Not Fair, Yet Lovely?

“Kitna kaala ho gaya hai! [You’ve become so dark!]” As a kid coming home for the holidays every year, I frequently heard these exclamations of simultaneous pity and surprise from friends and family alike, followed by sagacious advice to avoid walking directly in sunlight. Fortunately, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) offered an easy alternative to avoiding sunlight forever: Fair & Lovely. “Fair & Lovely’s skin-lightening technology is known to be the best in the world! However, this hasn’t stopped the brand from innovating further to pioneer the development of cutting-edge fairness solutions.” The television and internet advertisements were ubiquitous- women with before and after pictures showing staggering progress and visibly lighter skin. Unhappy, unattractive faces seamlessly transformed into beautiful, smiling, white ones. All in a matter of weeks. Needless to say, I owned a tube or two of these magic lotions, but they always had to be applied in secret, because they were marketed for women even though the desire for lighter skin transcended gender boundaries.

Source: Google Images

Of course, we did not have to wait long for the markets to deliver a product oriented to men’s needs. In 2005, Emami introduced Fair & Handsome, “a handsome way to fight oil, sweat and dirt,” which obviously meant that men sneaking Fair & Lovely creams could come out of the shadows and purchase these products with confidence. The stigma was over! What I failed to understand at the time was that ‘oil, sweat and dirt’ were also couched synonyms for blackness, and the conversation we needed to have was being overshadowed by successful marketing.

To be fair, the criticism leveled against the relentless marketing of fairness creams and the exploitation of age old class and caste norms is not new. We all know fairness is equated with beauty and confidence in India, and HUL and Emami have simply profited off our desire for a lighter complexion. The proliferation of fairness creams is only a symptom of the larger problem- our discomfort with blackness, which has a much longer history. Some blame the British for leaving behind a legacy of favoring whiteness and equating it with power, but preference for lighter complexions predates even the British. In the 15th century for instance, Russian merchant Afanasy Nikitin traveled to modern-day Maharashtra and observed that:

“In the land of India, it is the custom for foreign traders to stop at inns; there the food is cooked for the guests by the landlady, who also makes the bed and sleeps with the stranger. Women that know you willingly concede their favours, for they like white men.” (Source: Voyage to India)

Historically, India has been home to a series of dynasties and considerable foreign influence. It is difficult to ascertain precisely when lighter skin became preferable, and the confluence of skin color, caste and class is difficult to disentangle. References to ancient Hindu religion and mythology however, indicate a different reverence and norm for beauty. Lord Krishna and Draupadi, for instance, are both depicted with dark skin, and yet they epitomize beauty and attraction in ancient Hindu culture.

Modern-day culture, on the other hand, is rife with fair skinned role models and celebrities which indicate an altered aesthetic preference. Age-old caste, class and beauty norms ingrained in our psyche will not be overcome easily. However, if more actors, sports celebrities, and other role models actively follow in Kangana Ranaut’s footsteps and speak out against the discriminatory and exploitative nature of the fairness cream industry, perhaps we can make some headway in prompting a national conversation about this issue. Men, in particular, need to stand with women who have boldly spoken out against this social evil, because most of the advocacy against these creams comes from women who are quickly written off as angry feminists. #MalePrivilege. If we can use social media and television in a savvy manner to portray dark skin as a symbol of beauty and pride, we may be able to shift the social consciousness around this ingrained norm that we take for granted. We have gone from a time when select creams would target consumers with their skin-lightening potential to an era where you would be hard pressed to find beauty products without some kind of skin-whitening agent.  As my roommate once observed, more households had access to brand name fairness creams than medications in the underserved area where he worked. Whether it be avoiding sunlight or applying fairness creams in copious amounts, perhaps it is finally time to shed these short-term and superficial attempts to escape our entrenched class and caste norms and embrace our bodies as they are.  


Like what you read? Make sure to follow my blog and view previous entries here!


The Evolving Consciousness of the American Mind

“Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.” This was the opening phrase in a very popular piece featured in The Atlantic last year called “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Lukianoff and Haidt argue that students are increasingly developing a habit to catastrophize and they would be better served if they learned to question their own emotional reactions rather than view everything as a micro aggression and engage in what the authors term “vindictive protectiveness.”

The claim that colleges have become hyper sensitive hubs for political correctness is not a new one, and is espoused by everyone from actors to politicians to my own college classmates. However, the rapid dismissal of any form of reprehension as an exercise of political correctness is misguided. While the need for dialogue on college campuses is important, the need to promote broader understanding of the experiences of the historically silenced is equally paramount.


