijabs does not lead to higher prices. This would hurt the sentiments of RBI, which is amidst an epic battle with inflation (caused, doubtless, by Russia’s hurt sentiments about Ukraine and NATO’s relentless expansion).
All this controversy over uniforms, hijab and the like could possibly be ended by a “one country, one dress” formula. Will someone please take this up? After all, there are many who favour a “one country, one everything” approach. With this, we can move towards a single curriculum, language, cuisine, and – yes- dress. Given the present unnecessary diversity of couture across the country, there is danger of further controversy on choice. Maybe we could follow Gandhi (the original one, the Mahatma) at least in dress style, in keeping with the trending minimalism?
There is, of course, an option that is more radical (note: we avoid the use of revolutionary, since some in the judiciary are apparently allergic at usage of seditious words like krantikari and inquilabi). We could follow the dress code of certain beaches abroad and, by reports, even in Goa. This takes minimalism in dress to the next level and cannot be unacceptable, since it is the “dress” in which we are all – irrespective of region or religion - born. What we wore on our birth day may be the best form of dressing down, putting an end to all dress controversies.
* Kiran Karnik loves to think in tongue-in-cheek ways, with no maliciousness or offence intended. At other times, he is a public policy analyst and author. His latest book is Decisive Decade: India 2030 Gazelle or Hippo (Rupa, 2021).
