The Colonial History of Colourism Explored in BBC Documentary ‘Beauty and the Bleach’

Tan France, of ‘Queer Eye’ fame, delves into the skin-shade prejudice he experienced as a child in England and the colonial history at its roots.

In a recent BBC documentary, entitled Beauty and the Bleach, presenter Tan France (of Queer Eye fame) tackles the issue of colourism. Also known as pigmentocracy, colourism is defined as discrimination that privileges light-skinned people of colour over their darker-skinned peers.

France was born in Doncaster, South Yorkshire, to Pakistani immigrant parents. He says he had always assumed that colourism had “something to do with colonialism”. He also illustrates, with harrowing personal stories, how it comes from within one’s own community. “It’s our own people who are saying that we are not worthy,” he says. “We are not worthy unless we are light-skinned.”

As a system, colourism is deeply rooted in the violence of colonial history. The slave-owning colonial societies of the Caribbean and the United States sustained myths of white racial purity. Preferential treatment of lighter-skinned slaves and the “one drop rule” led to lighter skin shades being associated with status and respectability.

My research shows that colourism was also commodified during the late colonial period, by an imperially supported capitalist economy that racialised Indians. France rightly notes that the south Asian or brown experience cannot be conflated with the Black experience, not least because of the prevalence of anti-blackness within many South Asian communities.

However, both Black and south Asian people continue to grapple with the legacies of their colonial histories. They continue to experience racism too.

Rooted in colonial narratives

Historically, Indians and Europeans alike popularised perceptions of south Indians and lower castes as darker skinned. In the late 18th and 19th centuries orientalists held that Aryan peoples had displaced indigenous Dravidians across the Indian subcontinent, from around 2000 to 1600 BC.

Colonial thinkers distinguished between “strong pale Aryans” and small dark-skinned primitive Dravidians. Colonial ethnographer HH Risley further racialised Indians by codifying different castes ranging from “Dead Black” to “Flushed Ivory”.

These ideas fed into European civilisational ideas of superiority and progress, which were selectively adopted by other groups. Certain north Indian and Bengali Muslims, for instance, connected Persian and Afghan heritage to Aryan genealogies.

So although caste and connections to skin colour were not created by European thinkers, they were consolidated by the British colonial state. Groups from the northern regions of India, deemed lighter-skinned and stronger, were classified as martial races and recruited into the colonial army. Later, through the 1881 and 1901 censuses, racialised caste descriptions became a matter of public record. Across Indian society, fair skin continued to hold currency.

How skin lightening became a big industry

Long before Unilever launched its Fair and Lovely cream in 1971, European and US companies commodified skin lightening in colonial India. Early 20th-century marketing for soaps and creams, as well as skin-lighteners, promoted ideals of superior hygiene, femininity and whiteness to Indian consumers. Local Indian entrepreneurs capitalised on their popularity, connecting fairer skin to class mobility.

The idea that “lighter means beautiful” was also reinforced, from the turn of the 20th century, by commercial photography and cinema in both Hollywood and Bollywood. And when people from South Asia and the Caribbean migrated to the UK, these preferences for lighter skin were transported to post-war Britain.

This discrimination compounded the racism they experienced at the hands of white British communities. France recounts his childhood trauma of facing racism outside and colourism at home. In the 1970s and 1980s, in Black and south Asian communities in Britain, skin shade remained associated with the very real question of social mobility.

Voices of resistance

In colonial India, there was some pushback against colourism. Anti-caste thinkers including Jyotirao Phule and BR Ambedkar rejected ideas that endorsed Aryan and Brahman superiority. Opposition to colour-based prejudice could also be found in popular poetry as well as in debates in women’s periodicals.

In the US and in Britain, from the 1960s, Black power movements and anti-racist socialist organising embraced the Black is beautiful discourse. This idea resurfaced more recently, in 2017, in a campaign launched by the Indian non-governmental organisation, Women of Worth, entitled Dark is Beautiful.

In post-apartheid South Africa activists inspired by anti-colonial thinking have attempted to ban skin lighteners and their harmful ingredients. However, the use of these products remains complex.

Some people view skin-lighteners as a modern beauty choice. Along with new lightening technologies, including laser treatments and plastic surgery, these products remain hugely popular. Social media filters, meanwhile, continue to value lighter skin tones.

In 2020, Unilever announced it was replacing “fair” in its Fair & Lovely product range with “glow”. My research highlights how the choice of “glow” is reminiscent of early 20th-century advertising – products are simply rebranded to align them with a more contemporary stance.

Much of France’s documentary focuses on his sense of shame at having on two occasions – at 9 and 16 – bleached his skin. But it was a response to racism and seen as a “matter of survival”. Skin-lightening, for many, is still seen as a means of accessing the social capital needed to improve prospects, from better career opportunities to romantic relationships.

France dwells on the role community elders play in perpetuating this idea. Many south Asian women continue to share older advice about foods to eat or concoctions to make to improve skin colour and glow.

If these practices, like the discrimination at their root, have long been what singer Kelly Rowland describes in the documentary as the “said unsaid” within communities of colour, the historic resistance to them is finding new voices.

Across mainstream and social media, British Black and south Asian people are speaking out. As a second-generation British Pakistani woman, this is what I try to do too. France’s documentary stands as a poignant challenge to speak openly about these painful truths.

Mobeen Hussain, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Trinity College Dublin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why the Fair & Lovely Rebrand is Too Little, Too Late

Fair & Lovely’s messaging over the years has always perpetuated skin colour as a measure of a woman’s worth. That damage will not be undone so easily.

A few days ago, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) announced that it would drop the word ‘fair’ from its popular fairness cream product, Fair & Lovely. The company also stated that it would diversify the skin tones it represents and its skin care line would “reflect the new vision of beauty”.

The move comes 40 years after the product was launched. For all those years, Fair & Lovely made money exploiting India’s obsession with fair skin.

