Indians of all shades and all eye color are all bona fide Indians. The answer to shadism is not reverse shadism. Don't hate, appreciate all shades.

Meet a Model: Lakshmi Menon

When and where is the meetup? I'll be there!

Okay, you're clever, we get it. Now would you please stop posting the same comment on all the threads? Thanks!!

That Keegan does a great Zoolander! I am glad Lakshmi Menon is fighting the good fight against the obsession with fairness. It must take so much effort for her to muster the energy to do so, working as she is with just a meager 150 lbs weight and -5 oz of body fat.

It’s like the Godwin’s Law of all things desi-related.

Hmm. I find it pretty sinister that Godwin himself embodies the Aryan ideals of blonde hair, blue eyes, and light skin.

LMAO - Lakshmi herself is pretty 'fair'. I would not call her dark by any measure. I agree with some of what she said but it also seems like reverse discrimination to put down people who are born 'fair' and have no say in the matter. Should they feel guilty for oppressing darker skin brethren? IMO, she should focus on self esteem building rather than skin color. All shades are beautiful and even unconventional looking women can be appear beautiful with self confidence - think Sarah Jessica Parker.

BTW, she is wearing makeup in that video which you can clearly see.

The Indian fashion industry is actually quite representative of the colors and features of India. There are darker skinned models, and on some occasions I've seen black models on the Indian runways. But people like Carol Gracias, monikangana dutta, Nina Manuel, Vidisha Pawate, Diandra Soares, Tinu Verghese, Ujjwala Raut, Madhur Sapre are some examples. There are plenty more whose name I don't know but have seen on the various Indian fashion shows.

I was on the site earlier today and was so glad to not see the dark / light skin conversation on Aish Abhi article. Looks like things changed later on.

There is something so calm and serene about Lakshmi Menon. I would die for that skin like that.
Love how the Keegan looks like he has no clue what she talking about. " Yea, its really scary, hmmm, yea, Totally " LOL !

Poor Stylist Keegan Singh

Please tell me this person's parents were fans of Kevin Keegan and Liverpool FC or something, I want that to be true.

Lakshmi blows away the notion that beauty and brains can’t cohabit.

Please tell me this person's parents were fans of Kevin Keegan

I couldn't watch part 2, I think because it won't let me watch it in the UK. But Keegan looks so Flock of Seagulls and Zoolander, he's so funny.

But Keegan looks so Flock of Seagulls and Zoolander, he's so funny.

yeah, that dude was funny.

I mean, he looks like a nice guy, but I guess Zoolander just nailed that stereotype of the fashion world so much in my mind. My bad.

LMAO - Lakshmi herself is pretty 'fair'.

She is "fair" by any desi standard. Yes she is "dark" by western standards but dark by desi ones - no way. The ones mentioned above are all "not dark". I hav enot seen a single dark female model - male models are common and so are dark male actors but the females - very rare. Even Nandita Das is light skinned by desi standards

I have seen her from very close; trust me she is about 'average' as far as desis are concerned (maybe even on the 'darker side). People generally look lighter than they actually are on camera (b/c of lighting etc.); anyone who has worked on a film set will tell you that. So all this talk about her being not 'dark' are bunk.

People generally look lighter than they actually are on camera (b/c of lighting etc.);

i was going to go with the people who suggest that she isn't very dark at all, but yes, this is also my experience. i've done some web video for bloggingheads.tv, and when the lighting is high key or harsh it way washes out my brownitude. several friends have commented on the effect. other people have said the same about ashwairya rai. she's much browner in person than in film or photos (though i can't attest to that obviously).

yes, friends who have worked on movie sets have noted repeatedly that most of the bolly actors & actresses are not half as 'fair' as they look (there are exceptions obviously; the kapoors, for instance & asrani is another one). Do this experiment; go out on a very bright day (there and take a video of yourself; you'll find yourself (looking) half as dark.

Sorry, I meant then rather than there

Do this experiment; go out on a very bright day (there and take a video of yourself; you'll find yourself (looking) half as dark.

perhaps mother-in-laws should only teleconference with their daughter-in-laws? :-) i kid.

I have watched this clip like 10 times already... watching Zoolander get owned is priceless.

yeah, that guy is really funny. it seems like she's smirking at him about him near the end too. but that might just be my interp.

