(Article taken from the The Straits Times on 2nd September 2008)
An old woman missing her upper front teeth holds a child in rumpled clothes - who is wearing a Fendi bib retailed at about US$100.
A man models a Burberry umbrella that costs US$200. Approximately 456 million Indians live on $1.25 per day
This article speaks of Vogue India's August edition that presented a 16-page "supple handbags, bejewelled clutches and statues-symbol umbrellas", but with a twist. Instead of well-known models or celebrities who can afford these items doing the honors of modelling them, Vogue had instead chosen to make use of average Indian people who would not be able to afford these items in their lives. (Approximately 456 million Indians live on less than $1.25 a day)
Vogue has thus sparked off debates on these images with skewed visions of India. Many found it "not just tacky but downright distasteful" and even denounced it as an "example of vulgarity". To her critics, Vogue India editor Priya Tanna's message was "Lighten up." She said that Vogue was about realising the power of fashion, and that fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege, that anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful.
When I read this article, I was pretty dumbfounded, and disgusted by how Vogue was exploiting the poor in India. I felt that they had no right to use these people and mock them. What happened to human rights and who allowed these shots to be taken and published? "Fashion is fun, lighten up" the Vogue India editor said. What's so funny about these shots? That they are poor and everyday they struggle to make a living or worry if they have enough food tomorrow?
I really wonder how did they choose the models, and how much they were paid. Were they exploited? I mean, every single cent they get would mean so much to them even if they were paid much lesser than the models or celebrities right? Living on $1.25 a day, I'm sure even if Vogue pays them a measly US$50, that would do the trick in getting them to model for these shots willingly.
What caught my attention most was the captions of the photographs taken. According to the article, "The magazine does not even bother to identify the subjects of the photos" says Ms Gahlaut, the columnist. Vogue names the brands of the accessories in the captions instead, and identifies the sex of the wearer or carrier. Frankly, that was a turn off when I read that these people did not even get recognition even though their faces were placed on the magazine. Are they not like celebrities and models? Are they not human beings as well? They are real people, with feelings and with struggles. Do the things they struggle with make them any less significant then the rich?
Vogue probably thought they were doing both the poor and themselves a favour, by helping the models to earn quick bucks, and saving some cash for themselves. Have they ever thought about their insensitivity towards the poor society in their country and what consequences there may be in future to their nation? It's times like these I think about what the world has evolved to, for the sake of wealth. With little or no one stopping these exploitations that are happening, what will our future hold?
