Explain the reason for changes in the clothing patterns and materials in the 18th century?
What were the Sumptuary laws in France?
There were different dresses for different sections of society. From 1294 to the time of the French Revolution in 1789, the people of France were expected to strictly follow what were known as ‘sumptuary laws.’
(i) The laws tried to control the behaviour of those considered social inferiors, preventing them from wearing certain clothes, consuming certain foods and beverages and hunting in certain areas.
(i) In medieval France, the items of clothing a person could purchase per year was regulated, on the basis of income and social rank. The material to be used for clothing was also legally prescribed.
(iii) Only royalty could wear expensive materials like ermine and fur or silk, velvet and brocade. Other classes were prevented from clothing themselves with materials that were associated with the aristocracy.
Give any two examples of the ways in which European dress codes were different from Indian dress codes.
Dress is the part of a culture which convey certain meaning through its style and wearing.
When European traders first began visiting India, they were distinguished from the Indian ‘turban wearers’ as the ‘hat wearers.’ These two headgears not only looked different, they also signified different things. The turban in India was not just for protection from the heat but was a sign of respectability, and could not be removed at will. In the Western tradition, the hat had to be removed before social superiors as a sign of respect. This cultural difference created misunderstanding. The British were often offended if Indians did not take off their turban as a mark of respect when they met colonial officials. Many Indians wore the turban to assert their regional or national identity.
Another paradox related to the wearing of shoes. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was customary for British officials to follow Indian etiquette and remove their footwear in the courts of ruling kings or chiefs. Some British officials also wore Indian clothes. But in 1830, Europeans were forbidden from wearing Indian clothes at official functions, so that their cultural identity was not undermined.
Suggest reasons why women in nineteenth century India were obliged to continue wearing traditional Indian dress even when men switched over to the more convenient Western clothing. What does this show about the position of women in society?
It was the fact that women in the 19th century continued wearing Indian dress whereas men switched over to convenient western clothing. This happened only in the upper echelons of society. Some of the reasons for this are the following:
Winston Churchill described Mahatma Gandhi as a ‘Seditious Middle Temple Lawyer’ now posing as a half naked fakir’. What provoked such a comment and what does it tell you about the symbolic strength of Mahatma Gandhiji’s dress?
Winston Churchill was an imperialist by nature and believed in the superiority of white men. He called Mahatma seditious because under Gandhi’s leadership the Congress launched Non-cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movement which was aimed at the British rule.
Gandhiji put on western clothes while practising as a lawyer in India and South Africa. Later on, he changed to loin clothes. He did so to identify himself with the peasants of India who were scantily dressed. But Mr Churchill saw it as a sign of inferiority and in order to denigrate called him a half naked fakir. Churchill could not understand Gandhiji’s depth of the love for his countrymen who could not afford full clothes.
Gandhiji’s dress was a sign of simplicity, purity and of poverty of millions of Indian. Even when Gandhiji went to England for attending the Second Round Table Conference in 1931, he refused to compromise and wore it even before King George V at the Buckingham Palace.
Switch
