Chinese cham cham

There are many people, some among my friend circle who are quite envious of the progress made by the Chinese people and associate it with the centralized, authoritarian rule they have. They look at the Indian state of affairs and say “It would be so nice if India could progress like China even if it meant sacrificing India’s democracy. We should try an authoritarian government. It may just be the answer to the thousand woes that plague India currently.”

And it is easy to understand their line of thinking. The Indian political and administrative system is chaotic, inefficient and corrupt. You just need to glance at headlines any day and you will see political, economic and social disasters. And then look at China. Such a glorious country! They have great infrastructure, a rising standard of living and are better at human development index too. But while their achievements may seem so attractive right now, there is a tale of sorrow, tragedy and horrors that lie beneath it.

The Chinese dragon awoke in 1976 with a growth rate which drew the envy of the world. But Communist government came to power in 1949. So what happened in the period in between? Thanks to the globally competent and dreamy education system we have (no sarcasm here to be sure), we Indians are not taught proper world history or at best we are taught a very Euro-centric version of it. (If in any case you went to a fancy school where they taught you such things properly, please contact me whenever you feel like feeding hungry people in cafes and unburdening yourself of some money.)

Coming back to the topic at hand, I will give you a quick, distorted and sensationalized version of Chinese history. Basically, there was this fellow Mao who called himself a communist and he kicked another Chinese dude from the country and established PRC (Peasant’s Republic of China). The government thus established was the wet dream of any supporter of authoritarian and centralized style of government where laws were followed no matter how stupid they were.

China in 1960s

Mao was, in the hindsight, not the best kind of leader. He thought that Stalin was a good fellow and not just “good at mass murdering” type. He also rejected Western “capitalist” science while implementing agrarian reforms. He took a series of pseudo-scientific and senseless decisions called the Great Leap Forward, which included decisions like killing all the sparrows that kept pests in check, having an iron workshop in every home that produced useless pig iron and sowing seeds 2 meters below the surface that never germinated. It was a leap forward, though not towards an economic prosperous China as Mao imagined but towards an early grave for millions. The disastrous Leap was history’s largest democide. It resulted in the Great Chinese Famine with casualties between 15 to 30 millions. That is the equivalent to entire population of Punjab being wiped out. To put that into perspective, imagine every single Punjabi in India dying. As in, every Punjabi you know, that person’s family, relatives etc. all “becoming dear to God” (according to very reliable Google translation of “bhagwan ko pyare ho gaye”).

The effect of bad policy was compounded by the bureaucrats who were all too eager to please their superiors, enforcing it strictly even when it was clearly causing death and destruction. They then went on to fake the agricultural data and pretend as if the world’s biggest famine wasn’t happening right under their noses. If anyone tried to commit “grave crimes” such as stealing food to save their lives or pointing out that a famine might be going on were promptly persecuted. I bet the Chinese people were not that enthusiastic about lack of democracy at that time. All this happened in 1958-61, when India was beginning to experience a green revolution. We were not just not having any famines, but also moving towards self-sufficiency.

India in 1960s

The Chinese suffered a lot. It was not until two decades later that they saw better times. Our sufferings have been few in comparison. Our lowest point since 1947 is considered to be Indira Gandhi’s emergency. Mao’s pinky figure might be responsible for more deaths than her and rest of our PMs put together. We did not even have any mass executions for God’s sake! And we dare to compare ourselves to China?

If China is progressing today, its credit does not go to their style of government, but to their quality of leaders (after Mao) who remain committed towards progress of their people. But it is all a matter of luck. They could very well have been duplicates of Khymer leaders (who almost wiped everyone who could read or write or is intelligent) or Kim family (the less vulgar North Korean one). We, in India, have something better. We do not have to depend on position of constellations for our leaders; instead we can very well choose our own. If we do not have good leaders or good governance the fault somewhere lies with us too. How many of us go out and vote? How many keep a serious check on the performance of our MPs and MLAs or the government? How many agitate upon the issues we feel aggrieved about? We do have democracy but not a well-established democratic practice.