She is "fair" by any desi standard. Yes she is "dark" by western standards but dark by desi ones - no way. The ones mentioned above are all "not dark". I hav enot seen a single dark female model - male models are common and so are dark male actors but the females - very rare. Even Nandita Das is light skinned by desi standards

Wow, if Nandita Das is getting hammered for "fairness", I am developing an inferiority complex because I'd probably be considered an albino. What shade is it politically correct to be if you're an Indian? Apparently any shade of brown is not "good enough". Colorism sucks in both directions.

Colorism sucks in both directions.

the magnitude of the vector differs. this has been discussed. it is a little unseemly when the haterade comes out for the fair & comely, but it is trivial compared to the slights which are simply the norm for the kala. sometimes in forums people talk about how models need to be fed and are anorexic. it can be ugly, but at least at the end of the day they won't be called a lard-ass on the street on a regular basis. in any case, after looking at some pictures of nandita das, i think MD's assessment is right, she is probably is in the lighter 50-percent. there's public median skin reflectance data which can you can also cross-reference with the von luschan scale. brown people a dark folk. some groups, such as south indians and bengalis are a very dark folk, and there are many of us. of course there are many light-skinned brown people. and with higher birthrates in the northwest quadrant of the subcontinent the average south asian is getting lighter!

I consider myself dark skin and I have the same color as Lakshmi. She'd be considered dark among my family so it's strange to hear that she wouldn't be considered dark. Photos with lighting can make you look lighter, and so can of course being in colder weather zones. In South India where the sun is out everyday and if you work outside or outside a lot people generally get darker. Lakshmi may have just been modeling and been out of the sun, but to me she is the darker tone of South Asians. I've posted pics of her in India Vogue in a bikini where it clearly shows her dark skin.

She'd be considered dark among my family so it's strange to hear that she wouldn't be considered dark.

It depends on where someone's personal norm of 'darkness' is. I have family dark as the night who would kill for LM's skin tone. I also have cousins who are on their fairness high-horse that wouldn't blink to snark on LM as a 'kala'.

Like everything desi, there is no right or wrong answer to this question - it's all shades!

Can we stop talking about all this 'colorism' its SO BORING

We need to talk more about Keegan Singh.

We need more Keegan in the world.

The whole world needs it.

Lakshmi blows away the notion that beauty and brains can’t cohabit.

Um, of course she has beauty and brains! She's desi, isn't she? It's practically a foregone conclusion!

Joolz, you can't see part 2? Really? The site's supposed to be internationally available, so that's a problem. Crap. What does it say?

Is anyone else having a problem watching that? Let me know please -- I'll embed the second clip in a new post for you guys. It's even better if you want more Keegan in your life... he talks about his family (v.e.r.y.s.l.o.w.l.y.) and about his modeling days (whoever first called Zoolander -- gold star for yoouuu!) and the banter between the two is even more hysterically funny.

i want these two in my celeb dinner party.

she is so lovely

cicatrix!

I am touched that you worried I would not be able to see part 2 and it turns out that the fault was entirely at my end and this heap of junk that laughably calls itself a computer that I was using. Thanks for your concern! Part 2 is very good and I am a fan of Keegan. Please use him again whoever decides these things.

Some facts about Keegan Singh.

(1) He is from California

(2) It is unlikely he was named after English soccer legend Kevin Keegan.

(3) His father is half-Indian.

(4) He is a mixture of Finnish, Swedish, Irish, English and Indian.

(5) His family donated the land in northern California for the local Sikh temple.

(6) His mom was an artist and his dad was a rice farmer.

(7) At the end of the interview he says to Lakshmi "We should do something together", and its so Manhattan, like a caramel 'Sex and the City' or something.

In short, I propose that we demand that Keegan be given further employment on this channel and other media, without delay. The people and the community (whom I represent), demand it.

8. I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking.

"Fairness vs Darkness is a post-colonial hangover thing". LM says that in ENGLISH (and DBDs cannot miss the put-on accent there). Oh the irony!

Really - her very profession is something that originated in the west. The clothes she wears and the presumed lifestyle she leads are all western. So is she really saying "let's emulate the west as much as we can - except w/ regard to skin color. Because I am not very fair skinned."?

Booyakasha Um, what? You got all that from the interview? She still lives in Goa, her accent is hardly put on, and fashion/fashion shows are hardly the exclusively the provenance of the West. How do you interpret any of that as emulating the West? I don't want to start a huge back and forth about this, so suffice it to say that I disagree.