It took a worldwide movement against systemic racism and outrage against hypocritical brands to bring about the change. Various petitions, campaigns, years of activism and movements like ‘Dark is Beautiful’ and #UnfairandLovely – it seems none of that was enough to spark a conscious rebranding.

Nevertheless, it’s a huge win for global activism that a corporate giant like HUL decided to make this move – some steps in the right direction are better than none. Yet, we must ask ourselves how much we ought to ‘celebrate’ such a move.

The legacy of Fair & Lovely is not simply linked to its name, but the product itself and what it stands for. The brand’s equation of being fair with being lovely will not go away with a simple rebrand. A rebrand will not change the product’s formulation of melanin suppressants. Those who want to buy the product will continue to buy it.

But let’s not forget that many of these buyers believe they need these products because Fair & Lovely and society told them they did.

Sunny Jain, the president of beauty and personal care at HUL, stated that words ‘fair’, ‘white’ and ‘light’ suggest a singular ideal of beauty. However, that is not the only message that the product line propagates.

Fair & Lovely’s messaging has always perpetuated skin colour as a measure of a woman’s worth. Its advertisements over the years have heavily implied that being fair unlocks unbounded professional success and male attention. HUL sold the cream by selling this ideal, targeting young girls who had most likely never consciously paid attention to their skin colour till then. They also perpetuated the notion of fair privilege, which has existed in Indian society for centuries.


Also read: ‘You Are Not Alone’: Letter to My 10-Year-Old Self


That’s not to mention the years of trauma that products like Fair & Lovely have caused. Many girls with darker skin tones are made to understand at a young age that their skin colour is an affliction, an object of scrutiny and pity for anyone they come across.

“Don’t go outside to play, you’ll tan.”
“Don’t wear this colour, don’t wear this kind of makeup, it won’t suit you.”
“She’s pretty, but she’s so dark.”
“Have you tried ‘xyz’ fairness product, home remedy, Ayurverdic solution?”

For us, this seemingly innocuous tube of cream came to represent the material effects of fair privilege, as loved ones gifted it to us under the guise of care and concern.

The rebranding, therefore, is tokenistic because HUL is merely indulging in some damage control after a vociferous backlash from people across the world. It’s not like HUL has had a sudden realisation that such a change was needed. Over the last few years, we have seen how the the product’s messaging pivoted from ‘fairer’ skin to ‘glowing’ skin. In fact, last year, the company finally removed before-and-after images and shade cards from its packaging.

Many other brands have products that use similar words to fly under the radar. Words like ‘radiance’, ‘spotless’, and ‘bright’ make their way into ads. Dark skin is replaced with ‘dull’ skin. However, the template remains the same: the commercials feature before and after clips with a visibly lightened face and noticeably happier model. The association of fairer skin and happiness is thus reinforced time and time again.

In India, the obsession with fair skin is a systemic problem. Colourism is undoubtedly related with class and caste-based discrimination, and false notions of purity and dirt. It’s also inextricably linked to India’s status as a postcolonial nation. The stigma around darker skin is much older than the advent of Fair & Lovely. At the same time, fairness products like it promoted and profited off such stereotypes, instead of using their platform to disseminate progressive ideas and inclusivity. The problem with the brand recall is that the damage has already been done and sustained.

HUL could have learned from Johnson & Johnson, which retracted two of its skin whitening products sold in India. Notably, those two product lines made up less than 1% of their global beauty sales last year. It is, admittedly, a drop in the ocean as the global skin lightening industry could be worth $31.2 billion by 2024. However, Johnson & Johnson must be commended for setting the right precedent.

So why didn’t HUL consider even a reformulation, if not an entire recall of the Fair & Lovely line?

The answer is: Fair & Lovely is a moneymaker.

Fair and Lovely holds around 50 to 70% of the skin whitening market in India. Last year, sales of the product brought in more than $500 million. Rebranding allows the brand to lap up brownie points for being more progressive and inclusive, while continuing to sell the product and profiting off of young girls’ insecurities. Not to mention all the free positive publicity that comes with the announcement to change the name.

HUL’s move to change the name of its flagship fairness product must be called out for what it is – just not enough. Do better, HUL. You owe it to the thousands of young girls and women who have felt inadequate because of your product.

Nishtha Jaiswal is pursuing masters in media and cultural studies at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Featured image credit: Reuters

Amidst Anti-Colourist Movement, Hindustan Unilever Drops ‘Fair’ in ‘Fair & Lovely’

The Black Lives Matter movement has led to a resurgence of conversations about India’s role in promulgating colourism within its own borders.

New Delhi: Hindustan Unilever (HUL) announced on Thursday that it will be rebranding its flagship brand ‘Fair & Lovely’ by terminating the use of the word ‘Fair’. According to a press release, the new name of the HUL product line is “awaiting regulatory approvals” and should be changed in the next few months.

On June 19, Johnson & Johnson had also announced that it would stop selling its ‘Clean and Clear Fairness’ line of products in India, among other skin-whitening products sold in Asia.

This move comes in the wake of the ongoing anti-racism and anti-colourism movement in the United States and across the globe — the Black Lives Matter movement. The movement has led to a resurgence of conversations about India’s role in promulgating colourism within its own borders.

HUL claims that it has been an advocate for women’s empowerment over the past decade. The company cites a shift toward using words like “glow, even tone, skin clarity and radiance” instead of “fairness, whiteness and skin lightening” to advertise their products as an example of its commitment “to celebrating all skin tones”.

HUL’s ‘Fair & Lovely’ cream was launched in 1978. Since then, several products claiming to “brighten the skin” such as those by L’Oréal, Garnier and Emami have saturated the Indian market. They have been endorsed by many mainstream Hindi cinema actors such as Deepika Padukone, Katrina Kaif, Sonam Kapoor and Shahrukh Khan.

Celebrities such as Priyanka Chopra Jonas have been criticised for their performative social media activism in support of the BLM movement while endorsing these colourist products.

