Via the News Tab, mutineer Dari points us at FT coverage of Shah Rukh Khan’s ad for Fair and Handsome skin cream –
Shah Rukh Khan, Bollywood’s biggest star and corporate India’s most ubiquitous brand ambassador, is coming under pressure to abandon his controversial endorsement of a men’s skin-lightening cream.
Strong enough for a wheatish woman but made for a man…
Television commercials for Fair and Handsome, airing in August, show Mr Khan (or “SRK”) lauding a product that many see as entrenching discrimination based on skin colour by encouraging people to bleach themselves a lighter hue.
…Mr Khan urges a dark-complexioned and depressed-looking young man, struggling to attract female attention, to stop using skin-lightening products designed for women.
“Why are you secretly using a cream for girls?” Mr Khan asks. “Their skin is soft. Yours is rough and tough.” Several shades whiter and visibly more self-confident by the end of the 40-second commercial, the young man duly snares the girl of his dreams.
The commercial, of course, is up for all to see on YouTube –
<
p>
Now is it me or does the pseudo-blackfaced dude in the commercial remind anyone of the lead in that paragon of awful 80s movies, Soul Man?
 |
|
A few weeks of Fair & Handsome away from… Alex P Keaton? |
As with the rapidly-becoming-infamous 1000+ comments “Is Dating White Right?” post a few weeks ago, a topic like this is a veritable lightning rod… So, perhaps I should just step out of the way and let the bullets fly.
I will however, point mutineer’s at Manish’s nearly-as-infamous original post on Fair & Handsome from a few years ago. At 200+ comments, it was one of the most trafficked posts of its time. However, many of us remember it more for its, dare I say, eyebrow-raising concluding note. 
However, don’t put pressure on one individual in your quest to reform society. Why should SRK shoulder the burden of changing the public’s mores,
As Sarah said, he’s a public figure and very influential. It’s up to the Indian public to put pressure on him if he’s promoting things that harm our society and they (the public) don’t like it. It’s very smart of them to go after a public figure like that too.
i must agree about the rise of PILs in india, esp. against celebrities. i read this article about how salman khan is going to paint his version of the last supper with his family members standing in for the apostles, and now a catholic group is looking to arrest him for defamation. it is true that this intolerance for different ideas can sometimes get out of hand – and if you’re a ‘violator’, i’m sure there is a morcha or some such other hassle you have to deal with. as much as i despise these creams, i feel the better way to protest is to just not buy the products (and hoping that society sees less of a need for such products).
PS, I agree with you. I think that people go on ad nauseam about how fair skin is a personal preference, but when it’s a preference that negates the reality of the cultural majority (in this case, India’s ubiquitous, non-veetish brownies), that preference is indubitably rooted in internalized racism. I am curious, however, as to whether or not attitudes toward dark skin were radically different before the arrival of the British.
This has nothing to do with anything but, Sarah, I think “The Cardigan Brigade” would be an incredible band name. 🙂
dont you see? it IS a slippery slope. one day protesting celebrities and skin cream. the next day god-king puli and his lemurian storm troopers.
Sorry, Overlord Puli, didn’t mean to neglect that bit. I swear. No need to send goons.
I prefer the personal touch you only get with hired goons. – C. Montgomery Burns
Not to be a total asshole, but I think SRK is kinda ugly.
i love that line.
my mom also says that.
You are SO right.
but I think SRK is kinda ugly.
I think this is why I’m so upset over SRK – not only do I find him hot but he’s the good guy, the antithesis of Salman Kahn (Khan?) and I want to think the best of him. Damn! This is like when I find out Jordan was an adulterer. It just ruins my image of my celebrity.
I wouldn’t support legal action to make SRK withdraw support for this commercial (that’s just ridiculous). But if his fans have trouble with it and protest/make him aware of what they think the problem with it is, I don’t see what the problem is. Definitely not fascism. He is a public figure. And skin color is a loaded topic. Not as much in India right now since the light=superior mentality is so prevalent, but if stuff like SRK taking flak for this is what is needed to get more people talking/questioning [though I’m not sure to what extent that’s happening in India, I wouldn’t know], then that can only be a good thing.
