Unfortunately, in Iran, the king’s Government made it illegal to wear any hat but the Pahlavi cap, like a French gendarme’s hat — a symbol of modernization, in the fassion of Ataturk. It quickly eliminated an enriching hat culture. I would hope that all good parts of any culture, the enriching parts, can be kept, without being at the expense of practicality and progress. In the case of the king, the oppressed people forced to change their dress were resentful, and rose up against not only the dress, but also regretably against the modernization it represented.

Those who would resist modernization need not be made to feel the threat of losing their culture in the process. The Quebec French feel their culture is so threatened by the English they have “language police,” and their stop signs say “ARRET”. In Paris, not as threatened, the stop signs say “STOP”. Don’t underestimate the danger of the reaction of the threatened conservative (e.g. Iran, Geo. W. Bush) to modernization.

How much better to just be free, dress as you like, and still love and cultivate the good parts of culture. Perhaps Shashi Tharoor was being too romantic in wanting to promote the everyday sari. But clothes culture, when not oppressive, is a great treasure; a unifying force in society, giving a sense of common destiny, and a foundation for a bright future.

Love to India from the U.S. – Paul (Denver, Colorado, USA)