Dress code wars continue
Recent remarks by the Karnataka Chief Justice about immodest attire being partially responsible for increasing crimes against women harken back to a history that repeatedly stresses socially sanctioned control over women's choice of dress. Shoma Chatterji reports.
On 9 February 2008, remarks by the Chief Justice of Karnataka, Cyriac Joseph that immodest dressing was one reason for increasing crimes against women were reported in the press. The Honourable Chief Justice elaborated his statement. “Nowadays, women wear such kind of dresses even in temples and churches that when we go to places of worship, instead of meditating on God, we end up meditating on the person before us,” he said.
He added, “provocative dresses that women wear in buses” put the “men travelling in buses” in awkward situations and hence, “women must dress modestly.” He urged women to dress ‘modestly’ for the “safety and security of the people.” This was part of his speech delivered at the launch of a journal, Supreme Court on Section 13 of the Indian Marriage Act, 1955, and the release of the monthly newspaper, Judicial Empire. The remarks were widely reported in the local press.
This is not the first time that women’s attire has held centre-stage controversially; indeed the courts themselves have been down this edgy path before. More than 25 years ago, a Supreme Court judge had directed a secretarial staff at his office to stop wearing jeans at work. The lady complained to a local women’s NGO and the moment it went up in arms against the diktat, the judge corrected his remark and said it was ‘suggestive’ and not ‘prescriptive.’
A familiar battleground
Court officials naturally draw criticism for such events, in particular because they are expected to uphold people’s rights, not come up with reasons why those rights may be violated, and certainly not to themselves indulge in such violations. But the more common battlegrounds for moral policing have been the schools and colleges that young women attend.
In September 1997, the co-educational Christ College in Bangalore banned girls from wearing jeans and short skirts, as they were termed ‘indecent’. This resulted in a furore because boys could wear jeans no matter how tight they were. The ban was removed after much debate. In March 1999, Berhampore Girls College placed a placard at the gate banning entry to all girls not wearing the sari. The announcement endorsed a 1947 decision by the college authorities to ban any form of dress other than the sari for girls on the campus. A few students had attempted to break out of this mould; this spurred the non-teaching staff of the college into defending old traditions.
For women, fashion is regulated not only along lines of social distinction but also along lines of sexuality.
In 2000, almost all girls’ colleges in Kanpur implemented the dress code laid down by Akhil Bharthiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP, the student wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party) ruling that women cannot wear jeans or skirts to college. The issue flared up after two girls, Heena Kaisar and Chetna Bharatiya from S N Sen Girls College, Kanpur, assaulted their principal Madhulekha Vidyarthi for disallowing them entry into a farewell party on the campus because they were wearing jeans. While the assault on the principal cannot be condoned under any circumstance, this censorship on dress codes harks back to a history that repeatedly stresses socially sanctioned control over women’s choice of dress.
Though accusing fingers were pointed directly at ABVP, Anand Mapuskar, Maharashtra State Secretary of ABVP at the time, said, “The ABVP has never enforced a dress code in college campuses all over the country. We had nothing to do with the dress code incident in Kanpur either. The management of several colleges has decided to enforce a dress code for women.” The backlash was so severe that party MP Sushma Swaraj compelled the ABVP to distance itself from the controversy.
In September 2007, eight teachers of Bakhrahat Girls High School in Bishnupur, on the southern fringes of Kolkata, attended work eight days after they were heckled, threatened and humiliated by students, parents and even the general public for having worn the salwar-kameez to school. The police escorted them to duty. In a complaint lodged with the Bishnupur police station, the eight teachers said that they were scared to return to school.
The government-aided Bakhrahat Girls High School’s managing committee had passed a verbal resolution in 2006 making it mandatory for all teachers to wear the sari. This resolution is violative of the state government and the Calcutta High Court’s permission to the wearing of the salwar-kameez by teachers. Sulapani Bhattacharya, president of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education said, “There is no dress code for teachers working in state-aided schools. The government has not imposed any restriction on wearing salwar-kameez to school. As far as the government order goes, teachers are expected to come to school dressed in a decent manner.” Eight of the 30 teachers of the school with a student-strength of 1500 stood firm in their decision to stick to wearing the salwar-kameez to school. They won.
