The moral code attached to attires

Women wearing what they feel like wearing, and being chastised or worse for the same, is a tired refrain in Indian society. In the not-at-all -distant past, asserting the right to dress as one wishes to (or needs to, because of factors like the weather, not factors like cultural conditioning) was itself regarded as a bold move. Fortunately, more and more of us publicly and privately make this assertion now and are more often, though not always, met with support. In the last fortnight, two such instances made it to the press. One involved the actor Sai Pallavi, whose sister had shared images from a holiday, including one in which they had been in beachwear. The images drew criticism that the actor, known for her homely beauty and demeanour, had decided to become glamourous. In the other instance, which went viral online, a 20-year-old law student named Janani was verbally harassed by vendors at a flower market for wearing a sleeveless kurta. The scrutiny of Sai Pallavis apparel is because of her celebrity status, and especially because of the public image she has had. Fans who are deeply attached to Sai Pallavis on-screen persona and who are dismayed by the slightest revelation that she as a person may be more multidimensional in actuality, only fetishise the simplicity of her appearance in her various roles. This is no less disturbing than fetishising a more glamourous actor, as doing either reduces the individual to their style and presentation. Adding to this is the fact that she has been cast as Sita in a forthcoming blockbuster cinematic production of the Ramayana . The casting announcement itself drew mixed reactions from movie-goers, and there is no doubt that there is a subtle pressure on the actor to conduct herself in ways that do not displease religious groups at this time. A smiling woman in a bathing suit has been known to, after all. So when Sai Pallavi responded to trolls by stating that the images were not AI-generated and said to the press that, My acting and my personal preferences are my rights. It is my freedom to change my appearance in any way I want. No one can interfere with this. she was clearly doing so cognizant of all the burdens of the patriarchal gaze on her, and still refusing to be cowed. In Jananis case, the incident is a commonplace one, which has turned in her favour thanks to her own uncompromising stance, some technology and some brickbats (not bouquets) in the right direction. Following the release of video footage of the incident, theCoimbatore Urban District All-Flower Traders; Welfare Association released a statement expressing regret about the vendors moral policing. This is a win not just for Janani, but for many others, because it signals a positive shift in the societal imbalance that accepts that womens attire is a matter of others opinions, and not of personal choice. For once, the blame has squarely been placed on those who cross the line through gaze, word or action not those who would normally be accused of having been provocative, just because they wore what they wore.