Uniforms

Just last evening, my daughter returned from her school re-union celebrations. Apart from many changes she said she noticed in the school, the most prominent was that the school had introduced uniforms for students.

That set me thinking. Uniforms, probably originally came into being through the military route. Obviously, the purpose behind the same must have been a combination of providing a unique identity to the troupes and standardizing the war attire that was geared (pun intended!) for convenience. However, another factor—perhaps more important, could have been to inculcate ‘pride’ amongst soldiers, by symbolizing uniform as an expression of profound loyalty.

I don’t even know if my imagination above will stand any historical scrutiny. But, it at least sounds plausible to me. 

Uniforms, over a period of time, seeped into many other spheres of the society. And they took different names and forms as they evolved.

A formal party invite invariably specifies a dress-code—a black tie and an evening gown, or in a typical north Indian wedding, male folk wearing a particular type of turban to signify their close relationship with either the bride or the groom family. To me, even these are the examples of uniforms. Of course, here the purpose of wearing them is a little different.

School uniforms are another genre of uniforms. I remember, as a child, I used to get absolutely bored with wearing the same clothes to school every day, which led me to question its importance. What my aunt explained to me then, left a significant impact on me — to the extent that I virtually stopped questioning the validity of uniforms. She said, “Schools have students drawn from many economic classes of the society (which was actually the case, when we went to school) and uniforms are designed to break these class barriers and bring all students to one ‘uniform’ level. Absence of the same, will lead to affluent students flaunting their riches — creating an unwelcome inequality among students.”

My respect for uniforms has its roots in the rationale provided by my aunt, especially because she did it at a time when my rebellious thoughts on any subject could be countered by only a logical (I decided if it was logical or otherwise!) explanation. Today, when I look back, it wasn’t logic alone. If the emotion behind her explanation had not reached me, no amount of plain logic would have convinced me. I must add that I was from a (relatively) higher economic class throughout my school years and proudly wore my school uniform.  Here I want to make a confession: Although I wore the mandated colors, the fabric quality I eventually started wearing was significantly of the higher order. In fact I met a school friend after a good three and a half decades, who remembered how the quality of fabric I wore stood out. I feel bad about it today, especially when I had readily bought into my aunt’s logic and yet went ahead and carried my,( so called) class, shamelessly. Just so that I’m not too harsh on myself, I probably wasn’t even conscious of the fact that I was flouting my aunt’s guidance.

My next encounter with uniforms started much later, when I became a part of the corporate community. I came across many organizations where everyone from a Managing Director to a lay workman wore same / similar uniforms. And again, I, in my hearts, started to admire them for their efforts in creating class - free workplace cultures. Even here I later realized that my naivety prevailed. 

So, my foregone conclusion today— ‘Uniforms don’t change inherent and deeply embedded inequalities — because they are entrenched in our minds and expressed in behaviors at all times.’

Icons

 It is better that I start with some disclaimers:

• I’m not against systematic and merit-based wealth creation by the individuals - of course when done in a legal - and more importantly the right way.

• Although, I have great respect for individuals of clean character, operating in the social and political arena, I’m not necessarily enamored merely by their characters alone. Because, I believe that without an institutionalized mass movement, efforts of such individuals often return limited and short-term results.

My discussion today is mainly centered around the Indian realities. Yet, I see a similar pattern covering much other geography.

To begin with, let me put forth my working definition of an Icon - mainly to set a context to the discussion.

To my mind, an Icon is a person / personality, who enjoys an important place in the hearts, thoughts and lives of a large number of people, because, Icons represent and possess their ideas about ideal characteristics that must be present in a person of that profession / calling / field.

Just to ensure complete clarity, I’m going to take two examples:

Sachin Tendulkar, is undoubtedly the most prominent Icon in India. People admire him for his towering cricketing achievements - and more so, when they are seen in the light of his humility. But is that all? Of course, there are many other things for which he is revered - his proudly wearing of the Indian tri-colour on his helmet, his ways of respecting the elders and so on.

Amitabh Bachchan is admired for his acting prowess for sure. There are many more reasons for his gaining the iconic position. His successful fight with adversity, his versatility and command over any medium through which he interacts with the audience, the family values he showcases et al.

One can go on and on to call out iconic names from David Beckam to Bill Gates, from Amir Khan to M S Dhoni.

And this is where I am amazed to notice an unavoidable co-incidence - which is, every (read "almost all") Icon of present day happens to be living in the absolutely top economic echelon. It virtually leads to an implication that people do not confer ‘Iconship’(if that were a word!) unless  their Icons demonstrate success in the form of economic prosperity.

No matter, how harsh or even absurd and far-fetched the above observation of mine may sound, it is a stark reality today. You no longer find extra-ordinary doctors who aren’t phenomenally wealthy. You don’t have the successful politicians who are not stashed with seriously large sums of money. You don’t have big sports personalities (from popular sports), who are not highly rich. And examples are available aplenty from many other spheres as well.

The discussion so far, by any means, is not meant to draw a conclusion that every person who has made it big in his / her own profession is necessarily extra-ordinarily rich. My only simplistic observation is that folks hailed as popular Icons have at least one thing in common - their extra-ordinary financial status!

And this is where I want to add a twist / new dimension to the description of an Icon.

An Icon is a person / personality who enjoys an important place in the hearts, thoughts and lives of a large number of people, because s/he represents and possesses their ideas about ideal characteristics that must be present in a person of that profession / calling / field. And most importantly, people often times either dream of becoming such Icons themselves or look at such Icons as their dream achievers.

That’s why parents would invariably say to their aspiring cricketer children to idolize Sachin. And that’s why a young politician would like to buy a white SUV at the first available opportunity upon entering the political arena. And that’s why most of the aspiring actors want to advance their careers through a Bollywood route than through the stage and they would more likely choose TV serials as ladders than working on acting / staging plays!

I am merely highlighting a truth! Not passing an explicit value judgment. Although, my readers, by now, would surely have sensed my latent concern. Hopefully, many more will share it as well! All in the interest of a purposeful, long-lasting and healthy advancement of human societies!