Disclaimers (I will keep repeating these):
- I am not a Shah Rukh Khan fan. I never was. I had tried to be one, but he has almost always managed to let me down.
- I do not, I repeat, do not think that it's unfair to mark the fair as the only fair option to find fair justice in this unfair world.
- I had a very, very microscopic crush on Nandita Das when I saw her earlier movies. She can act, she can direct, and she has got those amazing canines. Then Chitrangada Singh happened.
- My father does not own Emami.
- Fardeen Khan has quit acting and has moved to Dubai.
- Fardeen Khan has quit acting and has moved to Dubai.
***
This is about a petition called Dark is Beautiful. In case you're too lazy to read it, the petition reads:
Sign our petition urging Emami to take down their discriminatory advertisement for the product called FAIR AND HANDSOME where brand ambassador Shah Rukh Khan tosses a tube of fairness cream to a young fan, whose skin grows whiter, smile brightens and hopes rise. The message: Fair skin is a prerequisite for success.
Before I proceed, this is (in all probability) the commercial in question (though there are similar ones - just do a YouTube search with Fair and Handsome):
It basically says what most commercials say: use my product, and you will gain immediate success. Since it's a cosmetic product aimed towards men, the consumer is bound to be successful with women.
This, I guess, is the basis of advertising. What, then, is the hullabaloo all about? Haven't we all seen similar commercials from Axe? If you have a good memory you will probably remember the 1990s Camay commercial involving Mahima Chaudhary, the woman with the loudest voice in the history of Bollywood.
"Khaas hai aaj ka din; naram mulayam mujhe bana do, Camay."
It sounded extremely cheesy, but more importantly (well, almost), it emphasised on a specific point: Camay provides one with soft, smooth skin. The same holds for the 73,124,983,217 Lux commercials (one of which even involved Shah Rukh Khan and his skin).
You will also remember a boy meeting his neighbour and addressing her as 'auntie'; the poor woman then keeps on hearing echoes of the word 'auntie' inside her brain, and eventually dyes her hair (possibly with Godrej, possibly not). She wins the battle, and is being called 'didi' henceforth (though her husband is now addressed as 'uncle').
It sounded extremely cheesy, but more importantly (well, almost), it emphasised on a specific point: Camay provides one with soft, smooth skin. The same holds for the 73,124,983,217 Lux commercials (one of which even involved Shah Rukh Khan and his skin).
You will also remember a boy meeting his neighbour and addressing her as 'auntie'; the poor woman then keeps on hearing echoes of the word 'auntie' inside her brain, and eventually dyes her hair (possibly with Godrej, possibly not). She wins the battle, and is being called 'didi' henceforth (though her husband is now addressed as 'uncle').
I haven't made my point yet.
Which I will now.
In the next paragraph.
What we are doing is - we are calling commercials that promote good looks 'distasteful' and 'discriminatory', while we have been absolutely fine with commercials promoting a fragrant body and a soft skin. Worse, we do not say a word when it's a commercial promoting cosmetics like peel-off masks (you know the kind; women use a kind of coating that makes them look like Jaadu from Krrish, only to emerge as a beauty queen afterwards), but it is this one specific concept that we're basically shouting against.
Is that justified? (I almost asked 'is this fair?')
***
Disclaimers (I will keep repeating these):
- I am not a Shah Rukh Khan fan. I never was. I had tried to be one, but he has almost always managed to let me down.
- I do not, I repeat, do not think that it's unfair to mark the fair as the only fair option to find fair justice in this unfair world.
- I had a very, very microscopic crush on Nandita Das when I saw her earlier movies. She can act, she can direct, and she has got those amazing canines. Then Chitrangada Singh happened.
- My father does not own Emami.
- Sanjay Khan is still trying is luck in Bollywood for some mysterious reason.