Celebrities, nationally and globally, like Kajol, Sridevi and Mindy Kaling, have been accused of undergoing skin-lightening surgery to appeal to the demands of their industry and audiences.

Also read: Skin Lightening Is a Dangerous Obsession – and One Worth Billions

The normalisation of fair skin via Bollywood and regional Indian cinema has resulted in an almost national preference for lighter skin in other streams of life such as matrimony. Following a petition signed by more than 1,600 individuals, India’s popular matrimonial site, shaadi.com, removed the colour filter on its website overnight, calling it a “blindspot”.

However, India’s battle with colourism runs deeper than the mechanics of a capitalist fairness cream industry. In a news report by Al Jazeera, former Lok Sabha MP Udit Raj said, “Colour prejudice is an offshoot of the bigger evil of casteism in India.” Lighter skin has been historically equated to an indicator of power, wealth and caste privilege in India.

Also read: The Indian Hatred for Dark Skin Comes From Caste Bias

Unilever, HUL’s holding company, has previously been under fire for their environmentally unethical practices in Kodaikanal, exposed by rapper Sofia Ashraf through a 2015 viral video titled “Kodaikanal Won’t”. The multinational corporation agreed to a settlement with its workers the next year only to be accused of “environmental racism” in 2018 via a sequel viral video.

Also read: Watch | In ‘Kodaikanal Still Won’t’, Artists Call Out Unilever’s ‘Environmental Racism’

HUL was also criticised by the Advertising Standards Council of India of misleading advertising to promote its ‘Fair and Lovely’ and ‘Lifebuoy’ products. Its 2007 television advertisement featuring Saif Ali Khan, Neha Dhupia and Priyanka Chopra was highly criticised for its promotion of colourism.

More recently, India’s casual dismissal of the engrained societal colour prejudice was highlighted by former West Indies cricket captain Darren Sammy. Sammy expressed his disappointment with his cricket colleagues for addressing him by a racial slur under the garb of affection.

What followed Sammy’s public appeal to his former teammates led to a nationwide campaign of gaslighting the victim of racism. Several civilians came to the defence of India’s colourism in the comments, telling Sammy that the slur was used “as a joke”, claiming that he had “misunderstood” his teammates.

Ayushi Agarwal is a student at Emory University and an intern at The Wire. She tweets at @ayushiag.

For How Long Will Indians Hold on to Their Obsession With Fair Skin?

India is one of the few cultures where a race that is itself predominantly shades of brown places a high premium on being a different colour.

“World is not fair but you U-B fair,” says the full page ad in my morning newspaper. It is promoting yet another fairness cream with the slogan: “Ab Star Dikhega….”

Meanwhile, my car mechanic, no beauty himself, sneers, “She’s so fat and dark, who will marry her?” about a young customer.

I am a medium beige colour. Somewhere in the middle of the Indian skin colour range. A Marie biscuit rather than the peaches-and-cream of Himachal and Kashmir, or the milky coffee of South India.

I am calm about this – not pining to be fairer, nor a consumer of whitening creams. But I can’t help being aware that a large number of my fellow Indians, both male and female, are totally obsessed with the colour of their skin and even more so with that of their children’s prospective partners. This preoccupation is illustrated daily in the matrimonial ads – yards of fine print stress the importance of being precisely that right shade of fair.

I was on a trip to north Bihar in the 1980s, immediately after the earthquake and floods. The village houses were deep in water, and everyone was frantically shifting goods, goats and cattle to higher ground. People’s lives were in actual danger. Nevertheless, two elderly ladies, wrinkled and toothless, took me aside, water lapping round our thighs, and asked me what I did to remain fair. The granddaughter of one was reaching a marriageable age and would have more suitors if she had a lighter complexion.

More recently, my goddaughter Urvashi’s mother asked if we would house a young village boy from Madhya Pradesh for a couple of months in exchange for a little sweeping and dusting. He needed a quiet place with electricity to study for his Class 12 exams. He came to Delhi accompanied by Sunil, one of the older family domestic workers. As we settled him in, wide-eyed and nervy on his first visit to the city, Sunil recounted how the boy had spent the whole night on the train applying Fair & Lovely cream every half an hour, hoping for a transformational miracle. To him, fair skin was a prerequisite for success in the capital. I see this ubiquitous Fair & Lovely tube, by no means an insignificant cost, in so many village homes – even those that still use a twig instead of toothpaste, recycled rags instead of sanitary napkins.

At the other end of the social spectrum, one of my most beautiful friends recently went back to her ancestral home in Andhra to see her 90-year-old uncle, who was dying. Bedridden, in semi-coma, he peered up, focusing blearily on this niece he had not seen for 20-odd years – poised, elegant, at the peak of her career and stunningly good looking. “Oh dear,” he said in a quavering voice, “I’d forgotten how dark you were.”

Where did this extraordinary complex come from? The manager at my bank says people don’t want to be security guards because being outdoors darkens their skin. It appears comparatively recent. In early miniatures of maharajas and their maharanis, there seems to be no effort to portray themselves as fair. And even in early photographs of royalty (in Pramod Kumar K.G.’s book Posing for Posterity: Royal Indian Portraits, for instance) there are not any noticeably very fair wives, which would have surely been the case if fair was considered a perquisite of beauty at the time. In fact, in the 13th century, Marco Polo mentions in his travelogue The Travel (translated by R. Latham and published by Penguin in 1958), “For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than others who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and their idols black and their devils white as snow.”

From Shahrukh Khan singing “Yeh kaali kaali ankhein, ye gore gore gaal” in Baazigar to “White white face dekhe, dilwaa beating fast…” in Tashan, countless popular songs celebrate fair skin. A (very fair) flight attendant once told me that their airline had a policy only to employ fair hostesses as cabin crew; it was okay if ground staff were dark.

