Indian beauty is feminine and flowing, dramatic and mysterious.  It carries the weight of thousands of years. The vibrant silk saris and shimmering golden chains call back to the times of majestic Rajas and warriors atop horses, when women wore their hair to their waists and princesses bathed in milk and honey.  Indeed, until just recently, much of Indian style and beauty has remained untouched since antiquity.

Indian wisdom and Hindu philosophy can be traced back to the Vedas, a vast system of knowledge that is collected in four texts and which dates back at least 6000 years.  Ayurveda, the medical portion of the texts, asserts that beauty is largely based on overall health and dictates the use of solely natural products for healing and preventative medicine. According to ayurveda, which exists today as a medical system in India, clear, glowing skin is deeply connected to the digestive system. In order to maintain the healthy skin and strong, shiny hair – both of which are very highly valued in Indian society -  women must eat plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables and put nothing on their skin that cannot also be eaten (sesame oil, milk and rose water can be found in both the kitchen pantry and the bathroom cabinet).

Away from men and society, beauty tips in India were largely learned in the multigenerational home. Daughters sat patiently as their mothers massaged their scalps with coconut oil, threaded away unwanted hair and taught them how to line their famously beautiful eyes with kohl.  Women learned the hydrating, softening, and exfoliating qualities of milk baths in private.

Historically, curves and flesh on Indian women were seen as symbols of lush fertility. Robust health was an integral part of beauty standards and ancient Indian texts refer lovingly to round, full, “moonlike” faces.  The name “Chandra”, Sanskrit for moon goddess, was popular in ancient India.

However, in 1991, this ancient ideal began to change.  India’s government decided to liberalize the country’s economy by joining the world market, and as the  doors opened to the rapidly globalizing world, Hollywood starlets soon flashed their lean, athletic bodies on screens across the Indian subcontinent.  Corporate Bangalore got more than just jobs with the outsourcing boom as saris were soon replaced by short skirts and the venerable long hair was chopped.  Western jobs and goods flooded the country, and with them came great changes in acceptable norms and beauty standards.

It was the European and American ideal of fair skin, however, which touched a strong nerve. In India, skin color is a weighty issue.  Dark skin is frequently associated with manual labor and color alone can fuel class-consciousness and discrimination. Girls who are born with darker skin often feel enormous pressure to lighten up. For many decades a product called “Fair and Lovely” - a skin cream that contains lightening agents – has dominated the market.

But interestingly, it is this same influx of worldly images that seems to be giving Indian women a chance to rebel against this archaic stereotype, widening the scope of ideals by making a spectrum of skin colors more acceptable.

Still, many mothers and grandmothers watch this first generation of globalized Indian women with disbelief, hoping that the archaic tips and rituals that brought Indian women their graceful beauty for thousands of years are remembered and recorded somewhere for future generations to rediscover.

Originally published by BeE Woman Magazine, Winter 2007

How has globalization changed the world in terms of religious tolerance and stereotyping?

Globalization has changed everything. For the first time, everyone is aware of what’s going on in the world. If there’s a death among the Palestinians or a bombing in Calcutta, it’s on the news. It immediately plugs into the debate about identity.
Two, it allows people to go back to the sources. When a woman is being murdered in Pakistan and is told that “This is Islam”, she can go back to the Koran and discover it’s not Islam, it is culture. It could be tribal culture or custom, but it’s not Islam. Three, it moves away your sense of isolation.

As globalization has happened, instead of things becoming more tolerant…

This is the paradox of globalization. In the West and America, globalization is seen as a great benefactor, bringing trade and financial development. In African and Asian societies, globalization is seen as an oil tanker in a small pond. It landed there and everything has been disrupted. Some have benefited, but there are hundreds of millions of people who are stuck in poverty. There are 358 individuals who are worth more than half the world’s population. These imbalances are creating a great deal of turmoil.

The way the media works, it’s generally “if it bleeds, it leads”. The most provocative things are put out there. Does that skew people’s perspectives of the way the world actually looks?

Absolutely, so you see on CNN, Fox News, all the major TV channels, who is invited to talk about Islam? It is not the scholars of Islam. You will get someone who knows nothing about Islam but has an ideological position and will attack Islam. Or, you have Muslims who have rejected Islam, who will reinforce this negative image. The information is ideological, it’s distorted, and a lot of it is superficial.

Why is radicalism developing so much now?

I can describe three basic models of Muslim leadership today: the mystic, the modernist, and the orthodox traditionalist. After 9/11, the mystic has been marginalized. He has no answers when your house is being blown up and your wife is being raped. The mystic simply talks of love and compassion and Rumi and that seems irrelevant. The modernist seems irrelevant because he is talking about the law and writing letters. It is the traditionalist who is saying “Islam is under attack. We are being attacked.”

And that is satisfying for people?

It’s emotionally satisfying; it is giving an answer. The traditionalists respond with anger and emotion, and it is a time of anger and emotion. When Muslims look at the world, they see nothing but turmoil and anarchy. They see Palestine, Kashmir—none of these problems have been solved. Look internal to Islam; most countries are under dictatorships. Muslims are saying. “Where do we stand? We are not getting justice from the world, we are not getting justice from our own leaders, and our most cherished icons are being abused. What is there to live for?” Along comes the traditionalist who says “Okay, here’s your answer. Go to paradise.”

You found that the role models in the Muslim world were Osama bin Laden and Ahamdinejad, and anti-Americanism was rampant. What can Americans do?

The young generation of Americans can change the world. They are bright, open, thirsting to do something. One, they need to understand what’s going on in the Muslim world. 90% of information from the media is so negative; they can’t have a real understanding. They need to read, visit, and talk. Two, they need to create some bridges, with scholars, students. Three, they need to start looking at their own society and asking some hard questions. Where is this country going? Are we compromising the ideals that have created us as the great United States of America, the greatest, free-est, and most wonderful democracy?

Working on a grassroots level, or through policy?

Both. Only when grassroots awareness comes in will policy change. Right now the problem is policy in the US is not being dictated by the people. It is working in isolation, hijacked by the neocons. We will face the consequences of that.

The younger generation must recapture leadership here and on the world stage.

Some people say that Muslims are afraid to speak out.

I am giving you my own example. I have suffered, I have been attacked, and I have been smeared. You have to just stand your ground and fight. There is a great thirst to understand Islam. Muslims have to be involved in the dialogue about and around Islam. That is critical, and that is not happening sufficiently.

How do you get people with very radical viewpoints to change? Can it only be one to one, face to face?

It has to be. If I can convert one key figure, who is an ideologue, who in turn can influence thousands of people, I have achieved. I have done that.. It’s not a battle I’m pessimistic about.

To go back to the three models of Islam, the West has to support the modernist. They need books, computers, and libraries. If you support them, they fight the battle of ideas. The modernist and the mystics are being squeezed out. The pendulum is swinging towards the traditionalist. Do you want that, are you unwittingly helping that, or can your younger generation save the situation?

Are you optimistic about the future?

I am when I think of all the wonderful people who are committed to dialogue and discussion. That gives me hope. The pessimism is, against this, you have a tidal wave of ignorance, prejudice and hatred, on both sides. When hatred and prejudice are out of control, this is the slippery slope which leads to anarchy and chaos for civilization. On the heels of one hatred comes another hatred. When you get all the Muslims and put them in internment camps, who’s next?

The interview has been edited and corrected for grammar.

Originally published on April 4, 2007 by The internationalist, intmag.com.