Amidst all this, it should be noted that much positive change does occur without furore. Charusheela Balika Vidyalaya, an all-girls institution in Sheoraphuli, West Bengal, drew only complimentary headlines for converting the uniform of girls in the higher classes from the cumbersome sari to the convenient salwar-kameez. The principal of the school was commended for this ‘progressive’ step in the right direction. Many other institutions throughout the country have quietly made similarly practical choices.
A vice exclusive to women
Clothing for both men and women offers legitimacy to social distinctions. For women, fashion is regulated not only along lines of social distinction but also along lines of sexuality. Gradually therefore, clothes became a signifier of a woman’s moral virtue. Morality is construed almost entirely in terms of sexual morality, because clothes, through their proximity to the body, encode the game of modesty and sexual explicitness, denial and celebration of pleasure.
What is telling, however, is that the long history of gender bias in the moral policing of dress. While for men, clothes were mainly indicative of social status, for women the criteria were different. Clothing and fashion became a means of social control, legitimising moral and social distinctions between and among women. Women of royal lineage had a different code of dress and fashion, even if, in some societies, they were denied the public space in which men functioned. In Mughal royal families and in high-caste Hindu families, women remained in purdah, meaning not only the item of clothing used to cover the body completely, but also the inner space of one’s residential premises, which clearly marked out the space beyond which women within the family were not allowed to move out of.
And who defines modesty? Nearly all the definitions of modesty, continuing to this day, are created by men. Wearing clothes that are immodest, by patriarchal norms, for the sole purpose of tempting the male, is considered a social vice, but, a vice exclusive to women. Styles which expose too much of the feminine body are condemned for their enticement. Such fashions are considered inappropriate for a ‘virtuous’ woman. “Whether it is men ogling at a woman’s plunging neckline, or women snidely suggesting that the reason a colleague ropes in men is because of her tight skirt, any act of sexual harassment or violence is first attributed to the woman’s clothing, never to the man’s lack of conduct,” says journalist Radha Rastogi.
Following a proposal put forth in early 2005, at the National Conference for Women in Police at Musoorie in July 2005, the Kolkata police decided to adopt the Uttaranchal model where a lot of policewomen had swtiched over to the salwar-kameez to facilitate movement. The 450 women from the rank of inspector to constable can now sport the shirt-trousers-boot look or go the salwar-kameez-dupatta-pumps route as it offered room for greater comfort instead of the heavy belt with the trousers they found difficult to wear throughout their duty hours. The rule came into force at the end of 2007.
Our cultural vocabulary too suffers from a serious gender bias. Terms like decency, modesty, decorum, and morality assume new meanings when they are assigned to women. If you take a closer look, they are used mostly to refer to women alone. How ‘decent’ is the sight of men of all ages, shapes and size, nonchalantly moving about in designer Bermudas revealing hairy legs that border on the vulgar? How ‘modest’ is the sense of dress of men who sport transparent shirts, or wear jeans that show the tops of their underwear, or unbuttoned right down to the belly? No one points out the indecency of men wearing dhotis that show up their thighs the minute they begin to walk. Why?
Enforcement of the double standard is often also harsh. Censure of female ways of dressing highlights the moral judgement society makes on individual choice, if the ‘individual’ is a woman. This is precisely why, often, when a woman takes a step towards political autonomy, or, has in some way or other, toppled the apple cart of patriarchy, or moves towards equality with man, she is disrobed and stripped in public by men in power. It is a desperate measure to ‘punish’ her in public, to sexualise the woman who asserts and reinforces her subjectivity in a society that prefers to keep her as an object.’ The only provocation Bhanwari Devi, a social worker saathin offered was that of defiance in intervening to stop a child marriage, and for this the lower caste woman was gang-raped by locals.
