#dnaEdit: An unfair deal

We Indians are racists — in more ways than one. We hanker after fair skin, destroy the self esteem of dark people, particularly women; make fun of Africans, treat ‘Others’ like North-Easterners with contempt. Once the grand euphemisms associated with the ancient Indian civilization fall apart, Indian society appears stark in its unhealthy obsession with fair skin and its supercilious — often vicious — disdain for ‘Others’. Relating to a host of parameters — the colour of skin, physical features and even cultural differences — the range and depth of our societal discrimination is truly mind boggling.

Our inexplicable craving for fair skin has engendered an expansive and lucrative market for all varieties of fairness cream. In 1975, Unilever introduced the ‘Fair and Lovely’ cream, quickly replicated by other companies which launched their own brands of fairness creams. Originally targeting women (lightening the skin tone is supposed to facilitate women in finding jobs and husbands), the hugely successful fairness cream industry later reached out to men as well. Emami launched the Fair and Handsome cream with Shah Rukh Khan as its brand ambassador in 2005. 

However the idea of fairness creams — or the attractiveness of fair skin — has also been actively contested in media. Its been argued that these fairness products are perpetuating a deep-seated racial and social prejudice. One that particularly and adversely impacts women. The fairness product companies which rake in huge profits have a vested interest in sustaining and perpetuating the relentless societal craving for fair skin. 

Against this background, a fresh set of guidelines recently laid down by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) for advertising fairness and skin-lightening products, is indeed a welcome development.

Significantly, an ineffectual advertisement code for fairness creams is already in place.

The latest guidelines prohibit the portrayal of dark-skinned people as unattractive, unhappy, depressed or concerned; or their being at any disadvantage — economically, socially and psychologically. But it’s still a matter of enormous doubt whether the guidelines, voluntary in nature, will be complied with by these companies. The guidelines are self regulatory and have no binding powers on the product manufacturers and advertisers. From past experience it may not be too cynical to suggest that such voluntary guidelines depending solely on the companies’ discretion are unlikely to change the prejudicial advertising culture.

After all, the market for fairness creams is predicated on little else other than selling a prejudice. The survival of the fairness cream industry depends on the survival of this prejudice.  

The question then is: what would it take to transform India’s aesthetic sensibilities? Campaigners against fairness creams have experimented with alternative messaging. They have used multiple creative forms to associate dark skin with notions of beauty, strength and success. The recent high profile ‘Dark is Beautiful’ campaign with Nandita Das as its face has attracted national and international attention. During the course of this campaign, women have shared their experiences of being slighted because of their skin colour. Das, who has starred in over 30 movies, has spoken about her own experience — how on numerous occasions — she has been asked to alter her dark skin. A ‘Dark is Beautiful’ petition against Emami, launched by Das, has picked up thousands of signatures in no time. 

In the end, fairness creams come on the back of a deep-seated prejudice. One cannot exist without the other. It can, therefore, only be incumbent upon the fairness cream companies to jettison a product which markets the mantra of discrimination and survives on it.