***
See what I mean? Commercials promoting beauty products are not a recent thing. They are probably as old a concept as AK Hangal. Check for yourself.
 |
| Courtesy: Arka Paul. Here is proof that it's not Photoshopped. |
I really cannot see what is wrong with that, given that girls pouncing on you (uttering bnaao-chiki-wnaao-wnaao or something equivalent) if you spray Axe is perfectly acceptable. A more cheesier version are the collection of Set Wet commercials, where a girl whispers "very very sexy" in the corniest of tones after being seduced by the fragrance.
I find this terribly weird. Does this mean that in body odour is a perfectly acceptable parameter to judge people while complexion isn't? To put things more simply, is "I don't like you because you're dark" different from "I don't like you because you smell like a camel who has been chewing raw garlic for the past three days?"
Both are subjective. Both are parameters that appeal or repel exactly one sense organ, and do not have any impact on the others. Why this discrimination, then?
The problem lies elsewhere: as many people have rightly pointed out, way before the petition came into place, we Indians have a problem with fair complexion. That is definitely a real problem. I have no objection to that.
***
Disclaimers (I will keep repeating these):
- I am not a Shah Rukh Khan fan. I never was. I had tried to be one, but he has almost always managed to let me down.
- I do not, I repeat, do not think that it's unfair to mark the fair as the only fair option to find fair justice in this unfair world.
- I had a very, very microscopic crush on Nandita Das when I saw her earlier movies. She can act, she can direct, and she has got those amazing canines. Then Chitrangada Singh happened.
- My father does not own Emami.
- Feroz Khan is dead.
***
1. Body odour is more difficult to tolerate: This is an entirely subjective topic. I do not believe body odour is seen as an intolerable aspect among people who need to sweat it out to earn money.
2. Fair complexion is not an obsession worldwide: it is an Indian concept: Really? Ever heard of the Ku Klux Klan? More importantly, ever heard of South Africa? Or when a Trinidad-born Caucasian went out of his way to stop Ranjitsinhji to stop playing for England? Remember I cannot remember a person being murdered or being deprived of rights in India because of skin complexion.
3. Dark women find it more difficult to acquire a groom: Why bother marrying a person who tries to marry your complexion in the first place? I guess not everyone - especially in the parts of India we never visit but share Facebook posts about - has the privilege of choice. I agree this is where the discrimination against complexion becomes a serious issue, what with soaring dowry rates and all.
BUT.
This petition is not against the commercial with the most irritating tagline in the history of the Universe, which goes by "Fair and Lovely istemaal to main kar rahi hoon. Asar? Inpe ho raha hai." You'll seldom come across a strangle-worthier tone or line.
Or this commercial - one that no one remembers. It promotes the same issue. However, since it involves
THE COMMERCIAL IN QUESTION IS FOR A FAIRNESS CREAM FOR MEN. While men are rumoured to be obsessed about fair-complexioned females, the converse is seldom heard. Of course, I'm sure there are exceptions: I'm sure that some marriage proposal has been turned down somewhere in the course of Indian history because the groom did not have fair complexion.
But that would probably have been an exception. The surprising bit about the Dark is Beautiful campaign is the fact that they have targetted a fairness cream commercial for men - to the extent that they want to take it down.
To quote them: Dark is Beautiful is an awareness campaign that seeks to draw attention to the unjust effects of skin colour bias and also celebrates the beauty and diversity of all skin tones.
This is a statement that I vehemently oppose. The ideal campaign should probably read something on the lines of Beauty is Overrated is an awareness campaign that seeks to draw attention to the unjust effects of beauty.
Till that happens, I am not signing the petition.
I do think that the bias is wrong. However, I do not see anything wrong with Emami's intents. They have seen a demand, they have tried to bank on it, they have roped in Shah Rukh Khan, and given a chance they will convert us into a country full of Tom Alters and Bob Christos.
Other than the last part I don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not about the complexion. It's about the entire concept about looking better - an aspect that is really as useful in this world as a nice perfume: you have a temporary soothing or sensuous (even overwhelming at times) feeling, but it passes.