Shah Rukh Khan is so visibly “Pathan” or “Pashtoon” that he has not a whole lot in common ethnically to a majority of India. So SRK representing India is a problem in itself.
anyone ever notice that Shah Rukh Khan is Benecio Del Toro?
i think they are going after SRK because he is one guy and a celebrity – easier target. this is a much easier job for them than changing the attitude of an entire society. if society didn’t agree with the theory behind this ad, they would have nothing to worry about, and the product would not sell. i’m pretty sure most of the public have no issue with either his ad, or the existence of such products. since they can’t do anything about a section of society comprising hundreds of millions, they go after him. in one way, they are using their resources thriftily – but if they are really devoted to their cause, they would look to change the attitude of the public in general that shares this view, not to one celebrity.
Shah Rukh Khan is so visibly “Pathan” or “Pashtoon” that he has not a whole lot in common ethnically to a majority of India. So SRK representing India is a problem in itself.
What? SRK looks like a typical Indian to me.
oof, agreed, PS. RC just opened a big ol’ can of worms in #212 about who is ‘authentically’ Indian and who is not.
i’m not going to go into the pathan etc ancestry, but i did think it was odd that they used srk, who isn’t as fair as other stars in bollywood. in that sense, he has pretty average skin colour.
SRK is not authentically indian because he is actually Benecio Del Toro. 😉
Those who’ve lived in India, Have you ever noticed that Sun screen lotions there are marketed on the same premise ? That you wont get a tan/ darken and maintain your Fair skin complexion ?? remember that lisa ray commercial ?
I think more than 90% of ppl (mostly women) there use it for this reason. I always thought Sun Screens are used to block UV rays and prevent harmful damage to your skin and not for preventing you from getting a tan (complexion) to your skin. Maybe I am wrong. Being a guy, I ve always found sun screens too oily/icky to use no matter however long I am out in the sun. What I’ve noticed is your complexion comes back to its original color in a couple of weeks after your long day out in the sun… well except if you’ve tanned for a prolonged period of time… usually days at a stretch..
So whats up with the Desi Girls going for a “tan” at the beach ? I just dont get it. You are already brown honey…Why risk your skin to UV exposure just because the white chicks do it? They want to get brown.. and you ?
VOW!! Camille, you managed to link a disucssion about skin color with beer drinking, AWESOME! 😀
i think people look different when they have been out in the sun a bit. i dont mean just getting darker. changes something else with the skin. cant put my finger on it.
im dark and can’t get girls…luckly i’ll be going to india later this year.. I’ll get some of this stuff.. and let you all know how it worked..
ak,
since they can’t do anything about a section of society comprising hundreds of millions, they go after him.
I think you are missing the point – b/c he is a public figure it is smart for say a campaign that protests against fair and lovely’s use, to target him —- By targetting him you target thousands and millions of other people. Same reason why the stupid fair and lovely company wanted SRK to be their spokesperson. Damn SRK – thought he was more enlightened than this.
puli – their skin looks a bit ruddy, or muddled. i think it has to do with the change in exfoliation rates when you tan, as well as the fact that people are naturally their skin colour for a reason – their skin sometimes just does not tan in a natural way.
I love the feel of sun on my skin and I like the way I look with a little extra color. That said, I always wear sunscreen when at the beach etc. But I am guilty of not always reapplying after going in the water.
And now that I’m 30 GASP! I have become obsessed about facial skincare and wear lotion with sunscreen on my face everyday. Somehow, I get carded even more than when I was younger, and I’m not just talking the courtesy card, the are you seriously trying to buy a beer because you are so underaged card. I’ve had bartenders eyes pop out when they see how old I am. So the benefit to having dark skin is not being as suspectible to skin damage and always looking younger than your age.
“So whats up with the Desi Girls going for a “tan” at the beach ? I just dont get it. You are already brown honey…Why risk your skin to UV exposure just because the white chicks do it? They want to get brown.. and you ?”
Going to the beach, sitting around by the pool etc doesn’t mean people necessarily are there to tan , it’s just soaking up beach ‘culture’ . Anyhow the brown glow looks nice and it fades after a few weeks. Nowadays the sunblocks come in SPF 30 / 50 and in a spray format so not sticky at all and it has a cooling effect in fact.