While I would like to see India progressing, it should not be at the cost of our democracy and free speech. Amartya Sen has said that there are no famines in functioning democracies. Brother has won a Noble prize. If he is endorsing democracy and linking it with the general avoidance of mass horror tales, there may be some good reasons for it. If Indians have not reached the skies, we have also not fallen into giant sinkholes. Let us consider ourselves lucky, avoid extremes like authoritarian rule and focus on diagnosing and treating India’s problems.  As they say “Distant drums are (always) fine!” (door ke dhol suhane hote hai, courtesy the authentic Google Translate). To sum it up, while there can be bad leaders in both democracy and dictatorship, at least in the former we are shielded from the worst. No democratic leaders has gone scot free after mass murdering their own people like Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot did.

Ugliest beauty trends ever!

Beauty trends are so transitory. One decade girls want to look so thin like they just survived Nazi camps and in another decade, colossal sized posterior and mammary glands are seen as attractive. But sometimes, there is just no excuse for these horrendous crimes against fashion, beauty and humanity, mislabeled as beauty. In no particular order I give you,

5.  Lip disc

This beautiful accessory is worn by women of Mursa and Surma tribes in Africa. The lip disc is a status symbol and its size decides the amount of dowry a woman will get. Larger the disc, larger the dowry. The largest lip disc worn was found to be freaking 19.5 cm in diameter.

To get it:

So, how do you get this monstrosity in your lips? Really simple! Just knock out your teeth, pierce your lips and put a plug in that piercing. Then keep stretching it and keep increasing the size of the disks. In few years, you will be the envy of everyone around you. Plus, think of the dowry!

4. Half bald/Full bald/No brows

Before Kim Kardashian embezzled bedazzled people in the West with her beauty, there was Elizabeth Woodville. She was such a great beauty that England’s King fell in love with her after looking at her and married her despite her low background. But there are some differences between Kim and Elizabeth, notably that Elizabeth did not have eyebrows or sex tape or plastic surgery but she did have a giant forehead. No, the King did not have a weird taste in women. It was just the beauty ideal of medieval times. Barely there eyebrows and receded hairline was as sexy as it could get.

To get it:

You can get also get this look by tweezing hairs on your forehead or by rubbing vinegar or quicklime (be careful about rubbing your skin away too).

Elizabeth Woodville, the captivating beauty.

3. Lotus feet

You need to look no further than our neighbor China for our next entry. Lotus feet were the sexiest, most erotic thing possible on a lady. The mere thought of it would send Chinese men….err…I don’t think I need to finish this line. Lotus feet may have started from a concubine who danced with her feet bound. Competition to outdo her resulted in this practice being adopted by other noble women. The end result would be a four-inch small feet.

To get it:

It is advisable to start young if one wants to get lotus feet. So you might not be able to get one, but you are encouraged to practice it on your daughters’ feet. After all, our children are born to fulfill our unfulfilled dreams, right? Start with curling their toes and then breaking them. Then break their arch. Press the ball of the feet and the heels together by binding them with cloth. Keep rebinding them few times a week. If their toes become infected and fall off, don’t panic. It’s a good thing. They were useless anyway. Do practice this at home.

2. Black teeth/Astonishingly high eyebrows

Or Ohaguro as it is known in Japan was the practice of blackening your teeth. Black teeth were considered pretty and not a cause of alarm. Yes, people intentionally blackened their teeth. It is a trend in which men can easily join. It was associated with sexual maturity and loyalty (!!). 

They also removed their eyebrows and drew them in caterpillar like shape close to their hairline. Interestingly enough "rape-seeds" provide the ink for fake eye-brows. WTF Japan?

To do it:

Soak iron fillings in tea or sake (rice wine) and then drink it. It would be bitter, but no pain, no gain. Plus, it might save you trips to dentist as it prevents tooth decay. 

For the caterpillar eyebrows, shave/wax off your eyebrows and then draw them closer to your hair.

