Why are characters like Draupadi and Krishna never depicted as dark?

Hey everyone! 😊

So, I never watched this show while it was airing but I kind of followed it on and off while having read abridged versions of epics like the Mahabharata and Ramayana.

One sad thing I've always noticed is that modern adaptations/depictions of characters who are said to be dark skinned in the epics always use actors that are fair, case in point being Krishna and Draupadi.

Draupadi was called Krishnaa which means one of dark complexion, yet no modern adaptations of the Mahabharat have ever depicted her as dark skinned Same with Lord Krishna. His name itself means 'dark', 'black' but modern depictions of him shy away from this part.

Is the prejudice against dark skin so strong that they feel the need to whitewash even mythological characters?

Why is it that this is never captured by modern day depictions?

Hi!
Well I don't think that not showing someone with a dark skin means "whitewashing" the character! Do you think that not showing someone as dark skinned is whitewashing the character? And i think that to play the characters like Krishna and Draupadi it is more important to look for their performance rather than their skin tone. Both Krishna and Krishnaa were dark but were also one of the most good looking people in Mahabarat so I think that all the actors chosen for playing the role of Krishna and Draupadi were absolutely perfect. Also regarding Draupadi when Yudhishtira loses Draupadi in gambling he describes her as- "she is nor too short,nor is she too large;nor is she too dark nor is her complexion red."

And again in Adi Parva she is described as-Eye-ravishing Panchali, black and-half-smiling eyes, entrancing and radiant with rather haughty glow ... Soft eye-lashes; standing tall, with well formed swelling breasts; narrow waist like the middle of the sacred Vedi; plantain-stalk like smooth, round, firm shapely thighs; fingers and toes like champak petals; the new-born moon like shining coppery carved nails; palms and foot soles like fresh red lotuses; pearl like teeth; a playful smile that put the lightening to shame. Like an image sculpted by the world's most gifted artist, neither short nor tall, neither dark nor pale;with unblemished beauty of face and matching loveliness of graceful figure ; smooth-skinned fragrant like the lotus , with long wavy dark-blue hair of serpentine loveliness , like the waves of the ocean that could imprison the breeze into stillness ; eyes like autumn-lotus leaves; ... Her unblemished beautiful sweat-bathed face is lovely, like the blue lotus, like the jasmine; ... She is extraordinarily accomplished, soft-spoken and gentle... the intoxicating blue-lotus fragrance of her body delude even the bees. In her presence the tree leaves stilled for a moment; and, the fires flared but silently. She was a dream incarnated of gods and men alike." (Adi Parva 169.44-46; Sabha 65.33-37 )
So it is clear from draupadi's description in the epic that she wasn't a fair skinned woman so she was called "Krishnaa" she was dusky in colour and the actors who had played the role of Draupadi-both Roopa Ganguly and Pooja Sharma both of them are not 'fair' both of them are 'dusky' and hence perfect for the role of Draupadi. And regarding Lord Krishna Nitish Bharadwaj who used to portray the role of Krishna in BRC's mahabharat was applied foundation so that he looked darker and at last Saurabh was chosen for Lord Krishna's role not because of his skin tone but because he is the one who can enact the role of Lord Krishna in the most perfect way! 😊

Add one more dark skinned person with the same name Krishna, That is Arjun. Syamo,Yuva,Gudakeso, Darsaniyo Mahabhujah...This is the description of Arjun by Ved Vyas in the Epic, repeated again and again,even in war sequences. He is Dark,young,curly haired and handsome with mighty arms and personality.There are three Krishnas in the Epic who are irresistibly charming. Krishna, Arjun and Draupadi. In fact the author of the Epic also is dark skinned,Krishna Dwaipayan,VedVyas.

