INDIANS AND ENGLISH CUSTOMS
Spread of English customs inevitable. No national dress.
Christians and English dress. Increased refinement means
increased expense; instances of this. Defects in the Indian
style of dress. Beauty of the turban. Models in the Indian
Institute. The transformed policeman.
"But why are they in English clothes? Why do they not wear their
Indian dress?" So said somebody when looking at a photograph of some
of the Christian lads who are working in the Mission stables.
The criticism is sometimes heard that missionaries are largely
responsible for the introduction of European dress and customs into
foreign countries. The charge is only partially true; in many cases it
is the restraining influence of the missionary which has done
something to check the inevitable growth of foreign customs, even at
the cost of provoking some discontent amongst the members of his
flock.
The real truth of the matter is that the spread of these customs is a
tide that cannot be stayed, and the most that can be hoped for is to
help to regulate it, so that things obviously out of place should not
creep in. As the knowledge of English spreads, the acquisition of
English ways gradually follows. This naturally is specially the case
amongst Christians, because so many of them are living in close touch
with English people.
Indian Christians are sometimes criticised and laughed at for their
frequent adoption of European dress, which often involves the adjuncts
of collars, ties, studs, shoes, and socks. But in so doing they are
not discarding a national dress, because India does not possess one.
Dress in India denotes religion or occupation, not country. The ample
linen cloth which the Hindu folds around his waist and therewith
clothes his legs, denotes that he is a Hindu. For that reason many
Christians do not care to retain it. The Mohammedans have their own
special garb, which of course Christians could not adopt. The English
being a Christian race, it has inevitably followed that their style of
dress should in India become associated with the idea of Christianity,
and few people except Christians wear it, except that coats of English
cut are now common amongst all classes of Indians.
It is true that some missionaries who are anxious to retain Eastern
customs as far as possible are nevertheless averse to the retention of
native costume, because experience has taught them that it has serious
disadvantages, and that it is wholesome for a Christian to be marked
as such wherever he goes by what he wears. Added to which, it is a
well-known fact that an Indian lad, neatly clad in English style with
all those adjuncts for which he is criticised, stands a much better
chance of getting work, and at a higher rate of pay, than would be the
case if he made his application dressed with equal neatness, but in
native garments. His English dress also secures him many little
concessions and courtesies, especially when travelling, which he would
not otherwise get.
[Illustration: NARAYEN KHILARI, SON OF ONE OF THE FARMERS IN THE
VILLAGE.]
Christianity rightly brings in its train aspirations for some of the
refinements of civilisation, and that these involve an increase of
expenditure is inevitable. Indian Christians are sometimes reproached
for their inability to live on the small sum on which a Hindu of the
same station manages to exist. No doubt some, partly from
inexperience, have followed Western ways to a foolish extent. But the
fact remains that a good Christian has unavoidably more expenses than
those of the average working Hindu. He cannot spend his evenings
dozing in the dark, therefore he must have a lamp, with its usual
adjuncts. He has been taught to read, and needs a few books. He now
and then writes a letter. He reads his Bible with his family, and says
some prayers before they go to bed. His wife can sew and mend her
children's clothes, and the evening hours with the lamp are of value
to her. He no longer cares to go about in the scant clothing which
satisfies a Hindu. He would not wish his little children to run
about naked, like those of his Hindu neighbours. He must have clean
clothes for Sunday, and though he can do a little rough washing on his
own account, he needs the skill of the _dhobie_ for some of his wife's
garments and his white Sunday suit. He is expected to contribute
liberally towards church expenses; and where the number of Christians
in a place is few, this burden falls rather heavily on each.
