Vogue's India fashion shoot sparks disgust

The Independent, written by Pamela Timms in Delhi
It's the kind of picture Oxfam uses to prick our consciences to dig deep for the hungry, but the giveaway is the toddler's Fendi designer bib: It costs £50 - more than two month's income for an impoverished rural Indian family.

The photographs are from the August issue of India's Vogue magazine, and the latest example of 'Third World' chic. Earlier this summer clothes designed by India's poorest and most downtrodden women - 'night-soil carriers' from the country's untouchable caste - were modeled on a New York catwalk.

This latest example in Indian Vogue provoked an outcry today as leading commentators denounced the magazine for exploiting the poor and trivialising their plight by using them as props in a fashion shoot for British designers Alexander McQueen and Burberry.

The magazine featured 16 pages of photographs of India's poorest peasants - many of whom live on 65 pence a day according to figures released last week by the World Bank - draped with impossibly luxurious accessories they could never dream of being able to afford.

Tonight India's leading social commentators denounced the shoot as 'distateful' and 'callous.'

Pavan K Varma, former diplomat and author of 'The Great Indian Middle Class,' said the feature highlighted how India's increasingly wealthy elite enjoyed its privileges without sparing a care for the poor around them.

"Right now in India money is fashionable," he said. "India is a very hierarchical society and people feel the need to flaunt their wealth as they feel it enhances their status. People who have money or who aspire to have money become totally immune to the deprivation around them. The problem is that the wealthy in our country have become blind to the poverty. To use people like this shows a complete callousness to genuine suffering. These people have been used as commodities to sell fashion."

According to one leading newspaper columnist, Kanika Gahlaut, the feature was "not just tacky but downright distasteful". Using a rural mud hut as a backdrop for Burberry accessories, she said was not "fun or funny," when hundreds of Indian farmers commit suicide every year as a result of failing crops and mounting debts.

Their anger was further fuelled by the contrast between the detailed prices and shop locations listed for the designer bags and accessories and the fact that the 'models' were identified only as 'man' or 'woman.'

A spokeswoman for Indian Vogue editor Priya Tanna tonight said the magazine had been taken aback by reaction to the photographs but defended the decision to publish them, and said the poor 'models' had been paid 'a significant amount.'

Their critics should 'lighten up.' Fashion thrives on "fantasy, aspirations and above all, fun," she said.

"For our India issue we wanted to showcase beautiful objects of fashion in an interesting and engaging context. We saw immense beauty, innocence, and freshness in the faces of the people we captured. This was a creative pursuit that we consider one of our most beautiful editorial executions. Why would people see it any other way?" editor Priya Tanna told The Independent.

Leading Indian fashion designer David Abraham jumped to the magazine's defence.

"This kind of juxtaposition is always there in India - the servant who serves a glass of wine which costs more than his monthly salary," he said.

"When I saw these pictures, I thought the people looked sweet. I'm not convinced it's offensive. In fact I think the high moral tone is a bit patronising. Wealth next to poverty is just a reality in India. Both have always existed. As long as you don't humiliate or ill-treat poor people it's OK. Lots of models can't afford to buy Fendi handbags either."

Vogue's Indian edition has been controversial since its launch last year. Its glossy pages of exorbitantly-priced designer clothes are sold mainly at road junctions by bonded child labourers, many of whom are sold by their parents to gangmasters for as little as £12. The children are paid a few pennies for each copy and some earn less than 25 pence a day when trade is poor.