A
news item in the front page of The Hindu
of July 17, 2014 by K.T. Sangameswaran [1] caught my fancy and thus became
fodder for this post.
The
TNCA in the title refers to Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, which is a private
body as observed by one of the three judges hearing a case brought against the club
as regards the dress code adopted by it.
To
go into some detail, the club barred entry to “a sitting judge and two
advocates for coming to a function” at the club in a dhoti. Apparently, dhoti
violates the dress code of the club. The political establishment in the state
is frothing at the mouth for the insult heaped upon Tamil culture.
I
am still undecided whether the club can invoke its right to freedom of speech
on this issue. I will keep cat walking on the parapet wall and see which I
teeter and eventually fall. It, as a private club, has established a dress code
which it considers inviolate. As a free association of people it is not barred
from imposing such restrictions on those who patronize its premises. This is how
freedom of speech issue rears its forceful head on this issue. And, from a negative
rights perspective – that is, the state cannot impinge on the citizens’ rights –
this understanding appears valid.
Yet,
there may be another side to the matter. The state has a right and to can interfere
if it perceives that the matter pertains to the society as a whole and in its
opinion there is a compelling interest for the state to question the dress code,
which can be perceived as carrying certain messages that do not inform the
ethos of the state, indeed go against its culture. This is where culture comes
in, as wearing dhoti is almost di rigueur
for the state’s politicians. And, here I would like take reference to what
happened to country and golf clubs in the USA in the in the mid 1980s as
regards their de facto practices excluding
blacks and Jews.
There
was uproar when it came to be known that the annual tournament held by the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) of
America will be held at a country club in the heart of the American South that
has excluded blacks and Jews from its membership. The arguments in favor of the
club ran along the lines mentioned earlier – a private body with its right to
frame its own bylaws and the right to have preferential admission standards, a
freedom of association issue.
The
issue did not go to court, if I remember right, but it so happened that slowly
even the most exclusive of clubs, for example, the Augusta in Georgia started
rolling towards a more integrated vis-à-vis segregated membership (though I
believe it has not been much beyond the level of tokenism, even now, nearly thirty
years down the line). Such integration was implicitly admitted as the approved
conscience of the country.
It
is at this level the Tamil Nadu government’s stand against TNCA Club can be
validated. The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the cultural
norm of wearing dhoti in the state and it cannot afford to look away when this
norm is being violated by citing freedom of speech or freedom of association.
So,
on balance, I would find fault with the club, particularly its dress code. It
is not as if people wear pants only to satisfy the laws. Wearing pants to
functions is what people generally do, and with or without the law they will do
so in a majority of cases. The byelaws foreclose other possibilities,
implicitly tagging dhoti-clad people as riff-raff. This is the insult the
government cannot let go without a response.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
5 comments:
Some years ago when I was active in a number of yahoo groups, there was this debate about Starbucks not allowing their serving staff to wear nose studs which was considered violative of individual rights, and particularly discriminatory for South Asian women workforce who wore nose studs as part of custom. At that time I had felt that in a contractual agreement between the employer and the employee, dress code ( that forbade any kind of body piercing) was part of the contract which the employee had accepted, and therefore it was incorrect to allege racial discrimination later.
M F Hussain was not allowed entry somewhere I recall because he refused to wear shoes, and media went in an overkill. In the case of the Club too, I feel that the TN Government is being jingoistic. Right of entry to a private place is reserved, whether considered correct or incorrect by people denied entry.:)
Aditi, from my perspective, it is a question of the compelling interest of the state. That is how I framed this debate. A state cannot be immune to the criticism that something that is rooted in the customs of its people is being implicitly denigrated. My question basically is, can TNCA give a honest answer to why it has debarred dhoti-clad people. This is why I brought in the description that dhoti-clad people can be perceived as riff-raff. The state had to respond. This is why people got too hot with the country club denying blacks membership. There is no parallel between the current instance and M F Hussain or Starbucks and nose studs as the society's deep cultural roots were not negated. The appropriate parallel may be France saying no to the Muslim full cover hijab, I don't know.
Thanks for bringing in other perspectives.
RE
We cannot have such imperial tendencies when people wearing a particular type of dress are not allowed. What the people want to wear is their problem as long as it is presentable and not vulgar
The last words - not vulgar - of your comment is the crux of the issue, Balu. Dhoti is consdiered anachronistic and hence "vulgar" in club-speak!
Thanks for endorsing my view.
RE
You would have read this
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/club-class/article6253387.ece
Post a Comment