I’m worried about about the slipery slope to Fascism too. First they came for the smokers…though I suspect Bollywood will soon have its own version of the aptly named Fairness Doctrine.
i don’t necessarily agree. the celebrity angle seems to work when promoting or agreeing with an already widely-held belief in society, or something about which people are indifferent. i’m not sure it works the other way around – i think a celebrity merely stepping down from promoting this product, or even coming out and saying preference of fairer skin is wrong – even srk – is just not going to cut it, esp. with an issue that has been around for centuries.
by the time im done, you will KNOW what “targeting thousands and millions of other people” looks like…
in seriousness. why are people using big words like “fascism”. i mean, were not talking about Germany in 1936 here. fascism is a serious issue, and this just kills real discussion on the topic if people bandy the word around a lot.
Not to worry. His can of worms is also OFF-TOPIC and further comments encouraging such lunacy will be nuked with prejudice.
controlling the language is the 1st step toward fascism. i’m on to you, pulli.
don’t necessarily agree. the celebrity angle seems to work when promoting or agreeing with an already widely-held belief in society, or something about which people are indifferent. i’m not sure it works the other way around – i think a celebrity merely stepping down from promoting this product, or even coming out and saying preference of fairer skin is wrong
I really disagree; It’d be great if SRK stepped down from this campaign if he or another celebrity conveyed the idea that Indians can be dark and beautiful. It puts a message out there and the potential to influence thousands.
Compare it to the civil rights movment. There was a time when discrimination was accepted. When you had someone like Frank Sinatra (however superficially) be friends with African Americans, it has a strong potential to make society as a whole see things differently. Media and public figures are influential and can help change popular culture.
I’m worried about about the slipery slope to Fascism too. First they came for the smokers…
The thing about smoking, and I smoke, is that there is a strong link between second hand smoking and health problems for nonsmokers. So don’t have a problem with going after actors who endorse such a crap habit that affects people who don’t have that crap habit.
The thing that shocked me as I grew older was that Indians and blacks could get sunburned. I have been out in the sun several times and have never experienced sunburn – not once. Am I a freak of nature? I just get darker. 10 shades darker. Seriously, my color range is like the Cosby Show family sibilings. I once got a heat stroke in india as I wsa playing with my cousins in 110 degree heat.
people talk about their right to smoke, and thats all well and good, but what about my right ot breath?
ive never burned either. when al gores nightmares come true, we will be the last remaining humans on earth.
Pravin, Puli, I’m dark and I’ve gotten burned – definitely happens.
ak: good points.
…as long as it is voluntary and comes from within. Just because he’s a public figure does not mean the public has a right to tell him what to do and what not to do! He’s in show biz, first and foremost. Everything else is secondary.
And puli, I’d love to join your fascist society, as long as I get to make all the rules!
M. Nam
Just because he’s a public figure does not mean the public has a right to tell him what to do and what not to do!
They definitely have a right to express their opinion which is what protesting his endorsement of fair and crappy is! Comes with the territory of being a public celebrity. As a public figure, he better get used to the idea that people are looking at him.
PS, i am not denying the power of media and celebrities. but what these groups seem to be calling for is his merely abandoning a position as spokesperson. without more, i think any message re fairness will be lost and not make much of a dent. if there is a concerted and comprehensive agenda, perhaps – but it would take a lot of effort. also, it is easy for celebrities to say such things – they move in rather more liberal circles (or maybe not where fairness is concerened). but even supposing the average person accepted his message initially, when even one prospective groom’s family rejects their daughter for being too dark, you can be almost certain that they will start to slather on the fairness cream. so long as such an attutude re fairness is so deeply and widely held, and more importantly, actively practised on a regular basis – a celebrity’s message cannot overcome people’s reality.