How did this happen? India is one of the few cultures where a race that is itself predominantly shades of brown places a high premium on being a different colour. Normally, people regard what is not akin to themselves as comic or ugly. The Japanese poked huge fun (‘like raw pigs’ was their unflattering epithet) at the strange reddish colour, straw-like hair and long noses of the first Westerners they encountered. Only in India, dusky ourselves, do we pass judgment on others a shade or two darker. We abuse and beat up African students who dare try to date Indian girls – just because of their colour.

Can we blame this, as we do so many of India’s ills, on the British? A huge colonial chip on our shoulders, brought on by our pinky-grey conquerors? It’s true that the Brits were fond of describing races by colour – as “black”, “yellow” or “red” – and that they were obviously not only colour-blind and confused about nomenclature, but thought their own self-styled “white” was top of the pops. But do we need to mindlessly adopt these same prejudices?

It is sad that over 70 years after we threw off their colonial shackles, such demeaning brainwashing survives. I switched my service station after the mechanic’s appalling comment, but how do we change these attitudes? The only thing whose whiteness we should worry about is the Taj Mahal, rapidly turning a dingy yellow-green. Meanwhile there are suggestions from so-called nationalists to bulldoze this Mughal relic. Perhaps we could demolish our crazy Raj colour hangover instead?

Laila Tyabji is the founder member and chairperson of Dastkar, an NGO working for the revival of traditional crafts in India.

Dark Skin of its Earliest Inhabitants is Challenging the Way Britain Thinks of Race

The finding challenges the assumption that Britishers were always pale-skinned and that later events like colonisation led to the influx of dark-skinned populations.

A new discovery overturns the assumption that Britishers were always pale-skinned and that later events like colonisation led to the influx of dark-skinned populations.

Cheddar Man's facial reconstruction. Credit: Channel 4

Cheddar Man’s facial reconstruction. Credit: Channel 4

Cheddar Man, a 10,000-year-old Mesolithic hunter-gatherer, has provided the first clues to the appearance of humans of those times. His skeleton, first discovered in 1903 in Gough’s Cave in Somerset, is the oldest complete skeleton to have been found in England.

New research conducted by scientists at the National History Museum and University College, London, on Cheddar Man’s DNA using pioneering genetic sequencing methods has revealed he was dark-skinned, had curly hair and blue eyes. They attribute this discovery to a “stroke of luck” by which they found scraps of DNA in his ear, reports The Telegraph.

The pigmentation genes extracted from Cheddar Man’s DNA were discovered to be most similar to residents of sub-Saharan Africa, implying that he and other early Britons were dark-skinned. Bio-archaeologist Tom Booth said that Cheddar Man may be one person but is “also indicative of the population of Europe at the time. They had dark skin and most of them had pale coloured eyes, either blue or green, and dark brown hair.”

These findings overturn common assumptions that the stereotypic Britisher is fair-skinned. Further, research has shown that fair skin may have come up as late as only 6,000 years ago.

Such findings are rare because of the fragility of the DNA molecule. Selina Brace, who worked closely on Cheddar Man, explains that the cool conditions in Gough’s Cave along with the presence of natural mineral deposits helped preserve his DNA.

According to her, the best places to look for DNA are usually inside dense bones that can protect the DNA from the elements. Cheddar Man’s DNA was found inside his inner ear bone, the petrous, which is the densest bone in the human body.

Cheddar Man belonged to a group of hunter-gatherers who had migrated out of Africa, through the Middle East to Britain through continental Europe and over the now-flooded land bridge, Doggerland, that connected the two, per The Guardian.

A conservator examines the complete skeleton of Cheddar Man before it went on display at the Natural History Museum, UK. Credit: NHM UK

A conservator examines the complete skeleton of Cheddar Man before it went on display at the Natural History Museum, UK. Credit: NHM UK

According to Booth, these hunter-gatherers were “hunting game as well as gathering seeds and nuts and living quite complex lives.” Their diet may have included seeds and nuts as well as game like red deer and aurochs, according to the Natural History Museum.

Similar to Europeans at that time, Cheddar Man was also lactose intolerant. “Cheddar Man existed before farming had spread to Britain. By looking, we can tell he would have been unable to digest raw milk”, Booth told the Washington Post.

Multiple occupations of Britain via the Doggerland land-bridge had failed but the population at Cheddar Man’s time succeeded and contributed their DNA to future populations. A subsequent analysis revealed that “modern-day Britishers share upto 10% of their genetic ancestry with the European population that the Cheddar Man belonged to” but “are not direct descendants.”

These findings challenge the assumption that Britishers were always pale-skinned and that later events like colonisation led to the influx of dark-skinned populations and the view that these ‘outsiders’ moved in and settled in ‘their’ country, Dan Jones of CNN wrote.

Yoan Dieckmann, a researcher from University College, London, said, “The historical perspective that you get just tells you that things change, things are in flux, and what may seem as a cemented truth that people who feel British should have white skin, through time is not at all something that is an immutable truth.”

As Aarathi Prasad, a biologist at University College, wrote in The Guardian, “The societal and historical message we intercepted and deciphered as children was that white skin was the prerequisite” for a British identity. But now that we know more about Cheddar Man and his skin colour based on scientific investigations instead of assumptions founded on personal preferences, Prasad said, now might be the time to remember that “skin colour has never been a sound proxy for ‘race’, nor for nationality”.

Skin Lightening Is a Dangerous Obsession – and One Worth Billions

Millions of people across the world want to make their skin lighter – but the treatments they use can be dangerous.

Millions of people across the world want to make their skin lighter – but the treatments they use can be dangerous.

© Xavier Mas

© Xavier Mas

“It starts when children are young. The moment a child is born, relatives start comparing siblings’ skin colour. It starts in your own family. But people don’t want to talk about it.”

Kavitha Emmanuel is the founder of Women of Worth, an Indian NGO that is standing up to an ingrained bias toward lighter skin. The Dark is Beautiful campaign, launched in 2009, is not “anti-white,” she explains, but about inclusivity – beauty beyond colour. It carries celebrity endorsement, most notably the Bollywood actor Nandita Das. A blog provides a forum for people to share their personal stories of skin colour bias. And the campaign runs media literacy workshops and advocacy programmes in schools to convey messages of self-esteem and self-worth to young children. This is to counteract what Emmanuel says she has seen even in school textbooks, where a picture of a fair-skinned girl is labelled “beautiful” and a darker one “ugly”.

