Colorism: A Deep-Rooted Insecurity that Remains Exploited
Colorism in India is a deeply rooted social issue and traces of it can be found all over our history. From the caste system to the British colonial rule, it is clearly observed that fairer skin tones are given preferential treatment while darker skin tones are oppressed. This can be attributed to the recurring narrative which links fair skin tones with purity and divinity while connecting darker skin tones with demons and impurity. Due to this bias, darker skin tones have been oppressed and placed in a lower social status historically, and it continues today with the lack of inclusivity and representation. The underrepresentation of darker skin tones in media reinforces the preference for fairer skin tones. This often creates an insecurity amongst darker skin tones and can lead to people making poor decisions. The consequences of colorism does not end with darker skin tones being oppressed, it has also led to fatality.
An extreme example of how colorism affects people today is the infanticide of an 18 month old girl. In March 2024, a father from Andhra Pradesh poisoned his child allegedly due to her being dark skinned. The mother of the child was also abused for giving birth to a dark skinned child. Essentially, a person was denied their chance at life even before it could start merely because of their skin tone. Another recurring example of this brutality are cases where husbands murder their wives for being dark skinned. This happened in West Bengal in 2018 and in Chhattisgarh in 2022. These incidents without doubt fuel rage against colourism but at the same time it also deepens insecurities of dark skinned people.
A duality can be observed where some dark skinned people are happy with their skin tone and voice out as advocates against colourism, while others withdraw into a shell formed by their insecurities and try their best to make their skin as fair as they can. From selecting foundation shades lighter than their own to using products that make miraculous claims of “whitening skin from first use”, they purchase anything which can help their case and in doing so they form a market which is built on a severe insecurity which skincare and cosmetic brands exploit. It took Hindusthan’s Unilever 45 years to rebrand “Fair and Lovely” to “Glow and Lovely” and this brand sadly still exists in the market with the line “Fair and Lovely is now Glow and Lovely”. This was done to increase “inclusivity” and aim for “radiant” skin instead of fair skin, all while the cover of the product features a woman whose skin looks too fair to be real. In recent years, the market has shifted from using words such as whitening and fair to glowing and brighter skin.
This move can be seen as a sign of inclusivity in the eyes of consumers who are aware that one cannot forcibly change their skin tone. However, when skin care advertisements only feature fair skinned people, it sends a veiled message to people with dark skin tones that they can never be mainstream despite talks of “inclusivity”. Exploiting insecurities is also done in the form of de-tanning where a person’s skin miraculously becomes a lot fairer in advertisements since it is just “tan removal”. While there is nothing wrong in removing a tan and showcasing the gradual process, many times advertisements tend to show a drastic change in color that it looks like something more than de-tanning happened there.
This can be seen especially on social media where influencers claim to have used the de-tanning product on one hand and show a side by side comparison between the hand on which they used the product and the hand they did not. The actual change made by the product might not be a lot but it is possible to make this change look a lot more pronounced through filters, lighting and playing around with colour theory. All of this, in the eyes of dark skinned people who are self-conscious conveys the message “You don’t always have to be as dark as long as you use our products” and many do fall for it. In 2023, a woman was killed by her husband for her dark complexion despite her attempts to look like a “heroine” through face powders.
Though people try to change their skin color to fit societal standards, the sad truth is that it is neither possible nor should it be necessary. The color of a person should not be the factor that decides their value in areas like employment, beauty standards or even marriage. Skincare and cosmetic brands should therefore, take all of this into consideration and strive towards creating true inclusivity by showcasing a diversity of skin tones in their advertisements instead of exploiting insecurities just because there is a group of people who would fall for their fallacy.