Puli,
I am new to Sepia so forgive my ignorance but how do ever get any work done? You are on a posting streak that is unrivaled on this blog
i’ve been burned once…skiing in telluride. can ski with your shirt off there. great food too. saw oprah and ralph lauren. but no shah rukh khan. lots of trustafarians though.
ak,
I don’t know what the details of the protest campaign is, but I’d bet that they are more savvy than just protesting him. And if you have limited resources, than protesting him has a good potential to make an impact, in a way that passing out pamphlets that talk about the dangers of F&L is could not.
When your doing outreach it’s smart to go after a public figure.
but even supposing the average person accepted his message initially, when even one prospective groom’s family rejects their daughter for being too dark, you can be almost certain that they will start to slather on the fairness cream. so long as such an attutude re fairness is so deeply and widely held, and more importantly, actively practised on a regular basis – a celebrity’s message cannot overcome people’s reality.
You have to begin somewhere. And protesting SRK’s endorsement of this odious product is a great to draw attention to. Look at Voting campaigns in the US —- even though the majority of voters are negligent about voting, the idea of a celebrity endorsing voting (you know “rock the vote” stuff) has the potential to make quite a difference. What that impact is will vary I’m sure, and I’m sure studies have been done on the impact of hiring celebrities to discuss safe sex and the “rock the vote” campaign. Using celebrities to promote a cause is a technique that been used pretty often, probably b/c it is so effective in raising public awareness.
my guess is he’s a proprietary trader. firm gives him like 100million to trade, he puts it all in berkshire hathaway , forgets about it, and logs onto SM. at the end of the year he has warren buffet 25%+ returns of which he keeps 20% as a bonus.
Just because he’s a public figure does not mean the public has a right to tell him what to do and what not to do!
Actually, it kinda does. Being a public figure usually means the public is supporting you in that figure-headness. If a group of people support you, and get you to where you are, then they have a right to criticize your behavior if they find it detrimental.
here’s the secret…psstt….i dont get anything done
this is lazy SM addicted puli, signing off.
All this reminds me of the Addams family tv show. In one episode, Gomez and Morticia warned their son, “don’t let the moon bath ruin your lovely pallor, Pugsley.”
Yours truly is of the pale variety and anything darker than a light gold–amounting to two weeks careful sun exposure–would look very weird. It’s hard to tan too much, mainly because it fades so quickly, not because of a constant preference to be very darkly tanned. A sort of peachy beige is most flattering for reddish hair and blue eyes. Color does not occur out of context–dark skinned people have the sort of eyes and features to “carry it off.” If skin is healthy and clear, any color is beautiful, not trying for pc, that’s just a fact. Of course which beautiful shade you prefer is a personal matter and nobody has any right to fight you about it. One East Asian girl told me that a tan made me more “pretty”, but her more “ugly”. I could see her point–paler skin showed up her eyes and brows better, and her skin was clear. Most Indians however, whom I have seen, could be either very light (white even), or very dark and look perfectly fine. Actually, they have the kind of features that can carry any color in the normal human range.
That said, I don’t think you can blame the Brits for this one, not that most of you do. They just took a contentious point already in place (as they did so well everywhere) and used it to the hilt. I am sure indians in 1790 did not particularly admire British looks and I doubt the Brits cared. Or vice versa. Every race knows it looks odd in some ways to other races not used to seeing them; we’re all convinced we’re the real, normal people, or at least we all were in the days when you only saw a cast of feature generally similar to your own. There are European primers from the 1800s in which children are instructed that “natives” living in hot climates think whites are very strange looking for being white. Think it harmed the little scholars’ egos? Not one wit, I’ll wager. I would say, tentatively, that when races are thrown together in tough competition, then “racial” characteristics assume signifance. Such characteristics function as a sort of uniform, signifying what “team” we’re on, and people become conscious of shared apsects. That’s how it plays out anyway.
PS, you make some valid points. but i just have two things to add : 1. indians are/can be an astonishingly indifferent and/or stubborn lot; and 2. given that, i do not see the concerted effort in this issue that is seen in other indian campaigns, or their american counterparts to which you refer, that is necessary for change. since we do not, in fact, know that there is a comprehensive campaign against dark skin discrimination using srk, i still stand by the point that merely protesting his position as a representative or him stepping down will have little effect on the average indian. it may be a start, but without more, the flame will die down just as quickly as it was struck.