“Some children are really shocked that this is something that has affected them so intensely. Some are in tears,” Emmanuel says.

The perfect life from perfect skin, a life that’s only bestowed upon those of the right shade – that’s the message, the attitude, the mindset that’s being passed down. It’s spawned a multibillion-dollar industry encompassing not just cosmetic creams but invasive procedures such as skin bleaching, chemical peels, laser treatments, steroid cocktails, “whitening” pills and intravenous injections – all with varying effectiveness and health risks. It’s more than a bias, it’s a cultural obsession, and one that’s becoming dangerous.

Multinational cosmetics brands have found a lucrative market: global spending on skin lightening is projected to triple to $31.2 billion by 2024, according to a report released in June 2017 by the research firm Global Industry Analysts.

The driving force, they say, is “the still rampant darker skin stigma and rigid cultural perception that correlates lighter skin tone with beauty and personal success”.

“This is not bias. This is racism,” says Sunil Bhatia, a professor of human development at Connecticut College. Bhatia has recently written in US News & World Report about “deep-rooted internalized racism and social hierarchies based on skin color”.

In India, these were codified in the caste system, the ancient Hindu classification in which birth determined occupation and social stratum. At the top, Brahmins were priests and intellectuals. At the bottom, outcasts were confined to the least-desired jobs, such as latrine cleaners. Bhatia says caste may have been to do with more than occupation: the darker you looked, the lower your place in the social hierarchy.

This preference for fair skin was perpetuated and strongly reinforced by colonialism, not just in India but in dozens of countries where a European power established its dominance. It’s the idea that the ruler is fair-skinned, says Emmanuel. “All around the world, it was a fact that the rich could stay indoors versus the poor who worked outside and were dark-skinned.”

The final wave of influence is modern-day globalisation. “There is an interesting whiteness travelling from the US to malls [in other countries] featuring white models,” Bhatia tells me. “You can trace a line from colonialism, post-colonialism and globalisation.” Western beauty ideals, including fair skin, predominate worldwide. And with these ideals come products to service them.

In Nigeria, 77% of the country’s women use skin-lightening agents, compared with 59% in Togo and 27% in Senegal. But the largest and fastest-growing markets are in the Asia-Pacific region.

© Xavier Mas

© Xavier Mas

In India, a typical supermarket will have a wall of personal care products featuring “whitening” moisturiser or “lightening” body creams from recognisable brands.

Pooja Kannan, a 27 year old from Mumbai, spent years buying cosmetics that promised to lighten her complexion. For a while she put her faith in a cream, face wash and soap for treating “skin fairness problems”. She used the products sparingly, since buying new ones still cost her 200–300 rupees every two months – equivalent to a week’s worth of travel to her college campus. Over four years of use, she tells me, her skin did lighten up a little, though she wonders whether that was due to the cream or her taking more care when going out in the sun.

Kannan’s natural skin tone looks a healthy light brown to me, but when she was growing up, her elder aunts would shake their heads in disappointment over her complexion. A tan would lead some relatives and classmates to admonish her. “You’ve turned black,” they said. And in India, where skin tone often defines a person’s success in society and their ability to find work or a spouse, that sort of thing matters. Kannan says she brushed off her relatives’ criticism as being from a different generation, but her classmates’ comments made her feel insecure.

“It didn’t affect me right then but when I was getting dressed up to go out, I would remember what they said and put on more make-up,” she says. “Especially when I was in 11th and 12th grades, there were two or three girls who would say these things a lot. They were trying to be helpful but to me it sounded condescending. And it was hypocritical too because it wasn’t like they were fair or beautiful or perfect themselves.”

Society reminded Kannan of it too. She is a professional dancer, and says, “The prettier, skinnier and fairer girls are positioned at the front of the stage. That gets to you.”

This preference for fair skin is reinforced in movies, television programmes and especially advertising. In 2016, actor Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame) had to issue a statement saying she would no longer endorse products which “do not always reflect the diverse beauty of all women” after criticisms of her earlier appearance in ads in Asia for Lancôme’s Blanc Expert line, used for skin lightening. (In a statement, Lancôme emphasised the product’s ‘evening’ rather than lightening properties, saying that it “helps brighten, evens skin tone, and provides a healthy-looking complexion. This kind of product, proposed by every brand, is an essential part of Asian women’s beauty routines.”)

The Advertising Standards Council of India has attempted to address skin-based discrimination in 2014 by banning ads depicting people with darker skin as inferior, but the products are still marketed. Ads for skin-lightening creams still appear in newspapers, on television and on billboards, featuring Bollywood celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone. In multiple Facebook posts in April 2017, actor Abhay Deol called out several of his colleagues for endorsing fairness creams, following it up with an opinion piece in the Hindustan Times in which he wrote that “advertising preaches that we would get a better job, a happier marriage, and more beautiful children if we were fair. We are conditioned to believe that life would have been easier had we been born fairer.”

Skin lightening is not the sole preserve of the modern cosmetics industry.

India’s traditional Ayurveda medical system teaches that pregnant women can improve their fetus’s complexion by drinking saffron-laced milk and eating oranges, fennel seeds and coconut pieces. In early 2017, an Ayurvedic practitioner in Kolkata led a session for expectant couples, promising that even dark-skinned, short parents could have tall and fair children.

And a 2012 study by a women’s health charity in India found that childless couples often insisted on and paid more for surrogates who were beautiful and fair, though the woman contributed no genetic material to the baby.

© Xavier Mas

© Xavier Mas

Arguably, nowhere is the fair skin preference as ingrained as in classified ads placed in newspapers seeking a marriage partner. Along with requirements for the prospective bride’s or groom’s caste, religion, profession and education, physical characteristics are listed too. Someone described as “dusky” may be skipped in favour of one who is of a “fair” complexion.

