Opinion Charisma needs no costumes
The Labour Party I joined in 1971 always had a problem with the royalty
The Labour Party I joined in 1971 always had a problem with the royalty. Some of us were Republicans; the rest were just too bloody-minded to follow the rituals required to honour royalty. We did not want to stand up at ceremonial dinners when the Loyal Toast was proposed. A few muttered something about Cromwell being our hero,the first and only Republican leader. He,however,also made his son his successor,somewhat like Kim Il Sung.
Now 40-odd years on,the Diamond Jubilee has stunned everyone by the enormous popular support the Queen enjoys. A million and a quarter people stood on the banks of the Thames and on the bridges,some on terraces like we did in the Palace of Westminster. All of us behaved like fans of rock and pop stars,lost whatever reservations we may have had and enjoyed our moment in history.
What does it take to command the affection of a diverse nation,indeed a diverse collection of nations that the UK has become? It cannot be old fashioned loyalty or kowtowing to royalty. It is not that the Crown is an active force in the daily life of the people. Perhaps that may be the secret. No one blames the Queen for the austerity,or the scandals of MPs expenses or for the political establishments collusion with Rupert Murdoch. An 86-year-old woman can stand for four hours in cold and rain while being viewed on her boat by the millions,be serenaded by pop singers whose music is hardly to her taste and still thank them for the kindness she has been shown. How do you explain that? That,in my view,is something called charisma,that mystical element half religious,half irrational which is the secret of leadership.
The charisma which the Queen has does not need elaborate costumes or even much finery. She dresses like many of her citizens,albeit the better off ones. The Archbishop of Canterbury has to be in his robes and the military personnel in their uniforms,the Horseguards in their fur hats and the Beefeaters in their costumes. But they are just props. The people come to watch not the uniformed ones but the one who does not need to wear anything special.
Gandhiji had charisma to an indescribable degree. It is interesting to recall that when he decided to adopt the Indian costume,it was that of an ordinary peasant. He did not wear saffron,nor any turbans or any regional costumes as Tilak or Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya did. Subhas Chandra Bose appears in his military uniform though he never did any active war fighting. Would he have looked less of a Netaji had he continued to wear dhoti and kurta? Gandhijis idea of a costume was a minimalist one,barely covering his body with a dhoti and wrapping garment for his upper torso. The less was the more.
Holy men in India insist on the full regalia. Swami Vivekananda set the standard in modern times. He looked glamorous in his saffron outfit. All sorts of swamis and gurus since have adopted that costume. Why do they do this? J.Krishnamurti was chosen as the next Messiah of the Theosophists by Annie Besant but he rejected the trappings of such a role. He always dressed ordinarily. He did not lose his charisma thereby. If anything,he was respected more because he was a guru who rejected the uniform of the guru.
Gurus in Indian politics win a lot of following as do astrologers and palmists. This is a recent trend. Nehru would not have tolerated such nonsense in his presence. It was Indira Gandhi who after her defeat in 1977 took to such irrational practices. But even so one does not associate Chandraswami with any spirituality. My father used to say a saffron outfit identifies a likely tax dodger much more than a holy man.
Swami Ramdev is the latest such phenomenon. I often wonder whether he would retain his appeal if he shaved off his beard,had a haircut and dressed in a simple kurta pyjama or shirt and trousers?
Share
