He also will not grace any of the clubs which dot Kolkata and give it a distinctiveness. I suspect clubs leave him cold because he doesn't care for boozing, again in a city where bending elbows is almost a religious rite. But the official reason for which he will not even deign to set foot in them is their dress restrictions, which he considers a colonial hangover. |
He also has another attribute. I strongly suspect Amartya Sen decided to write a book on the argumentative Indian after a session with him. And since I love clubs, boozing and arguing, a key attraction of a visit to Kolkata is to chat with him on lots of things and, of course, have a flaming row over colonial hangovers which give rise to absurd practices like rules for dressing.
He is, of course, in good company. Many among India's great and famous, like M F Hussain, have not only refused to abide by the club dress code but have themselves thrown ours in the process. Hussain, I suspect, didn't mind the publicity but Partha doesn't do things for the gallery.
Which is why when he was secretary of a leading football club, he once first declined to address a major press conference because the venue had been fixed at a prominent city social club which had dress restrictions. Then he and everybody concerned solved the problem by simply failing to notice that he had come in chappals, an integral part of the dress code of the maidan where beats the heart of the football-crazy city.
I have always felt that a club is not a public place but a private gathering of like-minded people who are free to set rules about how they will comport themselves. If I find a particular club's rules specially irksome, that is the surest sign that it is not meant for people like me.
As for colonial hangovers, the clubs are literally so, something that stayed behind when the British left. I do like to nurse the odd hangover and wish we had not given up one earlier practice of clubs "" selecting managing committees with minimum fuss and casually taking turns as office bearers, instead of bringing in a distasteful ritual of intensive lobbying and politicking.
As for the dress code, it is fascinating how this has changed, showing that the clubs are living institutions which evolve with the times. The compulsion to formally dress up for a meal at the dining room has been slowly relaxed. The tie and the jacket came off at some stage, what now mostly remains is the need to be in proper shoes and in shirtsleeves if you like but not short sleeves.
Relaxations have also come differently in different geographies. Clubs being a part of the world of social hierarchies, different parts of a club have different dress codes. The last bastion of formality is the main dining hall. On the verandah where you have tea or gin depending on the time of day, almost anything goes.
Different parts of the human anatomy also have different restrictions. How your feet are shod seems to be a serious matter. When shoes were allowed to come off, there was no question of going all the way and letting in slippers. So the intermediate position was to allow sandals with back straps.
On of the more amusing sights is a steward trying to figure out if there is a strap behind the member's ankle without appearing to peer under the table. At one Bangalore club, an interesting compromise has been struck. At the bar it must be at the least sandals with back straps. In the sit-out, slippers are grudgingly allowed but hawai chappals are absolutely no-no. If all this minutiae seem quite eccentric, that also is an endearing trait that the British left behind.
My friend gleefully asks how clubs persist with such a glaring inconsistency "" slippers are OK with Indian attire, but not with western wear. I think it is perfectly rational, every culture has its own integrity "" what goes with one may not go with another "" and the important thing is to respect all cultures.
But straight-laced lawyer that he is, he has not hit upon the greatest problem club dress code writers face "" defining what goes on women and what does not. Men may not be allowed in with collarless tops but you can't expect women in this day and weather to be prim in high collars.
The greatest dilemma is posed by shorts. They are definitely out but what do you do if you are a golf club? You are then left to declare that the overriding rule is that appropriate golfing attire is permissible in appropriate areas, something so subjective that it is impossible to implement.
Which is why I think that a Bangalore golf club got it about right when it prescribed no specific dress code for women but says they need only dress with "elegance, poise and grace". Nobody can quarrel with that.
