Are we that shallow?

(This particular blog is still being rewritten.. so it is not in its final shape)

Residing in the west, sometimes there is a sore feeling when denied some things that we deserve because of our skin colour. It is a fair doubt, very similar to the doubt I have had in India when I have wondered if some thing that I deserved did not happen so because of my caste or family background. Prejudice is a part of any human society and we all have our preconceived beliefs and notions to blame for it. Once when I shared this with a professor of mine in India, he said that Indians should not feel out of place in the west considering that even "Black" people reside there and Indians should at least be superior to them because (according to him) our skin tone is a little better than theirs. I cannot describe how much I cringed on hearing this. A well-educated man, a professor, from India's top institution, believes that we are better than people who are darker than us in complexion. How can one equate skin tone (which cannot be chosen by the individual) with humanity or skill or intelligence? How can you place a person above another because he/she has lighter skin? Yes, we know that racism has been a part of the social fabric in the west (which is at least being dealt with), but what is the Indian take on racism, in this case, what is our take on skin colour? Do we really believe that lighter skinned people are superior? Do we want all our maidens to be fair? In a country with more than 75% of its people having brown-dark brown complexion, is it right to consider that only 'fair is lovely'?

Recently, I was talking to a friend of mine who was telling me that it was difficult to find a groom for her sister because she was dark skinned. This is not a new or shocking news for any Indian considering the generally accepted norm for a beautiful woman in India is to be light skinned. If you want proof of that fact, look at the actresses in Bollywood. Even in the south, where most people have a slightly darker complexion than the north, Tamil and Telugu cinema boast of their fair skinned maidens. But when you walk through the streets of India, the men and women you would see would look be much darker than any actor you would find in Indian cinema. Heck, even the male actors in the North are fair skinned, which is why many cannot even fathom how a dark skinned Rajnikanth is an icon for Tamil cinema. But this discussion is not about cinema. It is about our mentality. Whom we accept as stars on screen are indirectly a representation of our perception of beauty. Throughout the world, people want to see a slight variation of themselves, probably with higher cheek bones or pouting lips, as their on-screen heroes. But only in India would you find that this expectation includes being light skinned as well.

An American professor of theatre once rightly pointed out after watching the movie, "Bride and Prejudice" as to why the Indians on-screen where of much lighter complexion than any Indian he had ever seen on the university campus (this is a campus of about 2000 Indian students). I did not know if I should tell him that this was our conception of "beauty". Take any newspaper's matrimonial column, for instance. (Sort of the Indian version of a dating service, only it is not dating but a marriage service) Most of the 'brides wanted' ads would ask for a fair skinned bride and the 'grooms wanted' ads would point out that the potential bride is fair skinned as an additional "qualification". What I cannot understand is when did we start giving so much importance to skin colour? Are we all not brown skinned? (Almost all Indians, when compared to the westerners would be considered dark skinned)

When you study the descriptions of Krishna, Parvati and Draupadi in literature, we can see the veneration people had for their dark skins. They are described as having 'shyamala' (or sky) coloured skin which is admired. Yet, when it comes to mortals, we shun the same skin tone. Most boys that I studied with had this fantasy of marrying a fair-skinned maiden (despite their own skin tone) and would call the dark coloured girls ugly. Yes, we do have varying skin tones. People from Kashmir and Karnataka are usually very light skinned, where as people from Tamilnadu are usually darker but, of course, there is a spectrum of colour from very light to very dark skin throughout India. It is impossible to point out a regular pattern and conclude that all Kannadigas/Kashmiris are fair skinned, because they are not.

With a history as ancient as India's, it is not possible to point out the genealogy of an individual and investigate the reason for his/her skin tone. The north has been invaded by the Afghans, the Mongols, the Greek, the Turks, the British, the Portuguese, and the French (to name a few). In the east, we were invaded by the Chinese, Burmese, and so on. Although the south remained a little less prone to foreign invasion, we have still had our share of invaders. So, of course, there is no doubt that there would have been mixed blood and genealogy that affects the way we look. Because of this, anthropologically there is no way to conclude why we look the way we look. But why is that so difficult to accept? Why should we not like the way we look and consider that beautiful? Why should we have a beauty industry that gains 90% of its profits from skin lightening products? Why should a good looking man or woman be considered "ugly" just because he/she is dark skinned, which by the way, is the most common skin tone in the country?