Honourable mentions:

And while we are on Japan, I think that Japanese men should also get a special mention. Before Europeans strolled in and made them conscious, the men used to rock this hairstyle.

1. Mustaches and thick brows/unibrows

 And here comes the pride of the list, the beauty practice of Qajar women. This one will be quite popular among ladies because instead of subjecting them to further torture, it liberates them from existing ones. I am of course talking about threading or tweezing of your eyebrows or upperlips. Just follow these Iranain women and walk around flashing your unibrows and mustaches. This beauty ideal has homoerotic origins. Young teenage males were considered “beautiful” and women also tried to imitate the look of a teenage boy. And teenage boys with thin waist were the Justin Beibers for middle-aged Iranian men. Not meant as an offense to LGBT community, only to Beliebers. 

And because they were not comical comely enough, they were made to wear tutu after one of the Qajar kings was inspired by Russian ballet dancers. And from the looks, the legs were also left in their natural state.

To do it:

Don’t go to beauty parlour and if that doesn’t do the trick, draw thick eyebrows and faint mustaches with kajal. Or inject testosterone.

And this is a royal woman! WTF Persia?

This is, I kid you not, a woman and a princess who was certainly not considered ugly. She might even have been considered a beautiful. 

Is anyone turned on? Please do not ever try to contact me or talk to me if you are turned on by this.

Look in those eyes.

Why China may deserve Nobel Peace Prize for aggression?

 In IHS Jane’s Defence Budgets Annual Report, it was reported

Asia Pacific’s share of global defence spending will rise from one fifth in 2010 to almost one third by 2020. Growth accelerated in Asia Pacific as states bordering the South China Sea boosted defence spending.*

A wonderful, wonderful news for the American military-industrial complex and by extension, perhaps for world peace one day. You may be puzzled what is the connection between an aggressive China and world peace. Now, to understand my theory you must first realise that it is based on few assumptions such as firstly, China will just flex its muscles in South China Sea and other regions and not idiotically go on a full on war which is a very outdated concept anyways. You only go on actual wars if you are very old-fashioned (like Iraq was while attacking Kuwait and Iran) or stupid (like Pakistan used to be before they realized the great potential for terrorism their nation has) or have a large military-industrial complex you need to nurture (like United States of Assholes). Even Pakistan has become wise to the folly of going on full scale war with a formal declaration and the related hassles of Geneva Conventions and damaged international image, it stands to reason that China will not act in a dumber fashion than Pakistan. Another assumption is that China will continue to maintain the same level of aggression and for some unforeseeable reason not become a pacifist nation. Lastly, I assume that all the conspiracy theories about military-industrial complex of USA is true**.

So, how will this benefit all peace-loving hippies? Very simple. In the past century, USA first emerged as the arsenal of democracy, then of non-Left dictatorships and then of any Tom, Dick or Harry who will pay for weapons. But if conspiracy theories are true (and when are they not), the fact is that USA did not just supply weapons to countries going to war, it actually actively nudged them to war so that it will buy its weapons. It had an industry to run, an industry where they were far ahead of competitors and which returned insane profits. Other nations have also joined USA in this gory, soulless but lucrative business of arms manufacturing. 

When Cold War was going on, the military-industrial complex had a booming business. But with the fall of USSR, there was no boogeyman which could justify the large scale arms purchases. Thus, the Gulf war, Bosnian war, Iraq war, Afghan war etc. which ensured that the shutters won't be closed down on the arms shops. Reasons had to be created out of thin air and media had to be pumped with propaganda to back up all those lies. After all, the average Joe wouldn't be too keen on any war which occurred to give job security to arms manufacturers. And thus, you get the "War on Terror". Al-Qaida, ISIS etc. are a necessity for them, their bread-and-butter. If it wasn't so why would USA repeatedly supply arms to the very people they will be fighting in few years.*** Either Americans are the dumbest people on Earth or more likely, just pretend to be.

