Man clothes himself to obey the exigencies of hygiene, modesty and decorum. These are three needs so profoundly rooted in nature that they cannot be neglected or defied without causing repulsion or prejudice. Modesty as the origin and purpose of dress includes due consideration for other people’s repugnance for repulsive objects no less than a defence of moral honesty and a shield against disordered sensuality.
Modesty is the natural bulwark of chastity. The dictates of hygiene have mostly to do with the climate but should not be taken to justify deplorable licence.
The influence of fashion for good or evil is great. Man must be the master of fashion, not its supine servant. The foundation of all fashion must be moderation, which curbs the desire for luxury, ambition and caprice at all cost.
Although creators of impudent fashion are skilful in contra banding perversion by mixing it with aesthetic elements which are honest in themselves, human sensuality in unfortunately even cleverer in discovering it and in being readily fascinated by it. It follows that any return of fashion to a healthy state must start from the intentions of those who design fashion and of those who wear them. Both must have a sense of their responsibilities and be aware of the consequences that can derive from clothing that is too old, especially if worn in the streets.
M. Satyanarayana Rao,
Hanamkonda
Turns of history
If we examine our long history scientifically we can say that Hindu society went through three clearly identifiable modernisations.”
Even long before these events took place, the great Aryan philosophers with their mighty intellects proclaimed equality of all men and divinity of all life.
But human society, being what it is, relapsed into superstition and casteism. At this stage Buddha’s teaching awoke the society to its duties and Hindus went through the first modernisation.
Hinduism as practised today and as reflected in the subsequent versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata was the result.
There was great stress on morality, truthfulness, equality of all human beings and sanctity of life, though society was trapped in the inevitable casteist mould. Shankara with mighty unparalleled intellect was a great interpreter of the sublime principles of Hinduism.
The second “modernisation” occurred after the establishment of Mohemmadam empires in most parts of India. India beset by casteism experienced a fresh breeze of a philosophy of equality. The result was the growth of the great “bhakthi cults” throughout the country.
The third “modernisation” occurred during British rule, India came into contact with Western philosophy political thought, and stalwarts like Swamy Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi were representatives of the “third modernisation”. Can we not conclude that casteism is rooted in the racial history of India?
S. B.V. R Shastry
Warangal
