Not fair. Can be still lovely?

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.