As we look at the statues we marvel at the sacrifice of this man who went to England and studied law. we memorialize this loincloth as it stands as a marker of his simplicity,honesty and integrity. Never does it come to our mind that it could be a subtle piece of now rampant exhibitionism.
Ubiquitous are the statues of B.R.Ambedkar-the architect of our constitution.In all these statues he stands erect in his dark blue suit that he wore for the last three decades of his life. He too went abroad and obtained a phd from Columbia University. He was a dalit- an untouchable.He could be in loincloth as well. In his case it is modernity,not tradition or stagnation that held sway. It is a statement of his deep yearning to get out of the plight that his destiny ordained.
But never have we disrespect Ambedkar for his suit. His position is at par with Mahatma in our collective unconscious.
This train of thought was set in motion in my mind when I recently saw( I am reading Ramachandra Guha) a very popular activist of peasant's movement in Assam who has been vocal against big river dams. He is ubiquitous courtesy local visual media and his endevour to uncover corruption in public offices. He is invariably seen in a worn out flip flop and faded trouser and shirt.
On the other hand a sitting MLA who too defends peasants rights ,conjures up cataclysmic vision in case a big dam really comes up, moves on an ultra luxury car.
What will we we make out of these? A piece of rampant exhibitionism under the auspices of local visual media? A sacrifice( in the first case) or a deep yearning to get out of one's plight that destiny has ordained?(The MLA comes from the most undeveloped part of our state)In that case how can he prevent his fellow beings from moving up to modernity with more power,more consumption and so on.
Posterity will judge all leaders on the basis of their honesty and integrity.Not on their sartorial (or vehicular) statement.
Ambedkar and Mahatma's case is a classic example.
I am sorry if my reference to these two giants in the current situation is preposterous.
Interesting point of view. The question is: can we homogenize about the 'homogenization' of the Indian exhibitionist mindset? Yes, and no. Yes because, any argument, for the placement of the thesis, relies on an inevitable process of reduction; the dress codes through which Ambedkar and Gandhi are perceived and reaffirmed in India's public space show such a tendency at work. No, because, the material manifestation of the spirit of Gandhi or Ambedkar refer to the values each stood for (or are perceived to have stood for). Outside the dhoti and the suit, Gandhi and Ambedkar respectively, would not have the same effect; if they are to have any value and relevance in the public imagination, their figures must be easily identifiable - that seems to be the logic behind the perpetuation of this dress code. Language makes sense through convention, wrote the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. The disturbing of the status quo could make the icons less accessible. Ironically, only enhancement can work here and the more the stereotypes are exaggerated, the further removed these images are from what they supposedly represent.
ReplyDelete