What to wear and what not to wear? We saw this interesting game of words and narratives unfold last week — a controversy was initiated by the Bharatiya Janata Party when it tweeted a photo showing that during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi was wearing a Burberry T-shirt worth nearly Rs 41,000. If anyone thought this comment was in lighter vein, then that confusion was soon dispelled when Union Home Minister Amit Shah again raised the issue of Rahul Gandhi’s expensive T-shirt during a speech. In response, the Congress tweeted about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s suit worth Rs 10 lakh and glasses worth Rs 1.5 lakh. Earlier, social media was abuzz with talks of Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s Louis Vuitton bag.
Opposition today discussed price rise issue by flaunting ultra expensive Louis Vuitton bags
— Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) August 1, 2022
This controversy once again proved that India is a land of hypocrites full of pretentious beliefs. The two-facedness is quite obvious because we want our leaders to act and live like a faqir or a hermit in public life despite knowing that they are capable of leading a luxurious life. After all, we know that 88 per cent — or 475 of 543 — Lok Sabha MPs are crorepatis. This is what they mentioned in their affidavits; their actual wealth can be anybody’s guess. Still, there are people who want their MPs to dress poorly.
This is also surprising because it’s publicly accepted in India that politics is an expensive business. The cost of contesting an assembly election can run into crores. Lok Sabha elections are even more expensive. Big leaders have to bear the cost of electioneering many candidates. Apart from this, when a politician goes to a wedding or a family function in their constituency, it is expected that they will give some token money as a gift to the families. Even the cost of serving tea and snacks to the visitors who come to the house of a political leader can be huge.
People look to politicians during medical distress or even for paying their children’s tuition fees. Even in political rallies, many times, campaigners do not come for free. All these things are known. It is not a secret that politicians have to bring this money from somewhere. This is a prerequisite for electoral politics.
Still, the people who look to politicians for so many things, especially financial help, want them to wear cheap khadi and chappals.
Also read: It’s sabka saath, sabka vikaas, sabka libaas for PM Modi—but there are some fashion no-gos
Khadi, charkha, and big money
The problem actually comes from Gandhian politics and values. M.K. Gandhi belonged to a very rich and influential family. His father was the diwan or the prime minister of the princely state of Porbandar. He was rich enough to study abroad. He pursued a legal profession in South Africa. After returning to India, he entered politics and was instantly successful. During the freedom struggle, many industrialists like G.D. Birla, Jamnalal Bajaj, Ardeshir Godrej, Govindram Seksaria, Walchand Hirachand Doshi and, later, the Tatas joined forces with him. These industrialists actually sponsored the Congress and Gandhi.
In fact, at that time, the Congress was leading the Swadeshi movement to boycott foreign goods and argued that Indians should only buy domestically produced goods. While the movement was undoubtedly part of the freedom struggle, its main beneficiaries were Indian industrialists. At the Congress plenary sessions, separate conclaves used to take place to showcase the goods manufactured by Indian industrialists.
By the 1940s, almost all Indian industrialists realised that the country would finally get freedom and political power would be in the hands of the Congress and Gandhi. By this time, all the industrialists and the media houses, which were run by them, stood in support of the party and Gandhi. In his 1943 speech Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah, B.R. Ambedkar made a scathing remark that Gandhi was being made a hero by “the Congress Press”. He said, “For, in these days, with the Press in hand, it is easy to manufacture Great Men.”
While Gandhi was doing politics with the support of the industrialists, he was also living the public life of a faqir or ascetic. By 1920, he had stopped wearing his formal suits and started wearing only a dhoti. His simplicity was a well-curated performance. It was a mismatch for his real financial status. Playing a charismatic personality, Gandhi’s abandoning of the good life was seen as a sacrifice, and this image of a hermit helped him in his political itinerary.
However, Gandhi mostly lived in the houses of industrialists or in the ashrams built by them. On 30 January 1948, the day he was fatally attacked, he was staying at the Birla House — now known as Gandhi Smriti Museum — in Delhi. I am not passing any value judgement here. My argument is that he lived the life of a saint that was actually sponsored by the richest of Indians. Sarojini Naidu famously said that “it cost the nation a lot to keep Mahatma Gandhiji in poverty”.
Also read: ‘Modi vest’ is the better known ‘Nehru jacket’, but the go-to formal wear predates both PMs
An ‘Indian’ problem
Gandhi’s imposition of a simple public life became the benchmark of Indian politics thereon. This was imitated by most politicians even after Independence. Ambedkar was one of those few leaders whose personal and public life did not have duality. In fact, he insisted on wearing Western clothes. In the later years, Ram Vilas Paswan and Mayawati also did not put up any gimmick of simplicity in public life. However, they faced lots of criticism for doing this.
In fact, this performance of simplicity in public life is the problem of Indian ideology. Especially in Hindu beliefs and traditions, some great assumptions have been made about renunciation and non-possession. Many typical Indian stories of ‘good people’ begin with: “Once upon a time, there lived a poor Brahmin or a poor farmer in a village…”.
Strangely, villainy has also been attached to the idea of prosperity. Catholics also have similar notions about wealth. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is also that within Hinduism, there’s a concept of rebirth. One has to work according to their ascribed or predestined work in this life and their ‘karma’ (deeds) will decide their fate in the next life. This other-worldliness has led many Hindus to believe that consumption and pleasure in this life is akin to sin.
This is also one of the reasons why entrepreneurship and capitalism did not evolve in India despite having ample natural resources and workforce. When capitalism was ushered in, it faltered in India. Capitalism developed in European countries where Protestant ideas such as Calvinism or Lutheranism were dominant. Those societies gave importance to making life more meaningful. They never subscribed to the idea of other-worldliness. The Protestant idea of predestination helped society to cherish a good life in this world.
If the leaders have the means to lead a good life and they have the income to buy expensive things, there is no need for them to pretend that they are hermits. If Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi, or Mahua Moitra wear expensive clothes and use costly accessories, they should not be asked to act like Gandhi. Such duality is not going to help anyone.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)