How important is the complexion
of human skin? The eyes which recognize the color of it – dark, brown, fair
are not fond of any one of them specifically. But the mind – be it in developed
or developing world, rich or poor, rural or urban, young or elderly, man or
woman is clearly biased towards a particular complexion, sometimes in absolute
terms and sometimes in relative terms. A particular colour is preferred or it
is never preferred over any other colour. A non-living thing of some colour
preferred over other colours reflects one’s choice and that particular thing is
blessed with inability to sense the feeling of rejection. Unfortunately, a
human can do so.
Is this bias towards a complexion
touched men and women equally? And is it spread them equally? Historically, women
have been the epitome of beauty for poets and writers. And when beauty has come
to be equated with complexion majorly, women were the ones to be impacted more directly
by the idea of ‘fair is lovely’. And men,
who have had more opportunities to choose, were also major players in promoting
a colour over another. Is this a natural preference by the majority or a
culturally induced one? Whatever be the case, a discrimination based on a
natural attribute needs to be widely debated and condemned.
By nature, we all might not be equal but are not unequal. Natural
inequality is inevitable because of each one’s uniqueness in skin colour,
height, weight, body shape, hair colour etc. But a social inequality which is
prejudiced needs to be questioned. This fair-is-lovely prejudice is a comparatively
latest one in explicit terms, though its roots are found in one form or the
other since the ancient times. The flourishing fairness creams market asserts
that it is more wide spread in India which is a society with a unique blend of
cultural, religious and other social stigmas.
Indian mythological texts are the
oldest culprits where fair skinned gods fight against dark skinned demons,
references to Aryans (fair skinned foreigners) Vs Dravidians (indigenous dark
skinned ones). These implicit references may have indirect impact on the
readers which created certain stereotypes. But the most explicit mention was of
the Varna system, where the society is divided into four classes – brahmins, kshatriyas,
vyshas and sudras. Though many thinkers say it is a system based on qualities
of each group, complexion of the skin as a major factor for discrimination cannot
totally be ruled out.
This caste-colour correlation was
further accentuated during the colonial rule. Fair skin was generally
associated with superiority, power and dominance and the dark skin represents
the inferiority and subordination. The concept of ‘white man’s burden’ justifies
colonialism on the basis of supposed responsibility of white people to govern
and impart their culture to non-whites. And
the fair skinned British women who were seen as symbols of beauty, became
motivation for the Indian women to try and lighten their skin tone.
In the post-colonial times, the idea
of fair-is-lovely continued with emerging fairness creams market. The famous
advertisement of fair and lovely, where the ambitions of an aspiring airhostess
or cricket commentator are hampered by her skin complexion, has two take away
points. One, usage of such creams will increase skin’s fairness and two, such
fairness will majorly help you achieve your goals in life. Both these appealed
immediately to young women, especially those aspiring for careers in fashion
and modelling. Bollywood has also been a compelling agent for the ‘fair’ cause
(More of ‘gore gore mukhde pe’ and less of ‘hum kale hain to kya hua’). Indian
cinema in many languages have always portrayed Lord Krishna as a fair skinned one,
though the texts say otherwise. On-screen flashing of ‘beauty’ is adding more
illusion in reality. Men are the new members to join the club with more
fairness creams for men flooding the market.
Is it an ugly, deadly form of
discrimination in the lines of racism, untouchability? Fortunately, except for
certain latent consequences, which are coming to light gradually,
fair-is-lovely is not institutionalized (as caste) yet to a greater non
correctable degree. It percolated into both professional and private lives. Professionally
– preference for fair skin people in tv shows, movies, news channels etc. In
private – matrimonial advertisements often look for fair skin people, wishing
for fair skinned children etc. The list goes on and the stories of agony of
both those who care and those do not care about fairness are many. When talent
is side lined for the want of something which people cannot actually change, (even
after using so many fairness creams), is unacceptable. You can teach people
etiquette, work culture, professionalism but how on earth can one change his or
her natural attributes.
This needs to be questioned at
every level, before the majority take it for granted and natural inequality so
naturally becomes the cause of other forms of inequality. If imitation is the
best form of flattery, fairness should not be emulated. And simultaneously one
should try and assert more in other ways possible because how much ever one may
condemn the fair-is-lovely principle, it is part of the reality. It should be
fought at the individual, familial, organisational levels. It doesn’t need a
revolution to bring in small changes. Like for instance, steps breaking the
tradition have been already taken by many individuals (Like Nandita Das), tv
channels in employing dusky skinned anchors, which is establishing the new
thinking of ‘not-fair-but-lovely’.
Drawing an analogy with caste
system – sanskritisation, a sociological concept refers to the imitation of
upper caste ways and traditions by the lower castes in order to attain higher
social status. But it is more or less obsolete now and replaced with assertion.
The assertion of lower castes for their own dignity and equality is a challenge
to the brahmanical system itself. The philosophy is simple, “love yourself for
what you are and not to please someone else’s social bias“.
Keeping all the reasons aside
people do aspire to look fairer as it appeals them. Though the creams do not
actually change their colour, they might be psychologically happy about it or
might be that they are just used to using the cream. There was a campaign
recently asking SRK not to advertise for men’s fairness creams. Not sure how far
this is a right approach. Are the people who have been using the creams for
years fools? Don’t they understand that it is of less use? Also, the percentage
of fair skinned people using such creams or any other cosmetic lotions would
also be significant. What does this mean? There is something more people look
for than fairness or it is purely psychological.
One more point to be thought of
is that – preference for a natural attribute doesn’t end with fairer skin. Tall
or average height, slim physique (for women), well-built body (for men) and the
list goes on. The reason for fair skin preference to be more wide spread and
more appealing among this list, is may be because of its cultural and
historical roots. It could also be that it sounds easily accomplishable to
attain a different colour of skin.
Nevertheless, this obsession for
fairer skin and its spill over into public sphere from private sphere is
definitely a cause for concern. All those who understand the issue should try
to bring in changes from within, whichever be the sector they are in. Who
knows, the sexy brownish look will be up for emulation over a period of time
just the way westerners prefer a tanned skin.