Unless we're discussing Madhuri Dixit, of course (yes, I can be a hypocrite at times).
It's not about skin tone. It's about the entire concept of beauty. It's not about fair women getting an
Let us not bash poor Emami and Shah Rukh Khan. Let us go after the concept instead - which, let us accept, is a worldwide thing.
Unfortunately, that is something that will never change. I hope it did, though.
***
Disclaimers (I will keep repeating these):
- I am not a Shah Rukh Khan fan. I never was. I had tried to be one, but he has almost always managed to let me down.
- I do not, I repeat, do not think that it's unfair to mark the fair as the only fair option to find fair justice in this unfair world.
- I had a very, very microscopic crush on Nandita Das when I saw her earlier movies. She can act, she can direct, and she has got those amazing canines. Then Chitrangada Singh happened.
- My father does not own Emami.
- I am completely clueless about Sanjay Khan's current activities.
- I am completely clueless about Sanjay Khan's current activities.
***
Which brings me to the point of Nandita Das. To begin with she had impressed me in Fire, and she had taken my breath away with Earth. Though she acted sporadically ever since, her screen presence was unmissable, and her aura that combined sensuousness and intelligence left one hanging.
She did not vanish altogether: I actually kept a track, and remember her cameos in Rockford, Aks, or Kannathil Muthamittal quite vividly. She was instrumental in making the poorly Bawander (albeit made with a good intent) happen, and pitted against Shabana yet again, she pulled off a commendable performance in a small role in Hari-Bhari, a must-watch Shyam Benegal masterpiece.
To crown it all, she pulled off a superbly controlled, exactly-what-the-doctor-ordered performance in Shubho Mahurat, where she decided to hold herself back, always allowing her elder colleagues to take centrestage and never letting her ego dominate the movie.
Thereafter she generally faded out; whatever movies she acted in never reached the Kolkata theatres, or even if they did, they managed to acquire only poorly marketed 2 PM shows. By then Chitrangada Singh and Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi had happened to me, so I had moved on.
Then she directed Firaaq, once again a supreme example of restrained emotions: it was a brilliant movie; seldom has any director managed not to go over the brink in a movie built around a riot. Manirathnam certainly didn't manage that in Bombay, and even Rahul Dholakia could not achieve it in his masterpiece, Parzania.
Why is she so relevant now?
I was intrigued when I got to know that she actually supported the Dark is Beautiful campaign. The first two things that crossed my mind were
1. What's the big deal? She's dark and she's breathtakingly beautiful (check the picture on her Wikipedia page for proof), so she will support Dark is Beautiful.
2. Why is her support so huge a thing? Is she that special? She
I looked up her website (and got to know crucial facts that she is a BA in Geography and an MA in Social Sciences); and browsed on. There was a terribly outdated (and useless) CV available for download as well. Then, after some serious search, I found the relevant bit:
She has been on the jury of Cannes Film Festival twice (2005 and 2013), among others. The French Government conferred her with the Knight of the Order of Arts and Letters (Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres), their prestigious civilian award. In 2011 Nandita Das was the first Indian to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of the International Women’s Forum.
That's profound. And I didn't even know all this. I felt a bit embarrassed (and turned to check whether anyone was noticing my embarrassment). But there was nothing on Dark is Beautiful. Which wasn't very surprising given that she has not updated her CV in five or so years.
So I searched, and came across this interview. The Guardian, no less. She has made some rather strong comments, and The Guardian has provided with data to back her up. I kept on wondering how Bipasha Basu existed in the industry, though, and that too so successfully. Two sentences, however, caught my attention.
Last year, Indians reportedly consumed 233 tonnes of skin-whitening products, spending more money on them than on Coca-Cola.