Filed under
Cite this article
Shoma Chatterji (2008) ‘Dress code wars continue’, India Together, 23 February 2008. https://indiatogether.org/dress-women/
20 reader responses
Add a response
Gargi Iyengar · 23 February 2008
Ideas about morality and modesty stand quite confused in the Indian as well as the global context. Measuring decency by the yardstick of the apparel one drapes is a crude measure imposed by the patriarchal society which has objectified the woman by keeping her in 'her' place by sanctions in the form of controlling her dressing. It is quite sad that we are told about our freedom of choice and expression but when it comes to actually implementing it we are denied the very rights etched in our constitution by surprisingly the safeguraders of the constitution. I agree with the author that a woman who is scantily clad becomes 'loose' in character according to men as they just decide upon the length of cloth a woman wears arguing that it interrupts their concentration but not once questioning the conduct of the person who is liable to lose control on himself by seeing a lady clothed in a dress of her choice - even if that maybe a short tiny tight skirt.
Shivkumar Israni · 24 February 2008
It is a great tragedy that men in high positions also make statements which are totally contrary to facts. How a women dresses should never be an issue as the fault lies with Men. Men think dirty and pose risks to women, instead of chiding and punishing this, lectures are given to women. If dress would have been a real issue, then small babies, sick ladies and old and infirm ladies would not have been raped. Insult to women has little to do without how she dresses, it is more the attitude of men and the lax law which allows such criminals to get away with ease. It is high time that men in sitting in their ivory towers descend down to the earth and see the reality.
Julie Thekkudan · 25 February 2008
I think its time for women to start raising a hue and cry as to how men in trousers attract attention to the contours of their legs and tighter the trousers more the visibility of the contours; dhotis as aptly pointed out by the writer shows the legs of men!!!! All men henceforth to be clad in clothes that cover them from top to bottom! No standing and urinating wherever they want! No undressing of clothes in public places as is very often seen in India! May be that is the way to counter this autocratic ruling on only women's clothing!
Giddygoat · 5 March 2008
I am a woman, an advocate and an avid globe trotter. I moved to the US recently (about 5 years ago) and each time I visit India, I find India a little more naked. Don't get me wrong, I am a staunch advocate of personal liberties, especially for women. I'm only sharing an observation. The pity is I'm not sure if the compulsion to dress inappropriately stems from a desire to be counted as a liberated woman in society, or a desire to be counted as an equal to their western counterparts.
Ratnawali · 7 March 2008
While dressings have a long history and have undergone changes in different eras, its suitability or unsuitability in the present context has little meaning looking into the vast exchange of ideas going on between the populations, narrowing the geographical boundaries. Modesty being a socio-culture connotation, it is difficult to define and enforce it in gradually relaxing social and cultural norms. It should however, be borne in mind that coercion in these matters or social control over such sphere would make matter worse. I strongly disagree with Pilid's comment that since women are in the game of inciting males for longer as is also evident from the animal world, hence greater emphasis is required over their moral conduct is unwarranted. Look into the evolutionary history of animal kingdom. It would suffice to say that if we are living in a civilized world, instead of scrutinising one's dress and passing comments over them it would be better to question our own morale. If men can change their attire from indian to western outfits what is wrong if women too desire the same? similarly if dressing of women seems revelatory hence provocative to men (read also the society that enforces this patriarchal mind set), the next time it will even question the make-up of women. We have been so used to seeing our women clothed from head to toe that deviation in this setup seems to be provocative hence implicitly allowing males to take revenge either by criticising or overpowering women by whatsoever means. This mindset need to be changed. Morality can not be limited to attaires and fashions only but to every social aspects of life. subjective morality leads to erosion of social values that shapes our personality. Men of low virtue always see women as their prey whether fully or semi-clad. Instead of criticising women for lowering the social standards we should look inwards and question if we are able to think differently in changing social contexts.
Poornima · 9 March 2008
I studied in a college that insisted on wearing sarees. The reason given by management was it upholds our "culture". Never mind the blazing summers, over crowded buses and roads that were inundated with drainage water when it rained. The owner of the college was well past middle age and made no bones about wearing trousers. Looks like culture did not apply to him.