Joolz, I'm so glad you enjoyed him! He was supposed to be the interviewer, and the shooting team started sweating bullets when he turned out to be, uh, tongue-tied in front of the camera. Luckily Lakshmi spoke enough for both of them. He's hilarious though, isn't he? So California. And so so so pretty.

Is Keegan "Indians are so beautiful... yeah totally" Singh gay or straight? I love how he's trying to impress her and she's totally not giving a shyt...

He seems totally oblivious that the 'light-skinned' standard of mediocrity that she's railing against is embodied by HIM.

ahahaha.... I've watched this clip 15x time now... LOVE IT!!!!

He seems totally oblivious that the 'light-skinned' standard of mediocrity that she's railing against is embodied by HIM.

that's because if he's only 1/4 brown he probably identifies as white, and for a white person he's quite dark (e.g., compared to his suomalaiset relatives).

Cicatrix - if you think fashion shows (obviously not fashion itself) are not a western concept, then we definitely disagree. And LM is the face of Hermes, as quoted by you, not some Indian product. I do agree my viewpoint digresses from the main topic a bit, but this fascination in India about lighter skin is only a small part of the overall 'western wannabe' culture that prevails today - that is what I was trying to convey.

Wow, if Nandita Das is getting hammered for "fairness", I am developing an inferiority complex because I'd probably be considered an albino

Keegan Singh looks like somebody of whitish (as opposed to wheatish), but indeterminant ethnicity, that would have been sent by Central Casting to play an Indian in a Euro or American movie circa 1967. He's a tad more desi-ish than Peter Sellers. Just a tad.

Keegan, like Gagan?

W/o my bifocals i totally thought it was Sean Hayes....

W/o my progressive lenses (tell me there's a pun here) I totally thought it was Sean Hayes.

BTW, Keegan, like Gagan?

melbourne_desi, you're alive... man, I thought you got beaten up on the train down under :(

She looks ugly without all the makeup, fluorescent lighting, etc. Just my honest opinion. And yes, she uses Fair And Lovely, or else Photoshop is an industry unto its own:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2208/2506142843_8fb84b89ae.jpg

I do not want to downplay the cultural effects of colonialism, and I am no kind of expert whatsoever on art history. But isn't the "fair = beautiful" trope something that both pre-dates European colonialism in India and something that has occured within European societies as well?

I mean, I have seen the idea that fair skin is more desirable for a woman in European/American literature and art, too. I figured it had to do with class: having fair skin meant you were not a laborer -- you did not work outside in the sun, but could sit indoors and be fed peeled grapes all day or whatnot. Obviously, that's changed in the past 60 years or so, since blue-collar and white-collar workers often work inside factories and office buildings, and the wealthy can afford a life of leisure wearing bikinis to the beach and the tanning salon, but for a long time white women were also supposed to be as pale as possible to be thought feminine and beautiful.

Obviously, class issues get tangled up with racist beauty standards in a colonized or slave-holding society, and there's probably no way to dis-entangle them. But I sat up a little when she said "post-colonial" because I think class is mixed in there too.

More traditional the name of the model, the hotter she is!

lizzie (greeneyed fem)

Having fair skin meant you were not a laborer -- you did not work outside in the sun, but could sit indoors and be fed peeled grapes all day or whatnot.

It's amazing how some people don't have common sense. If you hadn't noticed Lizzie, Indian's dark skin isn't from working outdoors but is natural just like it is with blacks. If all Indians were to say indoors they would still have dark skin because they're born with it. If I sound irritated it's because someone always makes that stupid correlation which doesn't apply to people of color.

gem: Jesus Christ, of course I know that brown people (Indians, blacks, Hispanics, etc) are not brown from working in the sun.

I was talking about how class has (perhaps) affected beauty ideals within ethnic populations (a white woman being deemed fair in comparison to other white women, or a brown woman being deemed fair in comparison to other brown women). Unless you're claiming that all Indians are the exact same shade of brown, or that Indians don't get darker from being out in the sun regularly, you've missed the point I was trying to make about the spectrum of skin color within ethnic populations and how a preference for fairer skin might be related to class (in addition to racism or colonialism).

Again, I don't know enough about pre-colonial Indian art and literature to make a judgment, but the interview clip above made me wonder if pre-colonial India really did have any beauty ideals of dark(er) skin, since I see a historical preference for fairness in other societies that seems related to class.