But with China being all aggressive there is no need to go to actual wars anymore. You just need to shout "Look China!" and Asian counties would increase their defense spending, as is already happening. It doesn't hurt that they have fast growing economies. What China is basically doing is keeping arms bosses from creating new wars based on flimsiest of reasons. Those guys even end up saving on propaganda expenditure. Loss of human lives will be reduced and at the same time, based on my assumptions China won't go to wars and thus, the replacement source of income for arms manufacturer (Chinese boogeyman) won't cause large-scale deaths. It is a win-win situation. And hence that Nobel Peace Prize should undoubtedly go to China and its army in future, in the tradition of giving Peace Prizes to likes of Henry Kissinger (a war monger for concluding peace after losing a war he mongered) and Yasser Arafat (terrorist organisation's leader for retiring from terrorist business).

* http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/asia-military-spending-rises-in-china-s-shadow-spurring-deals 

** http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/big-money-behind-war-military-industrial-complex-20141473026736533.html

*** http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-the-military-industrial-complex-needs-al-qaeda-the-best-enemy-money-can-buy/5366159

China and Vendors at Sarojini

When a person (typically of fairer sex i.e. females) goes to visit the bazaars in Lajpat Nagar or Sarojini Nagar, a method of bargaining is employed which usually results in the desired result of getting a plenitude of clothes in less cost. The method is as such: the person walks up to the vendor of the desired item and asks its price. The vendor usually quotes a price which is 10 times the minimum price he is willing to sell. The naïve buyer (NB) will settle after one round of haggling. The experienced predator (EP) will go on haggling till the price reaches jaw-dropping low amount. EP will think that she is the queen of shopping and NB will beat herself silly thinking that she overpaid. What they will remain oblivious to is that they both over paid. It is because the cumulative effect of bargaining by both NB and EP is that the vendor still ends up selling his item at a price much more than the cost price (the price at which he bought it) and making a lot of profit. He succeeds in doing this by claiming exorbitant price.

Training grounds for future diplomat as advocated by me aka Sarojini

China is doing the same thing with South China Sea. It claims sovereignty over 90% of South China Sea when it actually doesn't deserve even half of it. And where few years ago, this was a non-issue; today, China is being asked to compromise and settle down for less when it should rightly be settling down for nothing! It is a good method of bargaining where you ask for a hell of a lot more than you deserve so that you finally get a lot more than you deserve. It is like claiming that you are the Lord of the Universe so that people will request you to settle down for Lord of the Milky Way.

Asia according to Racist Chinese Assh***s!

Of course, you should be able to back up your claim with some threat, some force. A Death Star is ideal for such purposes as long as you have taken care that the thermal exhaust port does not leads directly to the freaking reactor core. However, we Earthlings being not that advanced have to settle for conventional military strength and economic power. China has both thanks to its decades of strong economic growth, huge spending on military budget and its clone army large population. It can bully the small ASEAN countries and stand up to USA. That is why, instead of laughing on China’s demands people are trying to pacify it.

Products fresh out of Chinese Clone Factory in Xyushiaqaza

Now, when China could do it, why should India remain behind? We are such expert bargainers (ask any frequent visitor to flea markets about our haggling skills) that it is our duty to engage in a similar adventure. We should learn from this whole drama and stake claim over the Indian Ocean. Even its name is Indian Ocean, not World Community's Ocean. We just need to get double decades of double digit economic growth and raise a droid army to counter China’s clone army. When we are powerful enough to enforce such claim and stand up to both China and USA, then we could start sulking about historical injustice and the whole of the Ocean coming under our Exclusive Economic Zone (because f**k UN Convention on Law of the Seas). We will quote some dubious historical sources or use our creative brains to makes such a source, to point out how the entire Indian Ocean used to belong to us and that is why it is called Indian Ocean. Even if all this does not get us the entire ocean, it may get us some part of it. Even if we go from having almost 0% of an Ocean to 20% of it, I can’t think of a better bargain in the history of humankind.

Asia according to Glorious Indians with a heritage of 10000000000 years and superpowers!

