Toxic and Transformative: What Bollywood Did to Beauty

Author's Note:

Written in June 2023 for INTL 190 — Anatomy of a Deal — as a senior year final paper. The course was not about film. The essay found its way there anyway, because the most interesting deals are the ones no one formally agreed to: the post-colonial bargain between the Indian film industry and a society still sorting through what it meant to be independent, modern, and beautiful. All three of those questions turned out to be entangled in ways that produced both extraordinary cinema and lasting damage.

Toxic and Transformative: The Co-Dependence of Indian Film and Culture

Indian cinema has attained prominence on the modern stage as a conduit of vibrant storytelling, song, and dance. It covers a variety in language, vast themes, and has emerged as a cultural phenomenon -- with recognition at platforms like the Oscars. However, beneath the glamour lies a complex tapestry of social issues; while Indian cinema followed similar trajectories as the West, the effects on perceptions of skin tone, languages, and the consolidation of stereotypes was exacerbated as a response to a post-colonial mindset. Pre-Independence ideas such as colorism were paired with systematic sexism, even as the industry modernized, leading to both the development of fairness product markets. As such, an analysis of the industry could provide an insight into the impact Indian cinema has had on culture and vice versa. It can thus be assumed that as the Indian film industry expanded, it drastically changed the social and cultural landscape, creating effects that extend to this day. 

Hollywood with a “B”

Given that media and society are deeply intertwined, many shy away from looking at the impacts of cinema on culture. It is an element of life that, upon further examination, could deeply affect the morale and progress brought about by topics shown on screen -- as film is often a catalyst for positive change. At the same time, it can be wielded in a manner that causes rifts, emboldening stereotypes, and creating an island of conformity away from the international stage. There are several empirical studies that verify that people’s viewpoints are shaped by electronic media (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Therefore, a framework can be developed based on the more-researched Hollywood in order to look at the film industry in India. A study by Per H.Hansen and Anne Magnussen showed how Hollywood’s narratives “legitimize certain practices and worldviews while marginalizing others” (Hansen and Magnussen).  Additionally, the audience’s critical understanding of issues is especially affected by “periods of uncertainty, crisis, and instability” (Hansen and Magnussen). It is no secret that Hollywood had a distinct lens regarding skin color -- prior to the 1960s, actors of color were either off screen or caricatured (Sheth, Sudev, et al). This barely changed until the modern film era, displaying an arduous battle to get equal representation based on ethnicity. While many call film a reflection of society, it is not plausible to determine that there was no reverse causality. This research sets the stage for a similar analysis of the impacts of Indian filmography on cultural development and vice versa.  

The Growth of the Indian Film Industry

The history of Indian film is a fascinating journey that has seen both regional evolutions as well as the creation of the iconic "Bollywood" industry. The Lumiere brother’s first screening happened in Mumbai in 1896, perhaps the reason why the city quickly became the home of Bollywood films (Kumar). The first Indian motion picture was by the “late Dhundiraj Govind Phalke, also popularly known as Dada Saheb Phalke, through the film “Raja Harishchandra” (Kumar). The film explored a well known historical/ folk tale that centers around religious beliefs, karma, and familial ties -- all of which are some of the most important foundations of Indian culture. As such, this sparked the audience’s attention, creating the space for motion pictures to become a cornerstone of India. The era just after the end of the British Raj, from the 1940s to 1960s, is widely regarded as “The Golden Era,” as it allowed for parallel cinema, regional expansion, and a variety of cinematic styles to evolve (Kumar). As the industry grew, actors drew on theater, traditional art, and local talent to diversify -- all while maintaining a strong connection to heritage. As cinema and culture continuously mirrored each other, the bonds between cinematic themes and trends became extremely intertwined, creating a blurred line between reality and imagination. 

There were several factors that influenced the growth of “Bollywood” post Independence, from the aftermath of Independence to the influence of new technology. Before the 1940s, the film industry was ruled by westernized elites who often preferred the ways of the British -- a sentiment that theoretically died out post 1947 (Sheth, Sudev, et al). The massive migration to Mumbai after the Indian Partition led to a rise in North Indian, specifically Punjabi, influence, further increasing the capacity for Hindi films to dominate the market (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Of course, this was accompanied by several political moves that strategized the development of theater districts and increased the accessibility of music and dance training -- both of which are pivotal to Indian culture (Sheth, Sudev, et al). A second factor was the successful push to create films that focused on “Indian Culture,” and values like the familial ties mentioned previously. The government supported filmography like this, since it helped further the “vision of a post-Independence India” (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Given the geographic centrality of the film industry, coupled with the proximity to the capital, it is safe to assume that political views (whether pro-independence or westernized) thoroughly affected culture through media. 

