advertisement
Indian social worker, designer, a founder of Dastkar - a Delhi-based non governmental organization, working for the revival of traditional crafts in India, Laila Tyabji, in a Facebook post, has shared how her opinions did not make it to New York Times’ contentious article on how the sari has become a nationalist symbol, even though she had been asked for them in the first place.
Her opinions, naturally, were quite contrary to the sentiment the NYT article seemed to espouse. In the same Facebook post, she has gone on to express them.
The New York Times article says that fashion too had slipped into the expansive domain of nationalism in India. The author Asgar Qadri has opined that PM Modi’s efforts to restore Indian-ness in the fashion scene in India had begun with his Make in India campaign months after he took office.
The author, in his critical piece, has stated that the Indian fashion industry has been pressed to aggressively promote traditional attire and bypass western styles and that this effort aligns with a political attempt to allegedly project multi-faith India as a Hindu nation. Rubbishing these claims, Tyabji has said:
Placing the promotion of the famous Banarasi sari with a wider political agenda, the NYT article says:
Expressing her disagreement with this contention, Tyabji pointed out that instead of actively promoting traditional Indian costume, the Modi government’s main efforts had been directed towards pushing Indian handlooms internationally by sending designers to various handloom centres to design western garments for the international market and which are slated to be launched at fashion shows and trade fairs in fashion capitals across the world.
This, coupled with the handloom mark and handloom day, are part of an attempt to support India’s declining handloom industry as opposed to “some dark reactionary agenda.”
Tyabji says this is a point she made to Qadri, as well.
Handloom weaving has been supported by all Indian governments since independence solely because it is one of the largest sectors of employment, now under threat because of mill and power loom production, Tyabji clarified.
Along similar lines, an article published in The Quint criticising the reasoning in Qadri’s piece highlights a very basic paradox:
The NYT piece descriptively asserts that: “The government’s aim certainly has been to produce a popular fashion aesthetic that matches the broader political program of Hindu nationalism.”
An assertion Laila Tyabji has vehemently refuted.
A large number of people have expressed their confusion with the intent of the article. Many are of the opinion that it is “an argument for an argument’s sake.”
Here are some of the reactions on the internet:
The Quint has curated a list here.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)