If someone were to do the world’s most comprehensive survey on what people aspire to, it is doubtful that poverty would top that poll. Poverty is an evil that erodes the very foundation of what human beings aspire to every minute of the day: dignity of life. Which is why poverty should not be glamourised as Vogue’s India edition (in what was ironically called The India Issue) tried to do.
By juxtaposing poor, ordinary people holding/carrying/wearing uber expensive luxury brands like Hermes’ Birkin bag or a Fendi bib, a leather Dolce & Gabbana tote bag, a Burberry umbrella, Kenzo shoes, Bottega Veneta bag, a clutch by Valentino or Alexander McQueen and so on, it tried to make it seem that poverty could be, at a pinch, the next fashion accessory. The storm this has generated both nationally and internationally is, I would say, justified.
Bringing poverty down to this frivolous level takes away the seriousness of what it is, thereby turning away the world’s attention from it and sending an implicit message that poor people are all having a jolly good time swishing around with a Birkin bag or a Dolce & Gabbana tote. Or Indian poor babies whose very life is threatened due to malnutrition are enjoying fancy suppers wearing a Fendi bib.
But what has added fuel to this fire and is keeping this issue alive is the magazine editor’s comment in The New York Times which advises all those opposed to this fashion spread to “lighten up”. Would the formidable editor of Vogue’s American edition, Anna Wintour, advise and get away with such a statement if it were to, for instance, do a fashion spread at Guantanamo Bay with the detainees there as a prop?
Or if the magazine’s German edition were to shoot a fashion spread at Auschwitz and those against it were told simply to “lighten up”. Where would Vogue India go next for its next, “edgy” (fashion’s favourite word to describe its experiments with the bizzare) shoot? How about the areas affected by the Kosi river flood? Prince Harry faced national opprobrium not just in the UK but worldwide for showing up in a Nazi uniform for a private party.
Every country has its issues and holy cows and even a fashion magazine (which again in its editor’s words is not trying to save the world) has to be sensitive enough to understand that. When we try to take these terrible events or aspects that plague our world and try and portray them in a glamourous way, it gives society the permission to forget the horrors that it inflicts on humans.
In India, in its more urban and affluent pockets, there is already great danger of forgetting that the poor exist and that they too deserve a better life and future. The spread of Naxalism in India is already proof that those being marginalised are feeling powerless and hopeless.
Fashion doesn’t and shouldn’t exist in isolation. By doing so it will only make itself irrelevant and given how big the business of fashion is, that would be, to put it simply, disastrous. The bosses at such glossies need to understand that we are no longer colonised and this patronising attitude as shown by this fashion spread and the editor’s comment can indicate a shallow commitment to India. And shallowness , like poverty, isn’t ever going to be the flavour of the season.