I mean, obviously, shit like the "paper bag test" in African-American culture had to do with racism and the history of slavery in this country. I'm sure colonialism in India left a nasty stamp on what's culturally considered "acceptable" beauty. At the same time, in 18th and 19th century England, for example, upper-class women were supposed to avoid the sun because a fairer complexion was thought to be more beautiful than a tanned one -- white "fairness" was prized in comparison to the complexions of lower-class white women who might have had to work outside.

So my comment was me wondering if there was a similar celebration of fairness in pre-colonial Indian art -- that is, fairness of complexion in comparison to other Indian women. Any art geeks wanna weigh in?

Lizzie you're still missing the point. Since Indian's don't all have the same complexion one complexion can't be associated with working outdoors or low class over any other. For example, say you have three high-caste Indian ladies each born with a different complexion: one caramel, one fair, and one chocolate. For simplicity sake we'll say that these are the only high-caste women that exist in the area. How would the lower-caste Indians who also have a variety of complexions value one over the other? Or associate one complexion with being more high-bred? It's a toss up! That's why saying this fair-skin obsession is from class is baloney.

Another thing, are you insinuating that Africans don't have different complexions or that African's don't get suntans? Because hey, if you ignorantly think that Indian elites are going to be lighter-skinned or have just one skin tone then why not argue the same for blacks? If not then why aren't you using common sense? Most upper-class Indians are going to be born with the same variety of dark-skin tones as the rest of the population. As for pre-colonial India the Ajanta Cave Paintings depict Indian royalty and nobility in Buddhist India all different skin tones, mainly dark shades.

Most upper-class Indians are going to be born with the same variety of dark-skin tones as the rest of the population.

So while it may be true that people of all groups have representation from the entire spectrum of Indian skin colors, we're talking in terms of generalities and it is a fact that the bulk of higher-classes tend to be lighter while lower ones tend to be darker. This is due to both the genetically higher incidence of darker pigmentation and is further compounded by the fact that they tend to work outside in the sun more often.

Obviously, we're talking past each other. I was talking about beauty ideals, not the actual complexions of individuals (which, of course, vary within all classes). I doubt that ALL upper-class women who sat for a portrait in 19th century England were pale white, but they were all painted that way because that was the ideal.

Since Indian's don't all have the same complexion one complexion can't be associated with working outdoors or low class over any other.

I think this is where we're disagreeing. Obviously, the reality is that there is a variety of complexions both within and across classes in all societies. That doesn't mean that a certain "type" of beauty can't be held up as the ideal. To say that there's no way beauty ideals could ever be influenced by cultural ideas about class within a society, or that colorism has never had anything to do with class, is ridiculous.

My question was if a certain complexion has, in fact, ever been associated with a certain class in India, as it has in other cultures. You say no, and provide some visuals to back up your argument (and thank you for those).

This article, however, mentions pre-colonial India as a place that did prize fair complexions in the context of class. It's not the greatest source (no author listed, sources not fully cited), but it's an example of what I was trying to introduce to the conversation.

There are too many ignorant people here on SM! Indians and posters here just don't know what's in upper-caste Indians' ancestry that causes them to be lighter-skinned on average because it would have nothing to do with staying indoors or outdoors. The darker skin of "lower caste" Indians isn't a suntan! Too many of you are taking for granted why the upper-castes are lighter skinned in the first place(if that's true. I haven't been to India).

Now India has been invaded many times by Arabs, Persians, Mongolians etc. and their genes must have been absorbed into the upper caste and that might-be the reason behind upper castes' lighter skin. The chocolate-licorice-cinnamon dark skin tones of India are from antiquity. I'm tired of Indians and posters here having the insolence to equate dark-brown Indians with a suntan just because they have been placed on the bottom rungs of society and happen to be outdoors only due to their marginalization. The same case is also true in North Africa such as Egypt. Upper class Egyptians are light-skinned because they are an accumulation of all the foreign (lighter) nations that invaded Egypt over centuries while the darker skin of the lower class is remaining African blood from Ancient Egypt. It's like you all want to explain whenever the upper class is light-skinned as natural. As if the existence of a skin color discrepancy is mutually exclusive where one color has to be argued as more original than the other; in this case lighter skin being viewed as primary over darker skin. Stop having such a meme-sahib mentality by thinking of lighter-skin as the 'starting complexion' and darker skin as a secondary phenomenon of a suntan! Dark skin is original and natural also! No skin color is more original than any other!