My humble request to the Government of India is that the economic growth and droid building should be brought in focus while at the same time we should encourage young generation to go to Sarojini and Lajpat so that a day will come when we will be the world pioneers in bargaining and haggling. Shakuntla aka Bharat ki mata ki Jai!!

PS: Visit this amazing site Atlas of Prejudice

Accidental Similarities between Indira Gandhi and Cersei Lannister

This article might come to haunt me when Congress comes to power (or not) but then I am too much of a fan of both Game of Thrones and Indian political history to resist from this. I know it sounds weird but there are parallels between both these dynamic ladies. Maybe I am the only one who sees them but then who cares? 

[Disclaimer: I am not in any way implying that Indira Gandhi is an incestuous child-killer. She might be non-incestuous child-killer according to her critics. No! What I mean to say is that there are some similarities in the lives they lived. I am in no way trying to put down any of the achievements of Indira Gandhi. I consider Indira Gandhi to be a far better, effective and capable leader than Cersei can even dream of being. She is someone who is still revered by people for her role in winning the Indo-Pak war and who in my admittedly limited knowledge never depended on her sexuality to get her way. I personally respect her for being a kick-ass and consider her to be far above Cersei in almost any respect, although I am also critical of her many decisions.]

Coming back to the purpose of this article, the parallels between Indira Gandhi and Cersei Lannister begin with their parents. Both came from illustrious lineages. Both had fathers who were respected leaders and statesmen. One was feared more than the other, but then Westros is no place to practice Gandhian ahimsa or parliamentary democracy. Both lost their mothers at early age. Both lived during turbulent times, when the old guard (British and Targareyans) was making way for a new one (Indians and Baratheons). Both their families benefited immensely from this transition. Nehru became India’s first Prime Minister and Tywin Lannister got a king as his son-in-law. Their families spawned a dynasty that had a major impact on the political scene of their respective worlds. Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has given three Prime Ministers and one puppeteer of a puppet Prime Minister to India. Lannister (-Baratheon?) dynasty has given two kings and a Queen Mother. So far, so good?

I may or may not be pointing out the similarities between Indira Gandhi's and Cruella De Vil's hairstyle.

But the biggest reason why I write this article is because both women were strong political leaders feared by men around them. Neither India nor Westros has been described as women friendly by anyone since forever. But they defied patriarchy and steamrolled their way to the top. Neither was taken seriously in the beginning. Indira Gandhi was called a goongi-gudiya by her own party men. And Cersei was packed off to King’s Landing as a ‘pretty face’. But they soon became politically apt, beating even veterans at their own games (at least occasionally in Cersei’s case). One was more insane than the other, though it depends on your political views to decide which one.

Joffrey surpasses Sanjay Gandhi in every respect, including the whining level.
(Source: http://indianexpress.com/photos/picture-gallery-others/sanjay-gandhis-birth-anniversary-his-unseen-pictures-with-indira-varun-rajiv/3/
http://state-lines.com/trashtalk-gameofthrones/ )

Both were mommy dearest to their elder sons and this was perhaps their biggest weakness. The sons had lot of influence on their mothers’ decision making. They were the stars of their mothers' lives, being groomed as their mothers’ heirs. Indira Gandhi had two sons: Rajiv and Sanjay. Cersei also had two sons: Joffrey, the universally beloved (hehe) and Tommen. Both had their favourites: Sanjay and Joffrey, who somehow turned out to be megalomaniacs and sociopaths, not respectively. Maybe they were just spoiled rotten but both lacked any consideration about the consequences of their actions on people. Of course, it is too hard for anyone to come even close to Joffrey’s level of evilness but it wasn’t like Sanjay didn’t try. Mass sterilization, sometimes of bachelors, gagging of press, jailing of opponents and suppression of civil rights might be “just another day” for Westrosi people but it is too much for modern-day sensitive people. He never came anywhere close to Joffrey’s level of diabolism (Ned Stark, Bran or kittens anyone?), but it was still pretty high by Indian political standard. They fortunately unfortunately died early deaths leaving (easily filled) vacuums in nobody’s their mommy’s hearts. 