Source: Google Images

The term “microaggression” was coined by Chester Pierce in 1970 to call out the dismissals non-black Americans inflict on African Americans, and was later extended to other marginalized groups. As a recent graduate myself, I wish the term did not need to be used, but it is unfortunately all too appropriate as these transgressions are far too commonplace by students and faculty at institutions of higher learning. While the examples provided in the article are extreme, they do not adequately represent the experiences of students who live it on a daily basis. By focusing on the most extreme examples, the authors label this movement to be more cognizant of the ways in which we, unintentionally or intentionally, minimize the contributions and experiences of historically silenced students as “simpleminded demonizing.” They fail to acknowledge the stark daily realities of some students: 1) the experience of raising a point in a class discussion, only to be ignored and have the same point validated by someone else, 2) the experience of receiving an A on a paper with the words “Is this your work or is it borrowed from somewhere else? Either way, great work!” inscribed next to the grade, as if to temper the experience of a surprising success, or 3) the experience of having a guest speaker come into a class and ask for a round of introductions (with a joking request to mention names and IDs without discussing past felonies), while making eye contact with the lone black male student in the class. These are real examples that serve as a daily reminder that some students do not belong. They may stem from genuine ignorance or an attempt at “lighthearted” humor, but they leave an indelible mark.

These transgressions are a symbol of the power exercised by some groups over others, both historically and at present. When we discuss the harmful impacts of structural power, be it racism, sexism, ableism, or the like, we often discuss examples of blatant transgressions. Examples of this rhetoric abound in Republican front runner Donald Trump’s speeches. Systemic racism however, can be less obvious, more pervasive, and even more damaging. Micro aggressions are one small attempt at acknowledging this exercise of power, which is pervasive, insidiously permeating every aspect of one’s life.

Students are not looking to be coddled. They are looking for an appropriate forum to openly name and discuss these experiences- one would think an institution of higher learning would be the natural place for such a discussion. Universities cannot simply focus on increasing enrollment of underrepresented minorities and other disadvantaged groups- that is simply half the battle. When a student does make it through the gates of the ivory tower, they often do not receive the necessary support they need. Instead, they navigate the foreign space themselves, exposed to symbolic reminders and intentional or unintentional slights by peers or faculty that perpetuate the notion that they do not belong. It is not enough to simply get them through the door- we must do more. The authors claim that student peers and teachers at colleges are increasingly feeling more vulnerable and reticent to voice their opinions. They use this as a justification to belittle the importance of calling out micro aggressions or issuing trigger warnings where appropriate. Such an argument comes from a position of immense privilege and lack of understanding. In reality, the practice of choosing our words more wisely and being more attentive to which groups of people we are addressing is representative of an evolution of consciousness, more than an exercise in political correctness or a form of coddling. Your free speech rights are not being curtailed by any individual or institution- rather, the social mores are changing. When we prioritize the discomfort of the students who feel their speech is being policed by social norms, we cast aside the repeated experiences of students who bear the brunt of structural systems that are racist, sexist, or ableist every single day.

No doubt, the solution is not as simple as disqualifying a person from speaking on campus purely due to their past record. However, if we reiterate the importance of having conversations, we must also ensure that the burden of discussing and educating others on these issues does not fall solely on those who experience it every single day. We must ensure that they are adequately supported and that their experiences are acknowledged and validated. We must ensure that there are indeed anonymous portals to report these transgressions and have well-trained staff or faculty members to lead a conversation around these issues. We must recognize that refusing to call out micro aggressions explicitly in the spirit of developing thicker skin is not an exercise in neutrality or a form of cognitive therapy, but a choice in itself to further entrench deep-seated attitudes in structural systems of power. We must remember that for every Donald Trump at the helm of a ship, there are ten others willing to perpetuate institutions of power, including in higher education, and remind marginalized students of their rightful place in society.


Source: Google Images

Let us be clear: there is no question that individuals have the right to express themselves freely, without fear of any retribution. Free speech is a core tenet of American democracy. However, the argument that we need to protect professors and students who increasingly feel uncomfortable expressing themselves due to a hyper sensitive college culture is highly problematic and flawed. It prioritizes the discomfort of some in privileged positions of power over the daily marginalization of others. Let us strive to be better. Let us openly acknowledge the damaging transgressions against historically silenced students (as well as staff or faculty members) that constantly echo the fact that some voices are more deserving than others. Let us follow the tide of an evolving consciousness in students across universities and move toward a more meaningful definition of inclusion.