In April 2017, the Times of India media group placed its own notice exhorting parents to emphasise a daughter’s profession and educational qualifications ahead of whether she was “fair”.

“Potential brides spend a lot of money, it’s really unlimited, in the months before the wedding,” says Ema Trinidad, a Filipina beautician who runs a spa in Bengaluru. “I was so surprised when I came here that your chances of getting married depend on your skin colour. We don’t have that in the Philippines.”

The mindset is so normalised that people accept treatments as a part of wedding preparations – men as well as women. When Karthik Panchapakesan got married in 2001, he was intrigued by ads for a “complete makeover” and decided to try it out before his wedding reception, along with his brother-in-law.

“I had never gone to a salon before,” says Panchapakesan, a 50-year-old media specialist working in community radio. They went to an unnamed salon in Hyderabad where, he told me, “The massage felt really good. Then they put this fruity and flowery white paste all over my forehead, cheeks, nose and chin. They promised it would even out my skin.”

Panchapakesan says his eyes started burning after about five minutes and he got an irritation around his nose because the sweet smell turned to acrid fumes. He suspected it was based on ammonia.

“It was more chemical than horseradish,” he says. “I didn’t know what it is because they were pumping it out of toothpaste-like tubes. I say, ‘I’m not liking this.’ They say it will rejuvenate the skin and kept it on for 20 minutes.”

When it was all done, the two men’s faces looked as if they had been dusted with talcum powder. When they arrived at Panchapakesan’s wedding reception, his wife asked him, “Why are you both looking so strange and funny? What have you done to yourselves?” He says, “It was not a transformation, it was a deformation.”

To cool the burning sensation and moisturise his dry skin, he applied coconut oil as a healing balm for three days. He has sworn off beauty parlours ever since.

Bleaching is a common treatment that lightens not the skin itself but the fine hairs on the face. Most skin-lightening treatments target the skin’s ability to produce pigment, or melanin, which gives your skin, hair and eyes their colour. Everyone has about the same number of cells to make melanin but how much you actually produce is down to your genes. Darker-skinned people produce more. When exposed to the sun, the body produces more melanin to absorb harmful UV rays and protect skin cells. And having more natural melanin also means that darker-skinned people tend to develop fewer wrinkles and are less at risk of skin cancer.

Skin-lightening creams often aim to interrupt the production of melanin or just improve the general health of the skin. They can contain a natural ingredient such as soy, liquorice or arbutin, sometimes combined with the medical lightening agent hydroquinone (though not all creams contain this – hydroquinone is a potentially carcinogenic ingredient and products containing it are banned or restricted in Ghana, South Africa, Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Australia and the European Union, though they are still used illegally). Vitamin B3 is another common ingredient, but another previously found in lightening creams and soaps is mercury, the World Health Organization has warned. Mercury suppresses the production of melanin but it can also damage the kidneys and brain if it is absorbed by the skin and accumulates in the body.

Other lightening methods include a chemical peel, which removes the top layer of your skin. This leaves fresher skin exposed to harmful solar radiation and environmental pollutants. Laser treatments offer an even more aggressive approach by breaking up a skin’s pigmentation, sometimes with skin-damaging results.

Dr Mukta Sachdev, a clinical and aesthetic dermatologist in Bengaluru, recalls two cases of Indian men who came to her after undergoing laser treatments while working in South Korea. They were each in their late 20s and getting ready for marriages. One man developed redness on his face and the other had little white dots – “confetti-like” depigmentation. Sachdev suspects the technicians in South Korea weren’t used to working with darker skin. “You need to use less aggressive settings when doing laser. It’s very hard when losing pigmentation,” she says. She was able to treat the redness, but the white patches remained despite her efforts to stimulate the pigment to return.

Many prospective patients come to her seeking skin lightening, but before offering them any treatment she counsels them to think less about light and dark and more about evenly toned, healthy skin. “I’m trying to get away from this fairness obsession,” she explains. “Being hung up on dark skin can lead to low self-esteem and lower on the quality of life index.”

“There’s a pressure on Indian men and women, among themselves,” says Dr Sujata Chandrappa, a Bengaluru-based dermatologist. “They have some role model in their head and they want to get there no matter what. That’s the wrong concept.” Chandrappa says clients often come in wanting the skin tone of a favourite Bollywood celebrity.

“If your obsession is just with colour, then I would outright tell them that I’m more worried that you’re unnecessarily seeking something you don’t need,” she tells me. “If I encourage them too much, I get the sense that I’m promoting racism.”

Shannah Mendiola spends Rs 3,200 a month on skin-lightening supplements – a lot by local standards, but Mendiola has a well-paying job with a multinational company. Originally from the Philippines, but now working in Bengaluru, Mendiola says she has been taking the pills for the last five years, not just for lighter skin but for their antioxidant properties.

“I like going to the beach and I feel really dark after a holiday,” she tells me by email. “I would always prefer to buy and use skincare products that contain skin-whitening ingredients – like my body lotion, face wash and moisturizer. In the Philippines, it’s always a plus if you are fair.”

Mendiola describes herself as morena – not too fair and not too dark – and says that her skin returns to its natural colour faster when she uses the pills. “Having an even skin tone that’s healthy and glowing gives me more self-confidence when I meet people for work. Why not? Don’t we all want to look good?”

The pills she takes are glutathione, an antioxidant naturally produced by the liver that can protect the skin from UV rays and free radicals, which contribute to skin damage and pigmentation.

A more direct form of treatment is glutathione injections. These are commonly used to counteract the side-effects of chemotherapy, such as nausea, hair loss or difficulty breathing, but their growing popularity for skin lightening has led to official concern.

In 2011 the Philippine Food and Drug Administration issued a public warning about an “alarming increase in the unapproved use of glutathione administered intravenously,” reporting on adverse effects which included skin rashes, thyroid and kidney dysfunction, and even potentially fatal Stevens–Johnson syndrome, in which the skin peels from the body as if burned.