There are several issues that arose as Indian films grew in popularity and diversified. Post-Independence Bollywood morphed, as a result of politics and patriarchal norms, into a predatory entity. While this may be an extreme statement, there is extensive evidence to show that a reflection must occur in order to beget any awareness or change with regards to the problem space. Since Bollywood saw a trajectory of success based on reinforcement of cultural values and concepts like the “chastity of women,” conventional norms became vice grips on creativity (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Similar to the male gaze in Hollywood, women in Hindi filmography were treated as a token (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Male perceptions of “female bodies and idealized love” further “reinforced ideas of the archetypal beautiful person as light skinned,” eventually paving the way for the business of skin lightening products (Sheth, Sudev, et al). 

Colorism in Indian Film 

The film industry, although allowing for spectacular thematic diversity, has played a significant role in perpetuating stereotypes and reinforcing biases. As per Rolling Stone (India), colorism is a “never ending saga,” as lighter skin tones are continually favored and associated with beauty. Meanwhile darker complexions are marginalized and have been associated with poverty, hardship, and “side characters.” While conformity exists everywhere, it is especially prevalent in Indian cinema -- Bollywood has set the tone of beauty standards, and has seeped into regional film markets as well (Bhatnagar).

Given that “Bollywood” has become the face of India in the international view, regional industries have adapted the stereotypes. While not all the influences of the Mumbai-based industry are negative, as fashion and social concepts can make a positive impact, colorism has overshadowed the positive aspects. The Jugaad Project, which focuses on South Asian diaspora stories, strongly advocates for the concept that the Bollywood “dream” has a vice grip on culture. The fair-skinned protagonists, body ideals, grand narratives, and association with success has led to the marginalization of films that attempt to diversify the narrative (Peters). Skin shading was often altered or made a pivotal aspect of the storyline, thus solidifying the preference for “fairness,” a term that originally was linked to grace and purity and is now related to the “lightness” of skin (Peters). Unfortunately, whitewashing and darkening are still prevalent concepts in modern film. Darker skinned actresses -- who are generally more representative of the populus -- are “whitewashed” via skin lightening treatments, or are even replaced by fair-skinned or foreign women (Sarkar). At the same time, many actresses wear darker makeup to depict more impoverished or rural conditions, creating a stronger notion of color-based divide. 

A Brief History of Colorism in India

It is important to note that colorism was not ingrained in Ancient Indian society. While western texts often misrepresent the nature of caste and colorism, these conflicts were simply the result of territorial disputes (Mishra 729). Aryan invaders descended from the Caucasus mountains and had lighter skin tones than the Dravidians in the region, so descriptions of fights were not an indicator of color-based disputes, but more of claiming land (Mishra 729). In fact, Indian mythology and Hindu scriptures such as the Rig Veda mention several “dark skinned heroes,” such as Krishna, who is considered an incarnation of Lord Vishnu from Hinduism (Mishra 729). Several heroes and heroines were darker skinned, and it was considered beautiful -- the word “Shyamli,” or “of dark color” was used to describe beautiful females with darker tones (Mishra 730). As such, it can be surmised that beauty was not defined by the shade of one’s skin -- a concept that was introduced much later in history. 

As part of a wealthy subcontinent, the Indian region has been invaded several times throughout history. After the initial Aryan invasions, the subcontinent was annexed by Muslims -- who were generally from the Arabic and Persian Belt, thus having a lighter skin tone (Mishra 731). Even later during the Mughal invasions (more well known invaders and a second wave of Muslims from the Arabic belt), we cannot find a solid description of prejudice based on skin tone, but the fact that they were from lighter-toned areas sets the precedent for colorist ideology (Mishra 731). When India became a colony of the British Empire, colorism truly set root in the subcontinent. The different facial features and history of segregation set the stage for deep rooted concepts like the superiority of the “fairer” race (Mishra 731). Skin tone prejudice was so prevalent that “light skinned Indians” were kept as “allies” of the British Empire, and were considered above the “blacks” or darker toned people -- a concept not unfamiliar to those who have studied the British Empire and its history of colonization (Mishra 731). These ideologies were furthered by prominent politicians and figures, who both misinterpreted and then reinforced concepts of casteism and colorism. Winston Churchill’s infamous “I hate Indians, they are a beastly people with a beastly religion” is one such statement; made by a figure the Western world hails as a preeminent leader and flagbearer of democracy, it begs the question of how deeply rooted these sentiments are not only in India, but in the West’s views of India as well (Mishra 732). These concepts’ impact on the modern world are aptly summarized in India and Colorism: The Finer Nuances as such:

“This shaped the common man’s association of white colored skin with the ruling class, with power, with desirability, and also with beauty. Unknowingly, it has become a practice of attaching greater societal superiority and power to the fairer skin males and females, which in turn dictates and shapes the desire for a westernized concept of beauty with lighter skin–even after so many years of independence” (Mishra 732)

Normativity of the Male Gaze

A secondary drawback of the expansion of the Indian film industry was the exacerbation of the “male gaze.” This term was originally coined to represent Hollywood’s objectification of the female body -- especially since women were not given the liberty to play character-driven roles (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Narratively, men were the primary character and women were utilized as a “passive spectacle” (Sheth, Sudev, et al). This can be directly translated to the Indian film industry. 

