Agencies
Amit Kapoor
Dr. Amit Kapoor is Honorary Chairman at Institute for Competitiveness, studying firms, clusters and economies and is also a Professor of Strategy at Management Development Institute, India. He is an affiliate faculty for the Microeconomics of Competitiveness & Value Based Health Care Delivery courses of Institute of Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School. Dr. Kapoor’s doctoral work is in Industrial Economics and Business Strategy; he has received the Ruth Greene Memorial Award for writing the best case of the year, by North American Case Research Association (NACRA). He has been invited by Kennedy School of Government & Harvard Law School, Harvard University; World Economic Forum at its India Economic Summit and Asia Summit to present his views on various issues and themes like strategy, outsourcing and economic development. His research interest lies in the fields of Enhancing Competitiveness, Competitive Advantage and Leveraging Technology for Success.
Growing up, we all saw our school uniform as an imposition, an invasion over our choice. It represented discipline, obedience and association to an institution. For some, it even meant fear of repercussions if any part of the ensemble was out of place. But, above all, it symbolised sameness. It muted divisions for the next seven hours of school. Along with our bodies, the uniform also covered our differences, silenced visible distinctions, and made school an equal space for all. So, what does a uniform really mean?
The history of institutionalised use of a code of dress goes back to 16th-century England, where a standard of academic dressing was first used. Uniforms became an essential part of missionary-run schools, which flourished 16th century onwards, where students coming from low-income families had to dress in cloaks that signified their status. In a typically English fashion, the idea of uniforms was then adopted by public and private schools - in England, confusingly meaning fee-paying schools and not non-fee-paying state schools - with each uniform distinct in its colour, fabric and composition symbolising the core tenets of that school.
By the 19th century, uniforms had become an irreplaceable part of the British schooling system. Several of the elements of a modern uniform have emerged out of the English experience. The purpose of these uniforms has been to act as an equaliser by making sure that no student could be identified or segregated based on their wealth. In contrast, while adopting dressing codes, the US school system has steered away from adopting uniforms, especially in public (state) schools. Despite Bill Clinton's famous 'If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require the students to wear school uniforms' proclamation, the US settled with giving their learners the choice of wearing what they want as long as they abide by dress codes.
On this spectrum of supporting uniforms to rejecting them, India lies in the middle. Clothing is a crucial signifier of mapping the visibility of inequalities in any society. In this backdrop, homogeneity of any nature proactively lowers the volume of disparities. The uniform, thus, brings everyone on the same level, making them classless within the classroom, if you will.
So, can uniform be the entry to a classless society? If only the goal were so simple to achieve. But what a school uniform does is socialise children in a manner that makes them see the similarities and not the differences. In India, where inequality persists at every intersection, uniforms become a way to make income-based differences temporarily 'invisible' and make schools an open and equal space for all. Education becomes more accessible for children when wealth markers are left outside the classroom, while fostering a sense of belongingness and group spirit.
A mere piece of garment, thus, becomes a tool for inculcating behavioural responses that are not discriminatory. Additionally, in secular institutions like schools, a uniform gives children the freedom to see themselves outside of social - and religious - constructs and shape a world view with equality at its core.
A uniform is a breathing contradiction - a symbol of both conformity and disparity. Or, perhaps, conformity that goes against differences and distinctions. The oneness we aspire for will never be realised if we don't start making our schools equal spaces for every child in the country. Uniforms become the starting point to achieve that.
Kapoor is chair, Institute for Competitiveness, and Debroy is chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM). Inputs by Jessica Duggal
The history of institutionalised use of a code of dress goes back to 16th-century England, where a standard of academic dressing was first used. Uniforms became an essential part of missionary-run schools, which flourished 16th century onwards, where students coming from low-income families had to dress in cloaks that signified their status. In a typically English fashion, the idea of uniforms was then adopted by public and private schools - in England, confusingly meaning fee-paying schools and not non-fee-paying state schools - with each uniform distinct in its colour, fabric and composition symbolising the core tenets of that school.
By the 19th century, uniforms had become an irreplaceable part of the British schooling system. Several of the elements of a modern uniform have emerged out of the English experience. The purpose of these uniforms has been to act as an equaliser by making sure that no student could be identified or segregated based on their wealth. In contrast, while adopting dressing codes, the US school system has steered away from adopting uniforms, especially in public (state) schools. Despite Bill Clinton's famous 'If it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require the students to wear school uniforms' proclamation, the US settled with giving their learners the choice of wearing what they want as long as they abide by dress codes.
On this spectrum of supporting uniforms to rejecting them, India lies in the middle. Clothing is a crucial signifier of mapping the visibility of inequalities in any society. In this backdrop, homogeneity of any nature proactively lowers the volume of disparities. The uniform, thus, brings everyone on the same level, making them classless within the classroom, if you will.
So, can uniform be the entry to a classless society? If only the goal were so simple to achieve. But what a school uniform does is socialise children in a manner that makes them see the similarities and not the differences. In India, where inequality persists at every intersection, uniforms become a way to make income-based differences temporarily 'invisible' and make schools an open and equal space for all. Education becomes more accessible for children when wealth markers are left outside the classroom, while fostering a sense of belongingness and group spirit.
A mere piece of garment, thus, becomes a tool for inculcating behavioural responses that are not discriminatory. Additionally, in secular institutions like schools, a uniform gives children the freedom to see themselves outside of social - and religious - constructs and shape a world view with equality at its core.
A uniform is a breathing contradiction - a symbol of both conformity and disparity. Or, perhaps, conformity that goes against differences and distinctions. The oneness we aspire for will never be realised if we don't start making our schools equal spaces for every child in the country. Uniforms become the starting point to achieve that.
Kapoor is chair, Institute for Competitiveness, and Debroy is chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM). Inputs by Jessica Duggal
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
