My thoughts(updated)

Update below

On whether FiTW is racist sob for saying that dark skinned people may be less beautiful, or Rohit, contrary to description of his carnal adventures in lurid detail on streetcar, a hopeless, insecure nerd who will end up with an inflatable doll.

But first things first. You guys are so inconsiderate, why you have to spoil my happiness by discussing skin colour when you should be discussing bitchitude and uglitude of Nandita Das. To paraphrase Michelle Obama, you people are just downright mean.

Anyway, now I have no definitive answers to the question of skin colour, so what follows is reckless speculation.

I think basic arguments in support of "fair is lovely" can be summarized as follows.

1. Fairness acts an indicator of physical health.

Now this may have some merit, to be precise I do think a ruddy complexion may give appearance of a healthy constitution, I am not sure that it is wholly accurate, especially in case of Indians, who do not in general have full blooded appearance, with the possible exception of Kashmiris and Punjabis . A better indicator than level of melanin, in my opinion, is the skin texture or tone, a healthy flawless luminescent skin , with a balanced oil/moisture/whatever content appears to be a better biological indicator of overall health, and one which should be the dominant factor in perception of beauty as far as it is influenced by forces of evolution. And I don't believe that skin tone/texture bears any correspondence to melanin. For example, in my limited observation Bengalis and Keralites have a better skin tone than rest of India, despite not being overly melanin deficient. In absence of additional information, at least in case of Indians, to me the argument seems weak.

2. Fairness is an indicator of absence of physical labour and therefore affluence.

I am not sure about this. I have read somewhere (possibly some offhand comment made by Rajeeb at shittymutiny) that light skin was (is ?) considered a mark of noble birth among native tribes of Andes as well as some parts of Africa. Now this may be true, but I am not sure that it has to do with indication of lack of physical labour, basically even a lifetime of leisure can not make that appreciable difference in melanin levels, and the time period required for evolution to kick in is too large (if that is possible) and I will be surprised if any royal bloodline continue for that long. Moreover if the proposition that body features which signal affluence are a factor in perception of beauty, is accepted, then a more appropriate criteria would be signs of sedentary lifestyle such as obesity, however this is hardly ever the case (with the possible exception of late Roman antiquity). Therefore I doubt that such preference has to do with an indicator of affluence.

3. Fair skin is an indicator of hygiene.This may be true, however it must be tested to see how much it is behind the bias for fair skin.

4. Preference for fair skin prevalent in Indian society is racial in nature a product of subjugation by fairer races in the past.

This is the position held by Rohit, Sriram and Ritwik. I agree with the basic thrust of the argument, however I suspect that the mechanism and history by which preference became prevalent is complicated than what they suggest. Briefly I think that preference could be due to introduction and gradual absorption of victors in the existing social hierarchy. Basically those with fairer complexion will be more likely to identified with the victors and therefore in that way it does make sense for preference for fairer skin. In this Indian preference for fair skin is akin to Latin American scenario .

It is just a conjecture and it is not possible for me to check its veracity in absence of available data. However I do disagree with them on how it might have occurred.

Rohit says that such preference is due to British rule. I doubt this is true. The physical differences between British and Indians were so stark, that it was impossible for Indians to pass off as British. Socially British formed a separate group with rare mingling (Anglo Indians), thus ruling out any absorption, this had to do with the nature of colonialism. Perhaps this started with invasion of Muslims from central-Asians and Persians. However even though they were assimilated to a much greater degree than British, there was still clear distinction between the invaders and natives owing to their faith, though it is still possible that preference for skin colour was a result of conversion.

The most possible scenario to me seems is that this bias was a result of successful invasions launched by central Asians over several centuries. However I doubt that this is the case of AIT as Ritwik alludes to in the comment, which as far as I remember is considered a doubtful translation of Sanskrit text owing to racial biases of 19th century.

A study of Indian literary sources can confirm the speculation depending on the extent it shows bias towards fair skins. To best of my knowledge in classical texts, most of the prominent Gods are depicted as having dark skins example being Shiva, Rama, Krishna, as are various Goddesses and heroines, such as Sita, Draupadi etc.

Which brings us to the trouble with all this dark skin-fair skin issue. Because of its possible roots in racial biases, preference of fair skin has less to do with beauty than with a sense of being socially superior.

Which is why while usually other traits are positive in the sense that one is appreciated for the presence of the traits, their absence doesn't result in one being made to feel inferior. The examples that come to mind are hair,eyes,nose etc.

In contrast being dark in India means to be in constant awareness of your melanin level. Since childhood everyone from friends to relatives never let you forget of that, you are constantly compared and declared to be inferior. It may sound hyperbole, but for a child to grow up being constantly subjected to overt and implied discrimination is simply humiliating, and it is worst with the girls in India. The result is insecurity and resentment which may last for lifetime, and perpetuation of the vicious cycle. Considering that Indian are by and large skinned, it means a lot of unhappiness for lots of people.

This should be obvious to any Indian except eminent dunce.

Update: Rohit has written a well formulated rejoinder to the post. He argues, and I find his arguments reasonable, that it was possible that bias against dark skin might have been a result of British colonialism. Read his posts for detail, but the basic idea is that conquered will likely imitate the victors almost instinctively, kind of imitation (or as her uses the term integration).
I must add the caveat that this too is a hypothesis and needs additional information before we can be confidant about it. One way to test this may be to contrast the bias between predominantly rural and predominantly urban communities/class(On the assumption that urban communities/class having a closer interaction would probably be more affected with the bias touch with bias).

This brings a related point, one which has been raised by Rohit as well, even if it was not possible for subjugated Indians to directly identify with British on basis of complexion, they still sought identification by adapting to British customs, from manner of speech to outlook. Much of it was benign of course, but a non trivial part of this were to condition Indians to accept their identity as inferior for eternity. One of its more repugnant examples was the enthusiasm with which many educated Indians embraced the whole claptrap of 19th century racial theories about Aryans. Just so that you can put it in perspective, the popular racial theories were always pseudo-science and were the harbinger of eugenics and by extension Nazism. One of such jarring acceptance came from a well known Indian.

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."*

And


"It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting - to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges."*