Before delving into the interlaced nature of film and cultural development, a brief look into the history of gender norms in India is necessary. As previously stated, the numerous invasions of the Indian subcontinent brought western ideals and layers of complexity to the region. As in the West, women were often used to further political alliances, which became more objectified with the incursion of the Mughal empire (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Though women occupied the harem, they were often held in high regard and even given power and property to enact political or social change (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Although this may be a rosy lens, it can be argued that a lack of female status was significantly less of an issue than during the British colonial era. The proposition then is that sexist concepts were encouraged not only by colonialism, but even in the post-Independence restoration of “traditional” India (Sheth, Sudev, et al). As per a Cambridge researcher, 

“In trying to prevent certain indigenous practices like widow burning, colonial law actually contributed to the isolation of females to the domestic sphere. Women became the site and repository of tradition, culture, and religion, in need of protection by Indian men, who themselves felt destabilized by colonial rule. As a result, it has been suggested that women were relegated to the domestic sphere and became the foci of discursive attention by Indian nationalist men, colonial authorities, and social reformers”  (Sheth, Sudev, et al)

Centuries of entrenched patriarchy were thus reinforced by the growth of the Indian film industry. As the newly formed Indian government attempted to set precedents for culturally acceptable ideologies, the consumed media began espousing sentiments such as relegating the preferably docile woman to the domestic, with men being the heroic or misunderstood breadwinner overcoming all the odds (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Since Bollywood was dominated by North Indian actors, who were mostly light skinned, the same was expected of the actresses. Additionally, the male gaze deemed that female characters were worthy only through chastity and by upholding Indian culture (Sheth, Sudev, et al). They went insofar as to create a “contrasting character of the female ‘vamp,’ who was often Westernized and often glamorous, acting as a focal point for male desire until the heroine succeeded through her morally “right” chasteness” (Sheth, Sudev, et al). Ironically, the very Westernized ideals that were used as “negative” were also expected from Indian actresses -- through light skin and a “perfect” blend of educated modernity and traditional demureness. 

A more blatantly sinister element of the male gaze centered around violence against women. While this is a topic that could tangentially be discussed at length, the key point is how Bollywood “glamorized violence and degraded and humiliated women through images” (Rai). The framework presented by Hollywood stands true here; the effects of patriarchal views were so strong that naysayers were paid no heed. Changing the norms, therefore, was (and is) a Herculean task. To this day, film is intertwined with the political landscape. For example, if a political party deems a movie untrue to Indian culture, they may “[pull] the film out of the theaters, [and] start breaking furniture” (Sheth, Sudev, et al). This level of interdependence between the political and industry has created a cycle between societal values and filmographic experience. 

The “Fairness” Market

The amalgamation of colorism and gender norms led to the development of the “fairness market,” which consists of products and social concepts that monetize idealized beauty. Utilizing the view of women as a commodity, paired with the inherently post-colonial idea that “whiter” skin was more attractive, companies took advantage of the cultural landscape to establish and reinforce originally western ideology. The iconic “Fair and Lovely skin cream,” a product of Unilever’s affiliate company, was launched in 1978 (Sheth, Sudev, et al). By explicitly stating that fairer skin led to more chances for romantic and career success, it glorified what was essentially skin bleaching (Sheth, Sudev, et al). The endorsement of skin-bleaching products by film stars through brand sponsorships further perpetuated the notion that fair skin is desirable (Sarkar). The strong sense of “mob mentality” in India and “star adoration” made it nearly impossible to avoid the onset of these endorsements. From icon’s faces on advertisements to being plastered on billboards and even vehicles around the country, it is still nearly impossible to ignore the messaging. Thus the demand for face lightening products has created an unmistakable cultural imprint as a result of the film industry (Guardian). 

It is not as if Bollywood actors are unaware of their commodification. An interview with veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah provided the insight that actors are “not a medium for reaching a message to the audience. They are themselves the product” (Irfan, 2018). Of course, this commodification ties back into gender and colorism. Another interview with noted actor Nandita Das, who happens to have darker skin, shed light on this often overlooked idea:

“My parents never made me feel bad about my skin color, and now I see around the country young girls lose their confidence due to this. I myself faced this, with uncles and those in the extended family, and later in the film industry, saying you could certainly play a slum dweller or a village girl, but if playing an urban upper-middle class or educated girl, the director or makeup artist would come and say ‘I know you don't like wearing makeup, but could you lighten your skin a little with makeup, since this role is that of an educated person” (Irfan, 2014)

Essentially, blatant denial of opportunities based on skin color are just part of the trade at this point in time. This, however, doesn’t take away from the toxic reinforcement of beauty ideals as a result of the Indian film industry -- specifically Bollywood. 