I had absolutely no idea whether this was good news or bad news. First, I do not consider myself an authority on how much skin-whitening products a country should produce. Secondly, I'm still not sure how Coca-Cola is a better value-for-money commodity than a fairness cream.
Important note: An adult elephant weighs six to eight tonnes.
Anyway, that was a piece of information, and I'm sure there are knowledgeable people to whom they mean something. It wasn't an opinion.
The intriguing part was Ms Das' quote:
Shah Rukh Khan is saying that to be successful you have to be fair. Don't these people have any kind of conscience? You can't be naive; you know what kind of impact you have and yet you send out the message that says: "Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour".
First things first: I did a Google on "Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour". Did he actually say that? He may have done Jab Tak Hai Jaan, but he's certainly not a moron!
Nope. No result till the fifth page. Everything leads to Nandita's interview.
"Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour" -Nandita now (you know what that does, don't you?).
Nope. Only references to her interview.
Maybe we can still give her the benefit of doubt. Shah Rukh may have said something similar, possibly in one of those ridiculous commercials.
COME ON, MS DAS (I almost wrote MS DOS, by the way)!
DO YOU REALLY THINK A LINE SAID IN A COMMERCIAL MEANS ANYTHING?
I know the Tendulkar fan in me will react here: Tendulkar knew he was a role-model for children, and had made a blanket announcement that he will never endorse a tobacco or alcohol product.
But for every Tendulkar, isn't there a Dhoni and a Gambhir (and a Shah Rukh and a Saif) wondering whether they have made it large?
They do not mean the words. Sunny Deol does not think Lux Cozi is great. Virender Sehwag does not care for cement. Akshay Kumar does not think that Ruf-N-Tuff Jeans (remember them?) are either rough or tough. Chetan Bhagat did not use shaadi.com. Virat Kohli does not want to woo Tamanna.
Most importantly, Yami Gautam does not, in all probability, think very highly of Fair and Lovely.
Why single out poor Shah Rukh, then? If anything, this is a more heinous commercial:
This is probably the worst commercial if you're looking for morality. It tells you how
1. Fair and Lovely can get you a job; and
2. Getting a job is the only aspect that can make a woman an equal to a man; and
3. To take your parents out to an expensive restaurant is a parameter for success.
***
Despite commercials like these she has singled out Shah Rukh and Fair and Handsome. Worse, she is blaming Shah Rukh for it.
Why is Shah Rukh saying all this? Because he is being paid for it. For the same reason that he acted as an antagonist in Anjaam and murdered Madhuri's husband to win her over (an intention that had never crossed my mind).
It is a role, Ms Das. Shah Rukh Khan played a role in a small 30-second movie, that is all. Blaming him is the same as blaming Amjad Khan for cutting off Sanjeev Kumar's hands or Kulbhushan for feeding men to pet crocodiles.
As for Emami, as I have stated above, all they have really wanted to do is make money by selling a product that is as harmful to the nation as deodorants are.
We have seen worse from Dabur - something I have felt was actually unethical.
Remember this Revital commercial? It was there for a long time, and had gone viral on television after Yuvraj had become the Man of the Series in World Cup 2011. You could not have missed it.
Then, suddenly, Yuvraj was diagnosed with cancer. What did Dabur do? They made us unlearn the fact that a cancer patient had been portrayed as a Revital user. They replaced him with, well, ...
The incident went largely unnoticed, mostly because (a) it was terrible, and (b) it was a 20-second commercial. I did notice the new 'brand ambassador', and tried to enlighten a few people that it was unethical.
I was told that it was business.
If that was business, then why is Emami doing anything unethical? They're simply saying that if you apply Fair and Handsome will lead to flocks of girls chanting "hi handsome, hi handsome" and running after you.
That's not unethical. Ridiculous, yes; hilarious, yes; moronic, yes; so-bad-that-it's-good, yes; but not unethical. If it's unethical, then all products promising to make you physically attractive are. Especially Axe.