The concept of beauty is skin deep. If skin is such a small entity, why give so much importance to it? In today's non-Utopian world where importance is given to the way you look, why cant we accept ourselves for what we are? We ape the west in so many things, beginning with coke, pizza, rock, heavy metal, jeans, t-shirts to even Gucci and Prada products. We are trying to look like Nicole Kidman while forgetting that we belong to a different race and have different genealogy. It is wonderful that Indians try to embrace different aspects of different cultures, but in that process why should we trample our own? It is difficult to say when this madness began but isn't it time we began to celebrate ourselves in stead of looking up to an unattainable alienated look while spurning our own people? Isn't it time to stop alienating people from the concept of beauty because they look Indian, and isn't it time we made all our men and women feel proud that they are Indian and they look Indian?

Is it good enough?

When asked the question, "Do you miss home?", my answer is always affirmative like several Indians living in the U.S. But my reason is often different. The most I miss about being away from home is the cultural scene and by that I mean the classical dances (sometimes music too). At home, access to quality dance classes was easy and so was access to quality dance programs. Although top dancers such as Malavika Sarukkai, Alarmel Valli and Birju Maharaj tour the U.S. from time to time, my work has only let me stay in those parts, not often visited by top classical Indian performers, or at such times when the organizers could not afford them. In the places where I have lived/currently live, we usually get the ones that trickle down the cracks, who sometimes turn out to be good and even exceptional, if we got lucky. No offense, there are several dancers who are really really good but not famous. I agree. I have witnessed several such performances in India and have been immensely moved, wondering how these artistes struggle to make ends meet just because they are not as famous as some others. But I am not talking about those here, because such people hardly get a chance to perform as a soloist abroad. I am referring to those artistes that perform extensively in the U.S. and get applauded for "advancing/promoting" their culture but who wouldn't meet the standards if they were to perform anonymously in India (without an American resident label attached to them).

I sometimes visit the website narthaki.com run by Anitha Ratnam, a dancer herself just to keep myself updated on the current dance scene. It is a good source especially for people like me who miss a part of their soul because of the lack of facilities where we live (carpeted floor, neighbours who cant stand the stamping "noise",...) just to make a connection, to feel nostalgic and smile about the good old days of visiting Narada Gana Sabha and Music Academy, to witness the masters perform, to learn a great deal from watching, and to forget one's self in those surroundings. But recently I read something on that forum which made me write the present blog. I had witnessed a Bharatanatyam performance by an artiste and her students when I visited a friend and was quite appalled by the lack of any standard in that show. None of them including the guru exhibited even the basic qualities of a Bharatanatyam dancer (posture, tiredlessness, expressions, eye movements) or the basic grammar of Bharatanatyam such as the half-sitting (aramandi), raised elbows, or even proper postures. Hell, many of them were slouching when they were dancing. They weren't even standing erect!

Someone, most probably a parent of one of the students or someone close to the dancer, must have written a review and posted it on Narthaki. He raved and raved about the quality of the dance because the standard of dancing of these children was so good, it could give the Indian-born dancers a run for their money. Now, as much as I am for parents being proud of their children, I do have to say that this review was over the top. Just because NRIs can afford and stay close to some dancer, they send their girls (usually girls) to a guru and accept whatever this guru teaches as classical dance. They are so proud that they declare that whatever their daughter dances is pure classical dance. I don't know if this is a defense mechanism against anyone who might say that ABCD children are not Indian enough (or are too American), but it is not an accurate depiction of reality(not even close) . Yes, I do find that many ABCD children are very Indian in their upbringing and have some American qualities (which is not at all wrong - why not take the best of everything that you can and be proud of it? Sometimes they are more Indian than some Indian kids in India who are so overcome with their blind love for the west).