In fact, a study focusing on the “relationship between skin color and social acceptability in present time” found that  71% of the sample utilized “fair” or “light” in relation to “pretty” (Mishra 742). This was found in both male and female samples, which clearly shows that darker skin tones are not viewed as beautiful in current society (Mishra 742). The fairness market is so predominant that 36% of the sample population used bleaching products, with 55% of the total women falling prey to this harmful act (Mishra 743). The skewed nature of these results prove that not only has colorism caused a lasting and traumatic worldview, it is linked to sexist gender norms. Several studies and interviews further showed that darker skin tones were linked to poorer hygiene, lower education, as well as a lack of romantic prospects (Mishra 746). Regardless of educational background, people consistently regarded darker skin as “lesser than,” especially in female populations. 

Ironically, the color and gender norms that were exacerbated by the film industry have created setbacks for everyone, celebrity or common citizen. Actors may not get roles or are typecast based on their skin tone. Actresses are then subject to the secondary level, which is sexism -- both in character narratives and in treatment. For “common” people, they are forced to interact with a society that considers “dark” to be a curse, and must juggle culturally intrinsic prejudices with their own lack of self-acceptance. Thus the fairness market extends beyond the sales of a product, and is a cultural tenet in itself that has been causing severe damages to the psyche of a whole nation. 

Conclusion

Cinematography introduced not only the conformation of cinema to “Bollywood” and reinforced stereotypes, it enhanced colorism as a remnant of colonialism. This has prevailed to this day, where color and gender determines success in many aspects of the film industry. Even though the growth of Indian film provided more outlets for creative expression and potentially diverse ideas, it still created lasting barriers to progress. These isolationist concepts, in which color and the male gaze become restrictive boxes, are deeply ingrained in Indian society. This has created markets that monetize “real beauty” from a Westernized lens, and have made barriers for several talents. While Indian film is definitely a proponent of positive growth culture, and lights up the screens with colorful storylines, music, and dance, it is not enough to cover up decades of stereotyping. Glamorized lives are slowly losing their vice grip on a society inching towards modernization, that demands accountability and authenticity from its cultural proponents. The only question is how long audiences must wait before seeing reflected realities and change-inducing concepts that can repair the damages done by this complex reel of issues. 

Works Cited

Hansen, Per H., and Anne Magnussen. “Making Sense of Business and Community in Hollywood Films, 1928–2016.” Business History Review, vol. 92, no. 2, 2018, pp. 307–337., doi:10.1017/S000768051800003X.

Sheth, Sudev, et al. “Emboldening and Contesting Gender and Skin Color Stereotypes in the Film Industry in India, 1947–1991.” Business History Review, vol. 95, no. 3, 2021, pp. 483–515., doi:10.1017/S0007680521000118.

Kumar, Dheeraj. “Evolution of Indian cinema.” Times of India, 26 June 2019, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/seethroughmyeyes/evolution-of-indian-cinema-4289/.

Bhatnagar, Tanushi. “The Never-Ending Saga of Colorism in Indian Cinema.” Rolling Stone India, 12 June 2021, https://rollingstoneindia.com/the-never-ending-saga-of-colorism-in-indian-cinema/.

Peters, Rebecca. “Colorism, Castism, and Gentrification in Bollywood — The Jugaad Project.” The Jugaad Project, 24 February 2021, https://www.thejugaadproject.pub/home/colorism-bollywood. 

Sarkar, Monica. “Brownface in Bollywood: Why does the Indian film industry continue to perpetuate colorism?” CNN, 8 May 2020, https://www.cnn.com/style/article/india-bollywood-brownface-hnk-intl/index.html.

Mishra, Neha. “INDIA AND COLORISM: THE FINER NUANCES.” WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY GLOBAL STUDIES LAW REVIEW, vol. 14, no. 725, p. 750, https://journals.library.wustl.edu/globalstudies/article/351/galley/17190/view/.

Amit, Rai. “To Censor or Not to Censor: Film and Public Policy.” Economy and Political Weekly, vol. 35, no. 18, 2009.

Aneel, Karnani. “Doing Well by Doing Good - Case Study: ‘Fair & Lovely’ Whitening Cream.” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 13, 2007.

Irfan, S. Mohammad. “Guftagoo with Nandita Das.” YouTube, 4 February 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOzJaUAQCeE.

Irfan, S. Mohammad. “Guftagoo with Naseeruddin Shah.” YouTube, 18 October 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4VjMgnnRQ.