Occasionally he needs a new prayer book or hymn book. He would like to
take in a weekly paper. He has begun to understand a little what is
meant by home life, and so he is tempted to buy pictures and other
ornaments to make his house look pleasant. Without a clock he cannot
make much progress in the practice of punctuality, and he buys one in
order that he may get to church at the proper time. Greater regard for
cleanliness means soap and towels. He can no longer have a share in
the periodical Hindu feasts when poor people, at any rate once in a
way, get a full belly. On the contrary, the traditional spirit of
hospitality, especially at the time of great festivals, is often a
serious drain on the resources of many Christians, who, like most
Indians, are generally generous beyond their means to all comers. The
Indian Christian also desires to have his children educated, and
though he gets a good deal of help from mission schools he does so
less than formerly, and he is often told (and no doubt rightly) that
if he wishes education for his children he must pay for it like other
people.
It would probably be considered almost a heresy even to suggest that
the various styles of dress worn by Indian men are not really more
picturesque than many other styles. A street in an Eastern city, with
its throng of quaintly dressed people, is much more fascinating in
appearance than the sombre hues of an average London crowd in the
winter time. The rich colours and the sparkling jewels of an assembly
of Indian nobility attract the eye by their brilliance. But if you
separate the individuals who make up the crowd, and take their costume
into individual consideration, you are conscious of defects. The
glittering array of an Indian chief appears more adapted to feminine
needs than those of a king or noble. The _dhota_, which takes the
place of trousers amongst Hindus, is not really a particularly comely
garment, and its loose folds are not at all convenient for working
men, especially masons and carpenters, who have to climb about on
scaffolds.
The dresses of Indian women in general may safely be accepted as being
more picturesque and more convenient than the styles of female costume
prevalent in Europe. And the turban for the men, with its variety of
shape and colour, and its great practical utility as a protection from
the rays of the tropical sun, is without doubt the most artistic
covering for the head that the world produces. It is a sad pity that
the turban is being slowly but steadily ousted by the adoption of a
stupid little cloth cap, as ugly as it is useless.
How hopeless it would be to attempt to decide which is the national
dress out of any of those now worn in India, might be realised even in
England by a visit to a museum, such as the Indian Institute in
Oxford. There is there a most interesting collection of clay figures,
admirably modelled, and coloured and draped. They represent many of
the various types and dresses to be found in the country. These
figures are made in Poona City, and are absolutely correct. They do
not by any means include all the varieties of costume to be seen in
India. Nevertheless, if you were to mix them all up together, the
result would very fairly represent the motley throng which you might
see in the more crowded parts of Bombay City, to which place, as a
great sea-port, people come from all parts of India. If you were to
select a person out of the throng as wearing a dress suitable for
Christians to adopt, you would be told that that particular costume
denoted either the man's religion or his occupation, or both, and for
anyone else to wear it, except those of the same class as himself,
would create a false impression as to the wearer's identity. If you
were to suggest that the costume selected might be adopted as the
national dress for India, you would be assured that no one would
consent to wear it except the little group of people whose
distinctive garb it is.
How much dress has to do with the appearance of an Indian was brought
home to me one day, when a magnificent-looking policeman entered the
carriage in which I was sitting, at a station near Bombay. He had on a
tall blue turban, dark blue tunic with leathern belt, loose
knickerbockers, and putties. His clothes were put on with extreme
neatness; they were as spotless as those of a London policeman, and
the brass numbers and letters polished to the highest degree. I was
astonished to see this magnificent fellow rapidly divest himself of
all his clothing--turban, tunic, knickerbockers, putties--there would
have been nothing left, except that a Hindu wears beneath his uniform
the meagre garments which suffice for everyday life, so that when he
had got rid of everything which appertained to him as a policeman he
was still fit to go into Indian society. The ordinary garments of an
Indian are scanty, but the double set of clothing might be thought
rather oppressive in the tropics. But the Indian likes to be warmly
clad at any time of the year. Boys of the Mission will wear comforters
and warm coats well into the hot season if allowed to do so.
The effect of the removal of the policeman's uniform was startling. He
was evidently going off duty, because he handed all his discarded
belongings to a friend on the platform, and he was only using my
carriage as a dressing-room. The whole process of transformation only
took about two minutes, and he then walked off in the opposite
direction. But no one could have supposed that there was any identity
between the shabby Hindu, with shaved head and little pigtail and
fluttering _dhota_, and that fine-looking fellow who first entered the
carriage.