The main point of this blog is my curiosity, "Are we celebrating mediocrity because we think that is good enough or because we blindly believe that our children are better than others or because we simply are too ignorant to appreciate quality even when the lack of it stares us in the eye". I have often witnessed little girls dancing or singing Indian classical dance or music (sometimes parents exhibiting them like a show piece in a museum) and someone remarking, "Can you believe an ABCD is so good at this?". In such situations, I have wondered, "Should we encourage this because this is a child or should I tell the parents that what their child is learning is absolute crap?" Why are Indian parents forced to send their children to these classes and get them sub-standard training? The same goes for Indian organizations that invite artistes over to perform dance. Anyone with a brain that functions would have figured out that the NRI audience are easily overcome with gimmicks. Once you have someone famous score the music for what you are performing or add some jazzy backdrops or give a resume that looks good, they pre-determine that the show will be good. They don't understand that the awards you get in India are a dime-a-dozen. Any noun that follows the words "Nrithya" or "Natya" will make a new title and can be awarded even by the Indian Overseas Bank!

Speaking of which, on a personal note, I was once performing as part of an American theater group. There was a solo Bharatanatyam piece in the play and, needless to say, it received rave reviews. But then, who decides if it is good? Sure, the costume and the jewellery would have dazzled everybody, and my dance resume looked good. The audience knew that I had won some championships and had already decided that my dance would be good. I received great reviews in the newspapers and from anyone who had seen the play. But then, in my heart, I knew that my dance in that show was quite sub-standard. I had had very little practice. It was in the middle of my graduate school work and I was exhausted after my school and job everyday even before I got to the show. Yes, I wish I had practised more, but the timing couldn't have been worse. So, do the reviews make me a good dancer? For a layman, probably, yes. But my dance made me a bad dancer during the entire stretch of that show. It was definitely a learning experience for me and I enjoyed working with the people on that show, but the fact remains that my performance was quite abysmal and no amount of good review can change that.

Back to the topic under discussion, if most children are learning crap, is every teacher in the U.S. a bad guru? Do they not care about their students performing badly? Absolutely not. Although there are good schools of music and dance in the U.S., they are a handful and even if the gurus have been wonderful artistes, they often take up 50-200 students to train. When you have such a big class, how can you afford to correct the mistakes of everyone? How can you be sure that every student is keeping their elbows in the unsagging position or that every student is bending to their fullest extent?

Of course, you cannot always blame the teachers. I have also witnessed parents who would join their daughter in a Bharatanatyam class . Once their daughter joins a dance class, they will remain silent for a month. The next month the parent would creep up silently and ask the teacher to teach their daughter to dance for a song so that she can perform in the local temple or a local show. (It usually takes anywhere between 6-12 years to become a trained Bharatanatyam dancer, and yet not reach a professional level. It takes immense practice and dedication to be a Bharatanatyam dancer and no one learns how to dance to a full song before they are well trained in the basic steps which takes about 2.5-3 years. You usually perform before an audience only after this point)

What can a teacher do except say "no"? And how many times can you say no when they keep pressing you to do otherwise? Teachers often get frustrated by such requests. When teachers do not teach such "entertaining numbers", their students often leave. In India, it would be impossible to lay such requests/terms/conditions on a teacher. The teacher is the GURU and he/she is the foremost in the life of the student. What he/she utters is the ultimate word. Unless, a teacher declares that the student is ready for such a project, no one would dare bring up such an idea in India. But all an NRI parent wants to declare to the world is, "My son/daughter is more Indian than yours".

So, parents, if you are reading this, understand that selecting a proper guru is the foremost in training your son/daughter in any art form, but before that please make sure that it is your child that wants to learn the art and not you that wants it for your child. Art comes from passion and unless you are passionate about it, you cannot be forced to learn it. If you have a good guru, learn to respect what they do for your child. It is better to wait than to display mediocrity. You don't ask your child's math teacher to teach your child calculus in first grade (unless your child is Ramanujam). So why not give the same respect for art? And finally do not be proud of mediocrity. If you want people to stop saying, "This is good enough for an ABCD" then display excellence. Until then, only "this" will remain good enough for ABCDs!