***
I am sorry, Dark is Beautiful. I really do not see a reason why that particular advertisement needs to be taken off, when a group of similar ones will continue to exist.
I am sorry, Ms Das. I really do not see how this commercial makes Shah Rukh naive (though I must say it makes him look terribly dumb).
***
PS: Make a comeback, madam. Please. It's been ages.
Which brings me to the point of Nandita Das. To begin with she had impressed me in Fire, and she had taken my breath away with Earth. Though she acted sporadically ever since, her screen presence was unmissable, and her aura that combined sensuousness and intelligence left one hanging.
She did not vanish altogether: I actually kept a track, and remember her cameos in Rockford, Aks, or Kannathil Muthamittal quite vividly. She was instrumental in making the poorly Bawander (albeit made with a good intent) happen, and pitted against Shabana yet again, she pulled off a commendable performance in a small role in Hari-Bhari, a must-watch Shyam Benegal masterpiece.
To crown it all, she pulled off a superbly controlled, exactly-what-the-doctor-ordered performance in Shubho Mahurat, where she decided to hold herself back, always allowing her elder colleagues to take centrestage and never letting her ego dominate the movie.
Thereafter she generally faded out; whatever movies she acted in never reached the Kolkata theatres, or even if they did, they managed to acquire only poorly marketed 2 PM shows. By then Chitrangada Singh and Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi had happened to me, so I had moved on.
Then she directed Firaaq, once again a supreme example of restrained emotions: it was a brilliant movie; seldom has any director managed not to go over the brink in a movie built around a riot. Manirathnam certainly didn't manage that in Bombay, and even Rahul Dholakia could not achieve it in his masterpiece, Parzania.
Why is she so relevant now?
I was intrigued when I got to know that she actually supported the Dark is Beautiful campaign. The first two things that crossed my mind were
1. What's the big deal? She's dark and she's breathtakingly beautiful (check the picture on her Wikipedia page for proof), so she will support Dark is Beautiful.
2. Why is her support so huge a thing? Is she that special? She
I looked up her website (and got to know crucial facts that she is a BA in Geography and an MA in Social Sciences); and browsed on. There was a terribly outdated (and useless) CV available for download as well. Then, after some serious search, I found the relevant bit:
She has been on the jury of Cannes Film Festival twice (2005 and 2013), among others. The French Government conferred her with the Knight of the Order of Arts and Letters (Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Arts et des Lettres), their prestigious civilian award. In 2011 Nandita Das was the first Indian to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of the International Women’s Forum.
That's profound. And I didn't even know all this. I felt a bit embarrassed (and turned to check whether anyone was noticing my embarrassment). But there was nothing on Dark is Beautiful. Which wasn't very surprising given that she has not updated her CV in five or so years.
So I searched, and came across this interview. The Guardian, no less. She has made some rather strong comments, and The Guardian has provided with data to back her up. I kept on wondering how Bipasha Basu existed in the industry, though, and that too so successfully. Two sentences, however, caught my attention.
Last year, Indians reportedly consumed 233 tonnes of skin-whitening products, spending more money on them than on Coca-Cola.
I had absolutely no idea whether this was good news or bad news. First, I do not consider myself an authority on how much skin-whitening products a country should produce. Secondly, I'm still not sure how Coca-Cola is a better value-for-money commodity than a fairness cream.
Important note: An adult elephant weighs six to eight tonnes.
Anyway, that was a piece of information, and I'm sure there are knowledgeable people to whom they mean something. It wasn't an opinion.
The intriguing part was Ms Das' quote:
Shah Rukh Khan is saying that to be successful you have to be fair. Don't these people have any kind of conscience? You can't be naive; you know what kind of impact you have and yet you send out the message that says: "Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour".
First things first: I did a Google on "Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour". Did he actually say that? He may have done Jab Tak Hai Jaan, but he's certainly not a moron!
Nope. No result till the fifth page. Everything leads to Nandita's interview.