Roop Rai · 17 March 2008
Why should dress code for women even be argued over? Why is it a point of discussion in the first place? Shouldn't everyone be allowed to live and dress as they desire as long as they are not harming the society? India was a free country last time I checked. The dichotomy in Indian society amuses me endlessly. On one hand, they talk of retaining 'culture' for a better society and, on the other hand, they are busy in activities such as killing their daughters (female foeticide) which would only hurt the same culture and society they want to uphold.
Roslyn · 17 March 2008
The problem is that most men, including religious leaders, tend to get sexually disturbed by 'immodest' woman's attire as well as her anatomy. Thus the top early Christian leader St Paul ordered women to cover their hair and not display it in church. So the men instead of restraining their own passions place restrictions on women's dress. Disgraceful. Thanks for that inspiring article, Shoma.
Rishabh Malhotra · 21 March 2008
It is funny how our people debate about such petty issues and still make it sound like a matter of life and death. Today there are so many rules in colleges apart from the dress code. This nagging by the management has killed the aspirations of students to do anything. The unnecessary rules and nagging frustrates the students to such an extent that the only motive for them attending class is attendance. Our system is killing talent. all we see is force, rules, codes, regulations, penalties etc. How can one expect a young mind to flourish and be creative in such an environment. Instead of taking unsocial elements to task we make rules to protect them. When will the political class of this country show some spine? when will the people of this country ever stand up for what is right? when will the students realise that they should stop expecting change and rather Be the change.
rameshraju · 2 April 2008
I feel that dress code should be implemented for girls in colleges and in IT companies. Manusmrithi says that where ever women are honoured, there gods are pleased. A women, in order to be honored, needs submissiveness, good behaviour and good dress code. pleasent dress code prevents crimes against women. Now days women are breaking Indian tradition culture by violating dress code. Hence the crimes like rapes and murders have been increased rapidly nowdays. Most college and educated girls are wearing tight jeans that would seduce any male. They are acting like tomboys, leaving off girlish behaviour. Stunningly the male costumes have not changed until now. Women of good behaviour will be adored as goddesses. Young girls should realise that "Shiny are the distant hills". Courage and self confidence do not depend on the dress you wear. In depends on the type of the mind. However, proper dress code,good behaviour, sumbmissiveness, coy, reservedness sustains the status of a woman. Dress code in colleges and companies, not only preserves tradition and culture, but also erases the differences between rich and poor. The girl's parents should know that bringing up a girl child differs from that of a boy child. Women will be honored only if they preserve their purity.
Subramanyam · 17 April 2008
I feel dressing is an extremely important thing for any person . You can't just go out the way you and get to what ever you want . I strong disagree with the ideas of liberal dressing and skin show. I work with an I.T. giant an MNC and even we do have a lot things laid out as a part of Dress code . The rules are laid in the institutions/companies only with an intention of bringing a sense of dutimindedness and to keep ppl away from distraction , For example in our company we (both guys and girls ) are not allowed to wear any jeans or T-shirts on any day other than friday. But on a friday as well it's the girls who wear more revealing clothes than their male counterparts . It just does not raise eyebrows among male folks alone but even their female conterparts have problems, we have 5 girls in our team and even these girls fee uncomfortable when they watch any other girls wearing revealing clothes. We are also not allowed to sit with our legs wide open in front of girls as it is considered an offence by them . Again these rules are really helping us , they are putting things like office romance out of the place at least , yeah we indians shout a lot about liberalism and all but how many of us know that even in the westren world you cannot wear a bermuda or a short skirt (in case of girls ) and get to work . these things need to be accomapnied by stockings. I honestly believe except a few even most of the girls today also will not be comfortable giving out a skin show to the on lookers . why cant we wear dresses which bring an aura to the person wearing it, why cannot we adjust and comply yo rules at leat at work places ahy are we so obstiante and so self centric that we want to do what ever we want and wherever we want , cant we take few good steps for our own security again can we afford to be like this when we are abroad , there we are the best citizens again complying with all rules. The whole sense of dress is about comfort clubbed with elagance ,pride and gentility . Some ppl try enforcing it on their associates for the common good . But we always have ppl who wish to stand out put themselves and others at risk . I feel the author could have contributed better has she concentrated on many other buring problems of the day
rameshraju · 4 June 2008
Many educated teen girls are wearing provocative attires allowing vagabonds to commit crimes like rape, sexual harassment, murders etc. In this way women are losing respect and security in the society. The dress code for men is built on the basis of social distinction, but for women, the dress code not only built up on social distinction, but also on sexuality. Women need to preserve their purity and nobility. This also depends on the attires they wear. Though unfair, it's better if women are restricted from wearing provoking attires.
