Bye Bye adarachu dictate but adarachu would remain endearing without the compulsion.
Ada Rachu. Did it originate from Ada or is it just the description of straight line colours dominated by red. Now that this home spun rule has been invalidated, I feel it is OK to read aloud the adverse implication of the dictate under cover of culture.
Government should not make it a habit to set decorum for the Royal Family such as what should be worn. Today a government reserves something ( lucky signs) for exclusive Royal use. Tomorrow the same precedent can be used by another government to restrict the Royal to certain ways. Best is leave out the very mention of the Royal when issuing rules for general public adherence.
Some many years back.the Bhutam Chamber of Commerce and Industries led by its President ( now Dasho) Ugyen Dorji wanted to submit a request to the National Assembly to install the Crown Prince as Trongsa Penlop. Out of more than 400 assembled members only I disagreed. Funny thing was I only came to observe the going on after getting the Chamber' s permission. So was not a voting member. They were shocked.
I believed and still believe that it is the pre- rogative of the King on the throne to decide when it is time for the Crown Prince to be Trongsa Penlop or occupy the Throne. And a precedent no matter how good or well meaning the intention is should not be set to subvert Royal prerogative in the long run. My thoughts were termed revolutionary and brushed aside. However someone else in authority may have shared my views because this Chamber request never made it to the floor of the National Assembly.
Decorum and protocols for Royal Members are traditionally set by the King. For example theThird King defined who is a member of Royal Family. For the people and bureaucrats at that time, every one of Royal blood or marriage related was reverred as member of royalty. Anyway if it is considered vital for government of the day to make public announcement regarding Royal affairs then let it be purely Royal in nature and structure.
There is a significant difference when wording a government notification. For example:
a) Bhutanese women have to wear ada rachu and not any other type of rachus.
b) Bhutanese women have to wear ada rachu. And eight lucky signs rachus are only for royalty.
The Home Minister now says that he had not consulted the cabinet when issuing the notification. A pinch of salt you might need. . Cultural officers will declare what home ministry or cabinet tells them. Likewise one of the youngest ministers ( I do not mean age ) is most unlikely to keep the cabinet in the dark when issuing dictates that infringe upon basic humble human rights of more than half the national citizens. To have to wear rachu is culture but to dictate pattern or colour in the name of preserving Royal exclusivity is dangerously astonishing. Did the Minister get a feeler that the reverred Royal Family is not prepared to share with the humble subjects even the perceived luck and blessings of the Buddhism's eight lucky signs ? It is a ridiculous notion.
To the perception of many, being born into or married into Royal family is great fortune. Even citizens honoured with various colour kami is indication that god and fortune favour them. So it is actually the others who has the need for luck and blessings of lucky signs. However, I do not believe our fair sex wear such pattern for luck and fortune. It is mainly fashionable. And as always our Royalty has the artistic taste and are trendsetters. So very possibly others copied it. But they do it out of wanting to be fashionable. Definitely not at all to even up to equality.
So this notion of equality display through patterened rachu is ridiculous, too.
One might feel like a prince or princess when looking gorgeous but feeling something and being something is different. The imitation is out of admiration not envy or disrespect. .