I strongly condemn the Opposition’s decision to strongly condemn the BJP for reportedly putting the lotus design on uniforms of Parliament staff. One Opposition leader, who shall remain unnamed to protect his identity, even asked on X (allegedly Twitter), “Why lotus only? Why can’t a peacock or why can’t a tiger? Oh, they’re not BJP party election symbol…” I find this problematic. Let me explain.
ALSO READ Satire | Answer like Miss India
First of all, it is unfair, especially to the lotus, to be always reduced to a party symbol. I mean, what if I’m someone who’s never heard of the BJP and loves the lotus only because it’s a beautiful flower? And what if, while inhabiting this hypothetical persona, I choose to gift my non-hypothetical wife a sari printed with lotuses? Should she then condemn me for trying to use her clothing for BJP propaganda? It’s a separate matter that she may condemn my choice regardless of what I buy her, but you get my point — there were lotuses in the universe, and on clothes, even before the BJP came into existence. No single party has ownership of the lotus, just as no single party can claim exclusive ownership of proton, neutron or electron. Just so we are clear, India is a country where one-party ownership is permitted only for religion, nationalism and freedom of expression.
Nonetheless, the other questions raised by the Opposition are pertinent. Indeed, why not a design motif of dancing peacocks? Or crouching tigers? Or laughing cows? You could blame it on my GoT fixation but I personally would have liked a uniform of flying dragons. But of all people, Kattabomman pointed out we can’t have dragons on any Indian uniform.
“Why not?” I asked.
“Because dragon means China.”
“Who told you that?” I snapped. “Is this what they teach you in school?”
“No, Oindrila told me.”
“What umbrella?”
“Oindrilla Chatterjee comes in my school bus. She is in 2-B.”
I self-issued an internal circular to gather more intel on this Oindrilla character from 2-B.
Much grovelling
Coming back to the uniform question, I believe not just Parliament staff but every public servant, even ministers, should wear uniform. The uniforms for each category of government dignitaries — minister, secretary, undersecretary, oversecretary, sidesecretary — should have separate designs so that one look at their attire would immediately communicate to the common man or journalist how much grovelling and sycophancy is appropriate towards any given dignitary.
This is how it was in medieval Europe and ancient India. Except for the emperor, who can wear (or not) whatever he wants, all other public functionaries had insignia-linked uniforms that indicated their position in the food chain. But how do you decide what the design motifs should be?
I’d be the first to admit that I am no fashion expert. But isn’t it a matter of common sense that a uniform’s design should have something in common with the person wearing it? Every time you look at the face of a government official who draws his salary from the taxes you pay, what image comes to your mind? Don’t tell me ‘flower’! I posed this question to a nationally representative sample of 15 people. Only one of them said ‘lotus’ and he happened to be married to a flowery additional secretary.
A multi-symbolic design
The responses of the other 14 are useful indicators of what flora or fauna should be on public-funded uniforms. Five of them said ‘snake’, three said ‘crocodile’, two said ‘cockroach’, while scorpion, shark, donkey and jackal got one vote each. I know what you’re thinking: no absolute majority. That’s right. The uniform has to be a coalition, which is not a bad thing, considering our national heritage of ‘unity in diversity’.
So, instead of just lotuses, here’s what I propose as the basic design for uniforms of any government staff. Against a brilliant blue sky, a friendly crocodile has its massive tail around the legs of a brooding jackal, which has its chin on the Aadhaar card of a smiling donkey. Wrapped around the ears of the donkey is an innocent-looking snake. The snake’s tail arches up into the tail of what turns out to be an educated scorpion, which is sitting on the belly of a cheerful-looking shark whose fins are shaped like cockroaches grazing on poha made of data. And they’re all sailing in a lotus-shaped ship in a saffron sea.
I think this is a pretty sophisticated multi-symbolic design motif, just like our new Central Vista. What’s more, it’s gender-neutral: will look great on saris as well as safari suits.
G. Sampath, the author of this satire, is Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu.
