THE PEACOCK DRESS: the fashionable take on imperialism, appropriation, and exploitation

The words appropriation and appreciation are often confused with one another. Appreciation is when a culture and its things are respected and appreciated, while appropriation is something imperialistic states often find themselves indulging in. the peacock dress that Lady Curzon wore was though designed by Jean-Philippe Worth the handwork of zardozi technique was all done by Indian artisans. When the essence of a style rooted in a country is stolen in the name of fashion by their colonizers, controversy is bound to happen.

DELHI DURBAR 1903

The Delhi Durbar of 1903 was an event held to celebrate the coronation of King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra as Emperor and Empress of India. Organized by Lord Curzon, who was then the Viceroy of India, this was the second of three major Durbars held during British rule, with the first in 1877 and the last in 1911. Since this was often used as an opportunity to amplify the grandeur of wealth and power that they held over India, the decorations were over the top and the British imperialist state displayed their power in full glory.

The wife of Lord Curzon, Lazy Curzon who was also the Vicereine of India back obviously held a lot of significance. Her every move, her every decision was a statement. When she appeared in an important event like this wearing a dress so dreamy that people found themselves astonished, it does not take away from that fact that it was also a statement. It was meant to glorify the British Raj. It was meant to make India look like a project the British were working on to modernise it and take credits for everything good that happened while shoving their faults under the carpet of lies and taking no accountability for it.

THE DRESS

Mary Curzon, Baroness Curzon of Kedleston and also the Vicereine of India wore a peacock dress to Delhi durbar that generated controversy and entailed a great deal of criticism. The dress was put together using chiffon panels that had been expertly stitched and adorned by Indian artisans at an India workshop which was called the Kishan Chand Workshop. The method used to create the panels was called zardozi. The words “zar” refer to the tightly wrought metal thread and “dozi” to the work. Making zardozi the wire work style method.

 These panels were then taken from this workshop and transported to Paris, where the House of Worth gave the gown, a lengthy train trimmed with white chiffon roses. The dress was said to weight over 4.5 kg because of the use of all the metal threads. Thread of both silver and gold were utilized in the zardozi work here. It was in Paris that the dress was assembled and at this point that the bodice was embroidered and the jewels and lace were added. When Worth’s were finished with the dress the product was sent back to India for the durbar. While a lot of work was actually done by artisans of India, it was only Jean-Phillippe Worth that received recognition for it while the Indian artists remained nameless and uncredited.

SYMBOLISM

A well-crafted emblem of the British Empire’s supremacy over India, Lady Curzon’s Peacock Dress was more than just a stylish item of clothing that she wore for an important event. The outfit actually captured the power relations between colonizers and colonized. It showed how empty and hollow their perspective of Indian art was and how easy it was for them to try to pick and choose whatever it was that they wanted to try and display as per their convenience.

The Peacock Throne of Shah Jahan, which once stood in the Diwan-I-Khas was said to have inspired the outfit of Lady Curzon. Peacock itself holds a lot of importance to India so much so that the Indian peacock was declared the national bird of India on February 1, 1963. It also has a strong connection to Indian mythology and Indian art. The peacock is a symbol of immortality, a symbol of beauty in Hinduism. It is linked to various Hindu gods, including Lord Krishna, Lord Ganesha, and the goddess Saraswati. Seeing someone that represented oppression wear a symbol so important to Indians was obviously going to hurt their religious sentiments along with harming their sense of identity. The intention was perhaps to present a visual sense of continuity, aligning British rule with Indian courts of the past as a statement of dominance.

They looked down on Indians as uncivilized beings and had a saviour complex. The atrocities forced by the imperial power only Indians were not always done in the open. They were often hidden under the pretence of things like fashion. Lady Curzon was appreciative of Indian art but scorned at Indians. The peacock dress was a successful attempt hence at the portrayal of Indian traditional art as something that needed a retouch or refinement done, this goes hand in hand with their constant claim of trying to civilize India by colonizing it and exploiting it of its culture and its richness. British raj in India was a force that thrived on looting its colony without remorse or guilt whatsoever.

RECENT DEBATE

Cathy hay, who is a famous costume designer and owner of a sewing community called foundations revealed had said that she wished to recreate the peacock dress that Lady Curzon wore to the Delhi durbar. She spent a lot of time on it and even learnt zardozi only to try and outsource the zardozi work from Indian artists eventually because of how tedious she found it. The whole thing felt tone deaf as it seemed to completely ignore the Indian exploitation at the hands of the British raj that took place years ago. Due to this she received a lot of criticism, especially from Indians.

CONCLUSION

This dress was a lot more than just a dress the Vicereine of India one wore. It was made out of a cloth type famous in Mughal times and the motif of peacock was acknowledged as an important symbol for Indians. The dress has sparked debated for having being built on the grounds of exploitation. The legacy hence remains an extension of understanding how power dynamics work and how they separate the civilised and uncivilised as per their own convenience based on their own parameters.