rameshraju · 24 July 2008
A Indian woman appears like a goddess in a very traditional attire like saree, to the eyes to any Indian man. It is common that every Man expects a woman to be honoured,traditional and homely. But if the same woman wears immodest attires like tight pants, it would give an idea of nudity in the mind of men. It gives rise to many crimes like rape and murders etc. It does not mean that Men are bad. For example goddess sarawathi is adored as long as she is in traditional saree. She will be raped if she wears tight pants and low tops. Saree is not a sexy attire, but a very dignified attire. Acceptance of immodest western attires is one of the major reasons that increased crime rate against women. Women can receive respect from men in the society only if they preserve their gender dress code along with their purity and nobility.
Barbara Godding · 19 September 2008
I think they are going overboard on this modesty issue that is India but if the Indian women live in the US you can't tell them what they can't wear it is a free country
Barbara · 8 November 2008
okay sounds like India is going backwards instead of forward that is there but try it in the US I don't think so!!!!!
rameshraju · 11 November 2008
In ancient india, women were adored and respected very much. It is because they used to preserve their purity and nobility. Good dress code also elevated their status. Women of nowdays are attracted to immoral western provoking outfits, which expose their sensual parts. Of course the exposure in traditional saree is covered by the feeling of culture. If a female statue is wrapped with a saree, she will be adored as goddess, if the same statue is dress with jeans and short top, she will be considered as sexual object. The same thing happens in the case of women. Western outfit definately seduces any man in the world. It is not the fault of the one is being provoked, but the fault lies with the one who provokes. Tight jeans and trousers are increasing crimes like gang-rape and eve-teasing against women in the society. To prevent such things, girls should be brought up traditionally, and the sales of western outfits for females should be banned. That's why there is a popular saying: Men get spoiled by staying, Women get spoiled by roaming. It is very good to implement dress code in schools and colleges. Dress code not only preserves tradition and culture, but also creates unity and oneness among the people.
Alan · 24 March 2009
There are some people who are still living in the stone age !!! I am a male and I do not have a problem with a woman wearing tight tops and low skirts. Come across them everyday in my college.
Rheenarai · 7 July 2010
Are women supposed to adhere to a dress code because men get aroused? Shame on them. What happens in a family? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. If men take control of their despicable desires and behave like humans instead of animals women can even go on the streets naked! Why is it that women are made the scapegoats of mens lust and women are subjected to such harsh treatments while the men get off scot free. If a couple of men get laid by a few women it will send out a powerful message. Stop dictating to women. Men go back to wearing loin cloth and not shirt and pants, a western clothing style.
sri · 14 August 2011
From cave man to tech man today there is a lot of improvement in attires, so many dresses today both for men and women. Everyone has the right to wear their own attires. But wearing decent ones, that make us look dignified will be good. Most men and women look dignified in trousers, jeans (not tight fits) just like traditional dresses. Some may look nice in tight fits and shorts. Whatever, it is in the mind that we create the problem but not in the dresses we wear. I feel wearing the dresses that suit us and make us look dignified is important.
Prodip Jana · 26 November 2011
I think we have to think in a wide and over the state India as a whole country not state a part of a country. I was searching what is a national dress code of Indian men and women, Not a controversial statements of someone. What is need a unique uniformity over the gathering of a United Nations Organisations or Over the worlds state conformance where some representative from India will only show the dress representative to India as a whole not as a part. is it possible? If yes then do a mission. Join the mission and encourage. Here again I don't want to name some one for the controversy. But if it is towards a noble goal. So Now anybody can tel me really an Indian Dress for Men and women will be? I am asking you!