"Forget about working hard, it's about skin colour" -Nandita now (you know what that does, don't you?).
Nope. Only references to her interview.
Maybe we can still give her the benefit of doubt. Shah Rukh may have said something similar, possibly in one of those ridiculous commercials.
COME ON, MS DAS (I almost wrote MS DOS, by the way)!
DO YOU REALLY THINK A LINE SAID IN A COMMERCIAL MEANS ANYTHING?
I know the Tendulkar fan in me will react here: Tendulkar knew he was a role-model for children, and had made a blanket announcement that he will never endorse a tobacco or alcohol product.
But for every Tendulkar, isn't there a Dhoni and a Gambhir (and a Shah Rukh and a Saif) wondering whether they have made it large?
They do not mean the words. Sunny Deol does not think Lux Cozi is great. Virender Sehwag does not care for cement. Akshay Kumar does not think that Ruf-N-Tuff Jeans (remember them?) are either rough or tough. Chetan Bhagat did not use shaadi.com. Virat Kohli does not want to woo Tamanna.
Most importantly, Yami Gautam does not, in all probability, think very highly of Fair and Lovely.
Why single out poor Shah Rukh, then? If anything, this is a more heinous commercial:
This is probably the worst commercial if you're looking for morality. It tells you how
1. Fair and Lovely can get you a job; and
2. Getting a job is the only aspect that can make a woman an equal to a man; and
3. To take your parents out to an expensive restaurant is a parameter for success.
***
Disclaimers (I will keep repeating these):
- I am not a Shah Rukh Khan fan. I never was. I had tried to be one, but he has almost always managed to let me down.
- I do not, I repeat, do not think that it's unfair to mark the fair as the only fair option to find fair justice in this unfair world.
- I had a very, very microscopic crush on Nandita Das when I saw her earlier movies. She can act, she can direct, and she has got those amazing canines. Then Chitrangada Singh happened.
- My father does not own Emami.
- Mumtaz has not objected to Fardeen Khan's shift to Dubai.
Why is Shah Rukh saying all this? Because he is being paid for it. For the same reason that he acted as an antagonist in Anjaam and murdered Madhuri's husband to win her over (an intention that had never crossed my mind).
It is a role, Ms Das. Shah Rukh Khan played a role in a small 30-second movie, that is all. Blaming him is the same as blaming Amjad Khan for cutting off Sanjeev Kumar's hands or Kulbhushan for feeding men to pet crocodiles.
As for Emami, as I have stated above, all they have really wanted to do is make money by selling a product that is as harmful to the nation as deodorants are.
We have seen worse from Dabur - something I have felt was actually unethical.
Remember this Revital commercial? It was there for a long time, and had gone viral on television after Yuvraj had become the Man of the Series in World Cup 2011. You could not have missed it.
Then, suddenly, Yuvraj was diagnosed with cancer. What did Dabur do? They made us unlearn the fact that a cancer patient had been portrayed as a Revital user. They replaced him with, well, ...
The incident went largely unnoticed, mostly because (a) it was terrible, and (b) it was a 20-second commercial. I did notice the new 'brand ambassador', and tried to enlighten a few people that it was unethical.
I was told that it was business.
If that was business, then why is Emami doing anything unethical? They're simply saying that if you apply Fair and Handsome will lead to flocks of girls chanting "hi handsome, hi handsome" and running after you.
That's not unethical. Ridiculous, yes; hilarious, yes; moronic, yes; so-bad-that-it's-good, yes; but not unethical. If it's unethical, then all products promising to make you physically attractive are. Especially Axe.
***
I am sorry, Dark is Beautiful. I really do not see a reason why that particular advertisement needs to be taken off, when a group of similar ones will continue to exist.
I am sorry, Ms Das. I really do not see how this commercial makes Shah Rukh naive (though I must say it makes him look terribly dumb).
***
PS: Make a comeback, madam. Please. It's been ages.
