Is the bandhgala a colonial legacy? This may sound like an eccentric question but for the railways it’s one of great moment.
Their minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, has decided the answer is yes.
He’s ordered the institution to immediately shed its black bandhgala uniform. Last Friday, he said: “We have to get rid of all colonial mindset. We need to find each of them and remove them, whether it’s in our working style or dressing style. Today I am making the first announcement. Humare jo band gale ka kala suit angrezon ne chalu kiya tha, aaj se yeh railway mein formal dress nehin rahegi.”
The paradox is that the British, who colonised us for close to two hundred years, would be surprised to learn that the bandhgala is a colonial legacy. I don’t think they’ve ever worn it and I very much doubt if they intend to do so. As far as I know, the only country it’s worn in is India.
Mr Vaishnaw’s pronouncement suggests he has no doubts about the matter but there are a few questions he still needs to answer. For example, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, when he was Prime Minister, would often wear the bandhgala. Was he being colonial? Our present Prime Minister wore a bandhgala when he entertained President Obama in 2015. Was he imitating British custom? When he was President, Ram Nath Kovind seemed to wear a bandhgala most of the time. Was he slavishly following a colonial tradition?
Now the minister wants to eradicate what he calls the “colonial mindset”.
So should we stop wearing suits? Our external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, seems to be rather fond of them. What about trousers and shirts? I doubt if they’re indigenous to our country. And what about moccasins and brogues? Would the minister prefer us to wear chappals or remain barefoot?
These are, of course, the immediate questions that come to mind. However, there are others that might be more troubling. For instance, the railways were built by the Raj. George Stephenson developed the first train in 1825 in Britain. Doesn’t that make them a colonial relic?
But why stop at the railways? You could argue the very concept of a single united country called India is a colonial legacy. What the British colonised was a series of separate kingdoms, often at war with each other, and only very rarely united. Even the Mauryan Empire didn’t cover the entire sub-continent. The Brits united it and created the country we inherited. So isn’t India a colonial legacy?
Of course, the institution that embraces the most colonial legacies is the army. For a start, its ranks are British terminology. The regiment is a foreign concept. The practice of Reveille and The Last Post are hardly Indian and Beating Retreat — which will happen in 11 days — is as British as crumpets or strawberries and cream.
In fact, I’m perplexed. Has the minister not heard of scrambled eggs? Is he not fond of buttered toast? What about cake? And does he not like a cup of tea? Is he not aware that we were introduced to all of these by the colonising British?
One last point. We’re terribly proud of the grandeur of Rashtrapati Bhavan and the splendid look of the President’s Bodyguard. But is the minister aware that once upon a time they were known as Viceregal Lodge and the Viceroy’s Bodyguard? That’s the King Emperor’s representative. It couldn’t be more colonial than that. Are they too in his sights?
Of course, I’m being tongue-in-cheek. As our former colonial masters would say, I’m taking the mickey. But the point I’m trying to make is a serious one. This obsession with detecting and eradicating colonial traditions is foolish and shallow. Should we stop saying hello and good morning? Should we stop playing cricket? And is there room left in our lives for whisky or gin and tonic?
The truth is what the railways wear is nowhere near as important as the quality of service they provide. The minister will make his mark if he focuses on the latter. But if his attention is devoted to uniforms all he can do is make the rest of us laugh.
● Karan Thapar is President, Infotainment Television