I disagree though that caste is based on skin color with a vertical light/dark dichotomy. If anyone looks at the Ajanta Cave Paintings link I posted earlier you'll see that was not originally the case. I disagree with attributing this light-skin over dark thing to class at all. While racism (caused from outside invasion) is a form of elitism, classism isn't by default stratified by skin color. The two are not interchangeable. Elitism within cultures originates with the elites having the same complexion(es) and physiology as the common people of that race.

For this reason, European colonialism will forever be the real reason behind all this. Because explaining the light-skin hierarchy as simply a class issue is defaulting class to light-skin supremacy. Stratifying people is bad enough but how dare anyone have the gall to insinuate that dominance begins with light skinned people while denying dark-skinned nations and people from ascendancy.

Btw the above post was directed at Yoga Fire.

This article, however, mentions pre-colonial India as a place that did prize fair complexions in the context of class.

I've read that article and the author appears to be ignorant for the above reasons I stated. Some Indians and other Asians are so used to seeing light skin as superior and are so used to the current state of things (of the upper being light-skinned) that they can't imagine it being any other way. Thus they will try to make pre-colonial history fit their preconceived opinions.

There are too many ignorant people here on SM! Indians and posters here just don't know what's in upper-caste Indians' ancestry that causes them to be lighter-skinned on average because it would have nothing to do with staying indoors or outdoors. The darker skin of "lower caste" Indians isn't a suntan! Too many of you are taking for granted why the upper-castes are lighter skinned in the first place(if that's true. I haven't been to India).

That said, we don't really know what the perspective on skin color was in ancient times. It's likely it played some factor, but how much of a factor it played would differ at different points in time. It's likely that for most of history it was a pretty minor consideration and the idealized skin-tone was probably darker than we would see in film but also lighter than many on the darker end of the spectrum.
On top of that, invaders in the North (and traders) could have brought their own skin-tone preferences in. In every case those invaders were lighter than the natives, so it makes sense that conquering leaders would prefer to carry away women on lighter complexions. (It should be noted that most of the invaders prior to the Islamic invasions were essentially absorbed into the Hindu fold and usually were placed at the more prestigious ends of the varna rankings.)

For this reason, European colonialism will forever be the real reason behind all this. Because explaining the light-skin hierarchy as simply a class issue is defaulting class to light-skin supremacy. Stratifying people is bad enough but how dare anyone have the gall to insinuate that dominance begins with light skinned people while denying dark-skinned nations and people from ascendancy.

I think the genetic record shows that there hasn't been much Arab, Persian, Mongolian, etc population entries into India. The population as a whole is genetically the same. Whoever invaded different parts of the country didn't bring a changing population with them. Instead, Muslims leaders often forced conversion and/or many of the converts were likely low-caste as there was an incentive for low-castes to convert to a religion that seemed not to place them int he lower end of the hierarchy. Wish Razib would respond and/or converts were those inspired by the new religion.

Now India has been invaded many times by Arabs, Persians, Mongolians etc. and their genes must have been absorbed into the upper caste and that might-be the reason behind upper castes' lighter skin.

Who says that lighter skin was considered more beautiful? You're assuming that just because that's the case today. The ancients most likely valued dark-skin as more beautiful. I quoted Marco Polo before on another thread but I won't do it again.

I think you're assuming a perspective that I don't have. I'm not saying light skinned people are better than dark skinned people or even that they're different.

No I didn't. What I meant was people including you need to stop thinking that elitism beings with the upper class being light-skinned. Your problem is viewing light skin as more original than dark skin. I'll say it again: all complexions are genetic and most ancient Indian elites were dark-skinned.

people with lighter skin would be more likely to marry into higher-status families

Yes and for that reason here's a thought. Perhaps the light-skin of the upper castes is recent? I don't necessarily mean that they're mixed with European but that along with the post-colonial favoritism of light-skin used by the British (or other Europeans) might have made the elites disproportionately light-skinned than they might have been before. To clarify, the desire to breed-out dark skin or favor light-skinned mates as you mentioned might have happened only in the last several hundred years and it only seems like forever to us since our lifespans don't last long. We can't get on a time machine and see what upper caste Indians looked like before European contact. So I think many posters here insisting that India's colorism is pre-colonial and that upper castes were light skinned is presumptuous.

Too many of you are taking for granted why the upper-castes are lighter skinned in the first place(if that's true. I haven't been to India).

