Change is the only constant, they say. But exceptions abound, and one of those is the dress code in that pillar of the establishment — the private social club. A Chennai club recently denied admission to a Madras High Court judge as he was wearing a dhoti. The incident has quite rightly sparked outrage. Across the country, clubs, especially those that boast a vintage of more than six decades, require men to wear shirts with collars, trousers, and shoes or closed sandals or at times lounge suits. Indian dress, however formal or decorous, for men is a strict no-no. Despite its obviously colonial and discriminatory nature, clubs have refused to dump this rule, citing hoary traditions. The long list of those who have fallen victim to it includes former Supreme Court judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, and the late M.F. Husain. The establishment today has its own sartorial choices, the half-sleeve kurta being the latest addition to the widely prevalent dhoti and pyjama. It is beyond comprehension that recreational organisations run by those who are the establishment should be so behind the times. Indeed, a few clubs have cottoned on, and have different dress rules for members and guests, and different levels of formality for different areas on their premises. But why blame the clubs alone for not changing? After all, despite all the criticism of their rules, membership in these clubs is highly coveted and the queues to get in keep getting longer. Several professions, too, have formal dress requirements that may seem anachronistic and indeed strange.
After the latest episode in Chennai provoked sharp responses from across the political spectrum, the Tamil Nadu government promised to bring a new law against dress regulations in social clubs that discriminated against Indian attire. That, however, would be going too far. Clubs are private organisations where members have the right to set their own rules on their premises. It will be best if good sense prevails and the clubs change their rules and allow Indian dress of the required levels of formality. A Constituent Assembly debate on the right of equality way back in 1948 is instructive. A member had wanted to include non-discrimination on the basis of dress along with religion, race, caste and sex. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel retorted that such an inclusion would make the world conclude “that we do not even know how to treat our nationals.” Pointing out that he wore a dhoti to the Viceroy’s house as well as to a peasant’s home, Patel told the persistent member that the proposed insertion was unnecessary as “all the foreigners are going.” The idea of discrimination on the basis of dress was born “out of the idea of slavery,” he said, adding perhaps too optimistically, “Not even a shadow of it is left now.”