Their deaths shook their respective mothers very badly. Both became paranoid after it, trusting only their close family members in Indira’s case and just Qyburn in Cersei’s case. The younger sons succeeded their older brothers’ to the throne after their deaths. Rajiv became Indira’s rock. But for Cersei, Tommen was too timid and too, err, non-psychopathic to be a good king. She continued to mourn for her loss by turning a deranged bloodthirsty woman herself (see Qyburn’s experiments for more revolting details).

Bonus 'Joffrey being slapped' scene for anyone who is feeling low. At least evil people are punished in some universe.
(Source: http://tumblrofthrones.tumblr.com/post/67866780867/wrathfulcersei-cersei-lannister-meme-11)

A question that comes to our mind is: why in this world did strong, otherwise shrewd women, allow their son to dominate them in such a way? In Cersei’s case it is still understandable as Joffrey was the king and everyone, except our BAMF Lord Tywin, had to bow down to his wishes. But why did Indira heeded Sanjay’s advise, can only have one answer: the bonds of motherhood had blinded her. Anyways, Indira didn’t outlive her son for too long. And Cersei also met her downfall soon. Will she ever make a comeback or be fed alive to hungry dogs (as I hope) will be a question that can only be answered by George R. R. Martin. Till that time, poor fellows like me try to survive on cocktail of Game of Thrones reruns and crackpot theories.

Changing Perception of Beauty

We live in interesting times. Never before in mankind’s history have the fashion and beauty trends changed so much and so fast. People are more prosperous than ever before. And there has been an exponential growth in consumer and consumption culture in all fields. We are bombarded with so many images dictating our beauty ideals, with the West and the Bollywood laying down the benchmark for what is beautiful and what is ugly. And if we don’t fit those particular criteria we begin to despair, self-depreciating ourselves. Words that send us into a downward spiral of self-hate: “hourglass”, “thin”, “curvy”, “fair”, “thigh-gaps”, “abs” and on and on the list continues.

The curious thing is that sitting in 21^st century India we don’t realize how fickle beauty is. What is ugly for us was the epitome of ideal beauty for our ancestors or ancestors of people from some other culture in some far off place. Beauty is entirely a mental construct, not a scientific phenomenon. As they say “beauty lies in the eyes of beholder". 

Take India for example. What is the ideal of female and male Indian beauty today? Deepika Padukone, Aishwaya Rai or Katrina Kaif? Hrithik Roshan, John Abraham or Arjun Rampal? A woman who has big eyes, straight nose, arched eyebrows, full lips and  shiny hair as well is fair, tall and curvy but without fat will be accepted as beautiful by almost all. In men, someone with sharp and strong features and who is tall, fair-skinned and well-built will be considered handsome by all. . Historically, caring and fussing about your appearance was considered emasculating so the beauty standards for men are a bit relaxed. But, don't celebrate mankind, the capitalists have started exploiting the insecurities of you guys too. Fair and Handsome anyone?

But like our values relating to education, jobs, religion have changed, so have our beauty norms. The easiest way of seeing this change is comparing the cine stars of say 50s and 60s with the Bollywood stars of today. The heroines then were a bit curvier and had never seen the inside of a gym. Their makeup artists had fewer arsenals at their deposit; though big eyes and fair skin still ruled the silver screen. The heroes were ruggedly handsome, flouting their chest hair and even flab with flair. The male beauty has in fact changed drastically. Maybe we can thank Salman Khan and Akshay Kumar for it.

A very big criterion of beauty is a person’s melanin level. But it wasn’t always so. Ajanta paintings feature persons of all skin colors

Source: 

https://wovensouls.org/2015/07/10/external-article-ajanta-cave-murals/

Notice the thin eyebrows. Even our anceastors were plucking their eyebrows. Source:

http://www.mastersconnection.com/index.php/archived-articles/general/1908-ajanta-caves-your-history-lesson-for-today

Source:

http://www.unknownworld.co/content/ajanta-caves/

Including, weirdly enough, green ones.

