The search for a calendar that can win the day—but also the year
Calendar systems have never been perfect. The one we use has absurdities, too. In this post, I discuss why it’s time for a new, simple, permanent calendar that can work for everyone.
Imagine if your birthday were to fall on the same day every year: no fuss at all over trying to make different plans each year based on the new calendar. Think of the same for your anniversary, or Christmas, or New Year. Scheduling annual exams and monthly workplace team rosters would become a whole lot easier. As you’d get older, perhaps you might even end up knowing by heart which day any given date falls, whatever be the year.
Well, this ideal scenario is not really implausible. True, the year needs to be 365 or 366 days long to keep it in sync with how the earth moves, and neither number is divisible by 7, so you end up taking for granted that the first of January must shift days every year. But the multiplication table of 7 is just a tiny inconvenience in the larger scheme of things. Ways have been proposed to get past it and have one permanent calendar, once and for all.
We can intuitively predict how the hours, minutes and seconds will progress on an unknown day 20 years hence. We can quickly tell which year it will be 40 years from now. But to know the day a particular date will fall even one month later, we don’t feel sure unless we’ve referred to a calendar. Can this get more absurd?
You see, the kind of shifting calendar we currently use—and which we are used to the way we are to the air and water around us—is one of the oldest surviving ways of organising life, and it has seen little change for centuries. Rather, it has spread across the world with little resistance and evolution, as it helps unify humanity like few other things. We may have different languages and customs, but we operate with the same calendar to keep life smooth. Traditional and religious calendars may dictate local festivals, but the January 1 to December 31 cycle is so ingrained that not following it would cause chaos. The last time someone made a tweak to the calendar, countries saw riots.
So should we expect any massive change that could fundamentally change how we count our days? Well, not right now; though the world has been much closer to a calendar revolution in the 20th century (which I will come to in a bit). Let me argue why it would be nice to revive the debate.
The calendar we so intimately know is a sun-based one, called the Gregorian calendar, and has been in use since 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII decided to revamp the Julian calendar that was in existence back then. The older calendar, which Roman emperor Julius Caesar formalised more than 2,000 years ago in 45 BCE, was actually pretty much the same as what we know the calendar to be: it only counted three extra days every 400 years. In that sense, Gregory’s innovation in how we structure our calendar was marginal.
The flaw with Caesar’s calendar was that its three extra days every 400 years made it a bit too slow. Over the centuries, the equinoxes were not falling on their expected dates any longer, and if left unchanged, dates would begin to fall out of sync with the seasons. So Gregory’s innovation set it right by deciding that century years that don’t divide by 400 would no longer be leap years. It isn’t perfect yet, but now the error will not make itself felt for thousands of years.
The basic structure of Caesar’s calendar (which, too, was inspired from the structure of the ancient Egyptian calendar) still thrives simply because we’re so used to it. Who finds it intuitive to have a short February, equal lengths of July and August, and the ever-changing day for any given date? If you forget that it’s an unavoidable way of life, you might realise it’s a ridiculous way to structure your year.
The structural flaws of the Julian calendar have their roots in arbitrary choices of Roman dictators. Their sole (and crucial) priority was to average 365.25 days a year (and 365.2425 a year in the Gregorian tweak) over longer periods, and rightly so. But they also had an eye on the traditional imperative to align festivals with the lunar months, leading to irregularly-sized months. Secondly, the Julian calendar, and its Gregorian innovation, are deeply rooted in religion, hardly in science. Gregory wasn’t out to impress the Renaissance vote bank; the problem was that scholars had complained for centuries that the choice of date for the annual Easter, which was linked to the March equinox, was falling out of line with the sun’s position in the sky. Also at play was rivalry with the Jewish calendar, which didn’t face the issue in scheduling its own equinox-linked festival Passover. The Christians simply wanted a foolproof method of their own.
So essentially what we currently use to dictate our rhythm of life is a calendar that could reform itself only out of religious compulsions, where scientificity was unintentional. It led to quarrels within Christianity; Britain (which had tense relations with the Vatican) didn’t adopt Gregory’s reforms until 1752, and the Russian Orthodox Church still uses the Julian calendar and is by now 13 days out of line with the earth’s motion! This deeply unsecular calendar then travelled the world solely by virtue of European colonialism. It doesn’t really need to run the 21st-century world.
The world needs a secular calendar that can shed its religious and colonial baggage. A common calendar that pleases no religion, but works for all humans and makes date-counting—its basic purpose—easier.
The World Calendar, my favourite alternative, was proposed in the 20th century, and it made it close in debates at the United Nations. It retains the same 12 months. January 1 always falls on a Sunday. Each quarter is made up of months 31, 30 and 30 days long. That adds up to 91 days, or exactly 13 weeks, which means that each quarter, not just each year, starts and ends on the same day. The cycle of days and dates repeats every quarter, unlike every 28 years like now (our current calendar normally repeats every 28 years due to the leap year), making it easier to remember days. You wouldn’t need to change calendars every year!
But that adds up to 364 days, a day and a quarter too short. So it adds one extra date at the end of December—a global festival of sorts, Worldsday—that does not get either a day or a date. Every four years, to account for the leap year, we add a similar Worldsday at the end of June as well. Since Worldsday doesn’t get a day, the following January 1 or July 1 don’t fall out of cycle. Alongside, we get an extra day to celebrate a secular, simple calendar that governs our lives so intimately.
Of course, religion came in the way. The Monday to Sunday cycle is essential to some religions, and a date that doesn’t fall on any of these seven days would disturb that rhythm. Also, something that wasn’t perhaps a problem in the mid-20th century, the foundation of our current computer technology is entirely based on the Gregorian calendar, and a disruption to accommodate an unusual concept of Worldsday—a day that’s somewhat not a day—would bring chaos to digital systems.
Is there a way out? If you had to build a calendar from scratch, what would it look like? Do you have a solution, or would you rather continue with the current system? In terms of simplicity, it must win the day—but also the year (remember, that first and foremost, a solar calendar must stay in line with the seasons, with a year of accurate length).
Think about it, and please do write back. For now, it’s time to say goodbye, with the promise to write more about this topic, and to explore other alternative calendar systems, in my coming posts.