And in 2015 the US Food and Drug Administration warned of the potentially significant safety risk to consumers: “You’re essentially injecting an unknown substance into your body – you don’t know what it contains or how it was made.”

Nevertheless, there is growing consumer demand. Mendiola has taken two treatments of injectable glutathione but mostly relies on pills.

Dr Mukta Sachdev refuses to administer the injections despite repeated requests from her patients – “I practise on evidence-based dermatology and there’s not enough literature supporting the use of injectable glutathione.” Worryingly, there are YouTube videos showing how to self-inject glutathione.

Dr Sujata Chandrappa does administer glutathione injections. She says she has seen no side-effects so far, but is nonetheless wary, always starting with the lowest possible dose. I ask if it really works. She tells me of a woman who dreaded injections but whose yearning for lighter skin overrode her fear. Three months after the injections, her entire body was about two shades lighter and any dark spots had lessened. It lasted for a year. Chandrappa says the woman is considering repeating the procedure.

“From a medical perspective, it is not possible to lighten skin permanently, but you can even it out,” Sachdev tells me. In fact, many of Sachdev’s and Chandrappa’s patients are actually people seeking treatment for problems with other skin-lightening procedures – primarily the use of topical steroid creams.

India’s pharmaceutical regulator has approved at least 18 different corticosteroids for topical skin use, ranging from mild to super-potent. These usually cost less than $2 a tube and most pharmacies across the country will dispense them, even without a prescription.

People apply them indiscriminately to treat pimples or for fairer skin, but steroid creams take off the protective outer layer of the skin so it is more exposed to UV rays and environmental pollutants such as smog and cigarette smoke. But more worrying is that they can be addictive, says Dr Shyamanta Barua, a dermatologist and honorary secretary general of the Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists.

“The moment the patient stops using the cream, the skin reacts, gets irritated, develops rashes,” he says. “So the patient starts the cream again and it’s a vicious cycle. They become psychologically addicted.” He thinks users should be counselled as if they were addicted to recreational drugs or alcohol.

The dermatologists’ association is lobbying for topical steroid skin medications to be added to the Schedule H list, which would restrict their availability in pharmacies by requiring a doctor’s prescription. They met with the Drug Controller General of India in March 2017, though Dr Shyam B Verma, the dermatologist who heads these efforts, seems pessimistic as to whether any action would be forthcoming. “These products are just a minuscule part of the overall drug industry so it’s not a priority,” he tells me.

“[Pharmacies] dispense them like boxes of cookies. The drug companies know this is a drug and it’s not supposed to be used to lighten constitutive skin. But they label them with suggestive names like Skin Bright, Skin Light, Skin Shine, Look Bright.”

Furthermore, only around 35% of pharmacies have a legitimate pharmacist on staff, so there is often no one to counsel the buyer on appropriate dosage and use of the cream.

Even worse, there are signs that improper steroid prescriptions – often in cocktails containing a mix of steroids, antibiotics and antifungals – may be fuelling a surge in bugs resistant to normal treatments. An editorial in the dermatologists’ association’s online journal last year says, “Today, we are facing an onslaught of chronic and recurrent dermatophytosis [fungal infections] in volumes never encountered previously. Over the last 3-4 years, the frequency of such cases has increased alarmingly.”

Dr Rajetha Damisetty, a cosmetic dermatologist based in the southern city of Hyderabad, tells me of one combination containing clobetasol – the most potent steroid known to man, which is used to treat inflammatory skin conditions like eczema – mixed with two antibiotics and two antifungals. “Only India has this crazy combination,” Damisetty says, and the result is a “nightmare”.

Normally, she says, “around 70–90% of those affected by fungal infections would have used topical steroids for treatment and they would respond within two weeks. Now we have to give four times the dosage for eight to 12 weeks. It’s an epidemic across the entire country.”

The dermatologists’ association is trying to educate physicians, especially general practitioners who indiscriminately prescribe steroid creams, about proper prescriptions. They are also engaging with pharmaceutical companies, which has borne some fruit – in April 2017, one company distributed flyers to 50,000 pharmacies warning: “Steroids are potentially harmful. Do not use without a prescription.”

But they’re fighting more than just bad medical practice or even consumer habits. They’re fighting millennia-old preferences for lighter skin. Erasing those will require a change of mindset. This is perhaps easier to do in the young – after all, social signals about the value of fair skin begin as soon as they are born.

Kavitha Emmanuel believes that people are more aware of the issue than ever before and hopes that the next generation will see things differently – not just in India but across the world. In 2016, three students at the University of Texas, Austin, started an Instagram campaign called Unfair & Lovely – a play on India’s most popular fairness cream, Fair & Lovely. The #unfairandlovely hashtag invited darker-skinned people to share their photos. And in 2013, a young woman in Pakistan, Fatima Lodhi, launched the country’s first anti-colourism movement, called Dark is Divine. Lodhi has written about the prejudice she faced as a child: “I never got a chance to become a fairy in my school plays because fairies are supposed to be fair-skinned!” Now, she leads sessions at schools to make students more aware about skin colour discrimination.

Attitudes are already starting to change, some say, especially among girls, who are gaining confidence with education, employment and financial independence outside the home. Emmanuel tells me of one Dark is Beautiful session at an all-girls middle school in the southern Indian city of Chennai last January. A dark-skinned teen – “stunningly beautiful but with deep self-esteem issues” – came up front. She was weeping because just that morning her brother had taunted her about her skin tone. But Emmanuel was more surprised when another, lighter-skinned, girl stood up. She said she’d believed dark was ugly until that moment, but apologised to her classmates with a promise to treat them better. “They all started clapping,” Emmanuel says. “That’s a big move for a teenager. She really had the bigness of heart to say something like that.”