Black, brown, white, yellow, red, green. People did it with everyone. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:India/SC_Summary/SP_Ajanta_painting

The jewelry suggests that they are a part of the upper class. Despite that, there isn’t any skin based bias in the paintings. Another example is that of Hindu gods and mythological figures being described as both dark-skinned and beautiful or handsome. Krishna means dark or black in Sanskrit. Lord Krishna is described as both dark-skinned and handsome or attractive. Draupadi is also known as Krishna or dark-skinned. She is also considered beautiful. Thus, skin pigmentation level was no barrier in being considered attractive. This continued even in medieval period. Case in point: Pala miniatures.

For some reason jaundice was a common ailment. Source: http://hyd-n-spook.blogspot.in/2012/06/indian-painting-schools-of-painting.html

All this changed with the coming of the Turkish, Persian and Arab invaders, later joined by the Mughals. All of them had, in general, fairer skin than the average Indian. Hence, the connection between fair skin and beauty, elitism and superiority was born. As they changed our views about so many things, the Muslim invaders changed our views about what is beautiful and what is not. Just look at the Mughal miniatures. Dark skinned people were annihilated from the visual arts. Not even deemed worthy at times of being depicted as servants, especially if females.

The only two dark-skinned people are men and are standing at the back. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilras_Banu_Begum#/media/File:Female_musicians_wedding_of_Aurangzeb.jpg

Aurangzeb: Can tolerate Hindus in his service but not dark-skinned people. Okay, maybe he did but at least they are missing from the paintings. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#/media/File:Darbarscene.jpg

Kishangarh school Bani Thani. Compare India's 'Mona Lisa' with Gupta-era women. Her upper body and head is covered. Her nose and chin are sharper. Source:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mughal_painting2.jpg

This fervor reached down South and today you will be hard pressed to find dark skinned gods and goddesses or nobles in Mysore or Tanjore paintings.

Mysore painiting. Source:

http://mysore-paintings.com/gallery/

Tanjore painting. Source:

http://www.utsavpedia.com/motifs-embroideries/tanjore-painting/

Other beauty traits like small waist, big eyes and arched eyesbrows still  reigned supreme in Mughal times as they do now. Though the shape of the face and the nose became more angular, another difference between our Western conquerors and the natives (Western Asians tend to have an aquiline nose). The Southern paintings continued to preserve the softness of the face.

If any ambiguity about the superiority of fair skin was remaining, British finished it. They nailed “Fairness is the most beautiful trait” in our heads.  And here we are in 2016, importing foreign beauties for Bollywood. You will be surprised to how many of our stars don’t have pure Indian ancestry. Katrina Kaif, Dino Morea, Lara Dutta, Tulip Joshi, Helen, Tara Sharma, Diya Mirza, Arjun Rampal etc. have mixed ancestry. Jewish and Persian people are also represented disproportionately in Bollywood and Miss India pageants. To sum it up, our beauty ideal shifted so much that we needed people from outside to fulfill the demand when the people from our subcontinent couldn’t. 

It is very important to keep two things in mind: first, difficult as it is, we should not allow few ad companies and directors to decide our beauty standards and secondly, our idea of beauty should reflect the diversity of our subcontinent. It should not be limited to Punjabis and Muslims with few other ethnicity thrown in. We can have a lot more of say North East or tribal people for example when it comes to visual representation. If we make the efforts by the next generation things would have changed and beauty wouldn’t be just skin deep. Mass media is a powerful tool and maybe for a change we can actually use it for something good.

Further Readings:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/15/mural-ajanta-caves-india-birth-indian-art

http://www.unknownworld.co/content/ajanta-caves/

https://fuzzytheory.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/a-history-of-fair-skin-preference-in-south-asia/#comment-1191

http://gaatha.com/history-miniature-paintings/

http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-art/paintings/mughal.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persis_Khambatta 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehr_Jesia