Perhaps the light-skin of the upper castes is recent?

For this reason, European colonialism will forever be the real reason behind all this. Because explaining the light-skin hierarchy as simply a class issue is defaulting class to light-skin supremacy.

I was in no way claiming that the "light-skin heirarchy" is "simply a class issue." In no way. I would never dismiss the poisonous cultural affects of colonialism and racist social heirarchies. OF COURSE colonialism and racism have left their stamp on the beauty ideals of India.

I tried to acknowledge as much in my original post:

I do not want to downplay the cultural effects of colonialism

Obviously, class issues get tangled up with racist beauty standards in a colonized or slave-holding society

I was simply trying to point out that colorism (prizing one shade of skin above another within an ethnic group) exists in many cultures and that it probably has had to do with class (historically) AS WELL AS race. That's all. I never claimed it was only about class. If colorism of any kind did exist in pre-colonial India, I am 100% sure that European colonialism and racism strengthened and twisted it into something much stronger and much worse.

But you guys still think that upper castes would just be light-skinned and if that was the case that's why I stated:

Too many of you are taking for granted why the upper-castes are lighter skinned in the first place (if that's true. I haven't been to India). Now India has been invaded many times by Arabs, Persians, Mongolians etc. and their genes must have been absorbed into the upper caste and that might-be the reason behind upper castes' lighter skin.

Lizzie, I understood you, but my point is this

Any colorism with class would still be racist because the upper castes wouldn't have originated with light-skin. There would have been no reason for any favoritism or association of light-skin with higher status as long as the upper castes are completely indigenous Indians who therefore should inherit dark-brown skin like most Indians. If things changed in between our day and the time the Ajanta Paintings were made there would have had to have been a change in the upper-castes' ancestry and genes. Again, I disagree with saying it's from class because class systems in each nation don't originate with foreign rule or the upper class physiology differing from the natives. The real root of such a standard would still be racism. Take Brazil for example. While beauty standards that value light-skin and straight hair can be said to be a class issue the dynamic was still caused by colonial racism stratifying Europeans at the top and blacks/mestizos at the bottom.

Self deprecation is against human nature. Human beings love self, so on a mass scale civilizations' always prized their culture as the best and things like beauty standards supporting common physical attributes like skin color would be a given. India didn't always favor light-skin above their own dark skin. There was a time when dark-skin, especially the darkest shades, were highly valued, but to read you guys' comments you make India's self loathing seem from time immemorial!

Um, of course she has beauty and brains! She's desi, isn't she? It's practically a foregone conclusion!

hmm... maybe im in gteh wrong city or something. I meet a lot of vapid desi women.

I meet a lot of vapid desi women.

well, my suggestion is to them is to drop a couple of "postcolonials" in the conversation. but delay the use of the word "subaltern" till at least the third date. don't want the person to get all hot and othered.

saying all skin types is attractive is being politically correct. I do not think very dark skin is attractive and i am not going to be politically correct or be apologetic about it. if me thinking fair skin is prettier because of colonialism, then i would also think that blonde hair is prettier but i dont! i dont like extremely fair white pale skin either which was seen as beautiful during colonial times. there are so many albinos in india who look just like europeans but i have never seen them in bollywood or indian television or mis world etc. if indian prefers fairer co of colonialism and more association with europeans.....she would bring out these albinos and say hey we can be white skinned, lighter eyed and blonde haired too. pschology says we attracted to people who look like us....i am a fair skinned girl and i like me, maybe thats why i think fair skin is pretty.

I think the genetic record shows that there hasn't been much Arab, Persian, Mongolian, etc population entries into India. The population as a whole is genetically the same. Whoever invaded different parts of the country didn't bring a changing population with them. Instead, Muslims leaders often forced conversion and/or many of the converts were likely low-caste as there was an incentive for low-castes to convert to a religion that seemed not to place them int he lower end of the hierarchy. Wish Razib would respond and/or converts were those inspired by the new religion.

Thw whole claim that muslims treated the so called "lower castes" better is just theory. They continued to be treated unfairly. What explains the obsession with fair skin in Pakistan? Infact I have seen a popular TV host from Pak "the fourman show" calling indians kaale aur gandey

I have a question why is the "colour" of a South Asian woman's skin so important in relation to Indian beauty standards but Indian men are ignored? It seems to me that South Asian men are not pressured to have "light skin" in order to be considered attractive.