But activists fear the market for skin-lightening treatments will endure as long as they are available. Beautician Ema Trinidad recalls one woman who came to her spa. Her fiancé had lighter skin and her future in-laws wanted her to be lighter before their wedding. “I felt sorry for her. She wasn’t really dark, she just had very dry skin, so I gave her a moisturising treatment,” Trinidad says. She advises clients about which products and treatments are effective and safe, but adds, “I cannot judge that it’s bad that you want to be white. My job… is to give you what you want.”

Kavitha Emmanuel is the founder of Women of Worth.

This article first appeared on Mosaic and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.

As India’s Love for Light Skin Continues, Some Younger Women are Pushing Back

Aranya Johar’s Brown Girl’s Guide to Beauty, a spoken-word poem containing lines like “Forget snow-white/say hello to chocolate brown/I’ll write my own fairy-tale” went viral, reaching 1.5 million viewers in its first day alone.

Aranya Johar’s Brown Girl’s Guide to Beauty, a spoken-word poem containing lines like “Forget snow-white/say hello to chocolate brown/I’ll write my own fairy-tale” went viral, reaching 1.5 million viewers in its first day alone.

Fair and lovely

In India, a light complexion is associated with power, status and beauty, fuelling an innovative and growing market of skin-bleaching products. Credit: Adam Jones/Flickr CC BY-SA via The Conversation

From Sunday classified ads touting the marriageability of an “MBA graduate. 5-½ ft. English medium. Fair complexion” to elderly aunties advising young women to apply saffron paste to “maintain your skin whiter and smoother”, the signs are everywhere.

Even sentiments like, “She got lucky he married her despite her [dark] complexion” are still whispered around India in 2017.

Younger generations are now starting to push back. On July 7, 18-year-old Aranya Johar published her Brown Girl’s Guide to Beauty on Youtube. The video, a spoken-word poem containing lines like “Forget snow-white/say hello to chocolate brown/I’ll write my own fairy-tale” went viral, reaching 1.5 million viewers around the world in its first day alone.

Johar’s candid slam came just before Bollywood actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui used Twitter to indict the Indian film industry’s racist culture. His post recalled the vehement pushback of actress Tannishtha Chatterjee, who was was bullied for her skin tone on live TV in 2016.

Though many Indians still feign ignorance about social discrimination based on skin colour, the country’s obsession with whiteness can also be violent. In recent years, fear of black and brown skin has also spurred harassment and attacks on African students living in India.

The bleaching syndrome 

But why do Indians so hate their own colour? History offers some answers.

Throughout medieval and modern history, the Indian subcontinent has been on the radar of various European settlers and traders, including, from the 15th to 17th centuries, the Portuguese, Dutch and French. The subcontinent was invaded and partly ruled by the Mughals in the 16th century, and colonised by the British from the 17th century onwards until independence in 1947. All these foreign “visitors” were of relatively fair complexion and many claimed to be superior.

Being subject to a succession of white(ish) overlords has long associated light skin with power, status and desirability among Indians. Today, the contempt for brown skin is embraced by both the ruling class and lower castes, and reinforced daily by beauty magazine covers that feature almost exclusively Caucasian, often foreign, models.

It’s been the dark man’s burden in this majority-non-white nation to desire a westernised concept of beauty, and post-colonial activism has not been able to change this.

According to a study we conducted from 2013 to 2016, 70% of the 300 women and men we interviewed reported wanting a date or partner with someone who had light skin. This colourism is what pushes so many Indians to lighten their skin, creating a phenomenon termed “bleaching syndrome”.

Bleaching syndrome is not a superficial fashion, it’s a strategy of assimilating a superior identity that reflects a deep-set belief that fair skin is better, more powerful, prettier. And it’s not limited to India; skin bleaching is also common in the rest of Asia and in Africa.

A thriving bleaching market 

An inventive and growing market of creams and salves has cropped up to fill this demand, which now pulls in over $400 million annually.

Some of the most widely-sold products include Fem, Lotus, Fair and Lovely and its gendered-equivalent Fair and Handsome. Most of these appealingly named creams are in fact a dangerous cocktail of steroids, hydroquinone, and tretinoin, the long-term use of which can lead to health concerns like permanent pigmentation, skin cancer, liver damage and mercury poisoning among other things.

Various skin-lightening products are found across India and online, no prescription or restrictions required. Credit: Neha Mishra via the Conversation

Nonetheless, a 2014 marketing study found that almost 90% of Indian girls cite skin lightening as a “high need”. These young women are willing to overlook the after-effects of bleaching, and the advent of online sales allows them to use these products in the privacy of their own homes.

Initially focused on feminine beauty, the fairness creams market now also caters to Indian men. Products marketed to men promise to fight sweat, give them fairer underarms and attract women.

And Bollywood megastars with huge followings, including Shahrukh Khan and John Abraham, regularly endorse and promote skin bleaches.

Bleaching backlash 

The brand Clean and Dry took bleaching to new levels in 2012, when it began heavily advertising for a new wash to lighten the vagina.

This time, women had had enough. In 2013, the activist group Women of Worth launched their Dark is Beautiful campaign, which was endorsed by actress Nandita Sen.

With other feminist groups, the women compelled the Advertising Standards Council of India to issue guidelines in 2014 stating that “ads should not reinforce negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin colour” or “portray people with darker skin [as]…inferior, or unsuccessful in any aspect of life particularly in relation to being attractive to the opposite sex”.

This guidance is in keeping with the Indian constitution, which provides for equality for all (article 14) and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (article 15).

Unfortunately, the law can do little to stop the subtler forms of racism and bigotry present in Indian society. And, to date, that vagina bleaching product is still on the market.

The “bleaching syndrome” goes far beyond skin colour, with Indian women also questioning their hair texture and colour, speech, marital choices and dress style, raising real concerns about female self-esteem.

As Aranya Johar rhymed on Youtube, “With the hope of being able someday to love another/let’s begin by being our own first lovers”.

Neha Mishra, Assistant Professor of Law, Reva University of Bangalore and Ronald Hall, Professor of Social Work, Michigan State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article