Originally posted by: Mahiima16

Hi!
Well I don't think that not showing someone with a dark skin means "whitewashing" the character! Do you think that not showing someone as dark skinned is whitewashing the character? And i think that to play the characters like Krishna and Draupadi it is more important to look for their performance rather than their skin tone. Both Krishna and Krishnaa were dark but were also one of the most good looking people in Mahabarat so I think that all the actors chosen for playing the role of Krishna and Draupadi were absolutely perfect. Also regarding Draupadi when Yudhishtira loses Draupadi in gambling he describes her as- "she is nor too short,nor is she too large;nor is she too dark nor is her complexion red."

And again in Adi Parva she is described as-Eye-ravishing Panchali, black and-half-smiling eyes, entrancing and radiant with rather haughty glow ... Soft eye-lashes; standing tall, with well formed swelling breasts; narrow waist like the middle of the sacred Vedi; plantain-stalk like smooth, round, firm shapely thighs; fingers and toes like champak petals; the new-born moon like shining coppery carved nails; palms and foot soles like fresh red lotuses; pearl like teeth; a playful smile that put the lightening to shame. Like an image sculpted by the world's most gifted artist, neither short nor tall, neither dark nor pale;with unblemished beauty of face and matching loveliness of graceful figure ; smooth-skinned fragrant like the lotus , with long wavy dark-blue hair of serpentine loveliness , like the waves of the ocean that could imprison the breeze into stillness ; eyes like autumn-lotus leaves; ... Her unblemished beautiful sweat-bathed face is lovely, like the blue lotus, like the jasmine; ... She is extraordinarily accomplished, soft-spoken and gentle... the intoxicating blue-lotus fragrance of her body delude even the bees. In her presence the tree leaves stilled for a moment; and, the fires flared but silently. She was a dream incarnated of gods and men alike." (Adi Parva 169.44-46; Sabha 65.33-37 )
So it is clear from draupadi's description in the epic that she wasn't a fair skinned woman so she was called "Krishnaa" she was dusky in colour and the actors who had played the role of Draupadi-both Roopa Ganguly and Pooja Sharma both of them are not 'fair' both of them are 'dusky' and hence perfect for the role of Draupadi. And regarding Lord Krishna Nitish Bharadwaj who used to portray the role of Krishna in BRC's mahabharat was applied foundation so that he looked darker and at last Saurabh was chosen for Lord Krishna's role not because of his skin tone but because he is the one who can enact the role of Lord Krishna in the most perfect way! 😊

Hello!

No, I think it is whitewashing when it is persistently done do to dark-skinned characters. What I mean to say is, how often is it that characters who were known to be fair are played by darker characters? I too really liked Pooja Sharmaa's Draupadi and SRJ's Krishna, so my issue is not with them They were fab. Even in some paintings I've seen of Draupadi, she is depicted as being fair-skinned, though there are paintings which show her original skin colour.

My question is, how come the complexion of darker skinned characters is altered for say, concerns like 'acting ability', but the same does not happen to light-skinned characters?

There is also the point of historical accuracy. It's like Priyanka playing Mary Kom. Gives the wrong idea about the character. If physical features were unimportant, then why is it that only features deemed 'undesirable' are changed, while features deemed desirable are not? For example, nobody would cast a girl from the North East when casting for Draupadi, so it's not like physical features are unimportant when casting, especially on TV. Aesthetics are taken into account while casting. Pooja and SRJ are great actors, but would they have been cast had they been dark? I have my doubts.

Ulupi was from Manipur, if I'm not wrong, but was the actress who depicted her on the show from the North East?

Also, I guess we will have to disagree on Pooja and Roopa being 'dusky'. They are fair according to me. 😆 Also, Krishnaa means 'dark' or 'black', and Krishna/Draupadi were not just 'wheatish', they were proper dark-skinned individuals.

I think modern depictions of such epics can set a good example for society by not glossing over dark skinned characters. I think it's done 'cause the idea that dark is ugly is still prevalent in society. Especially because there is so much discrimination against those who are dark.

Originally posted by: ltelidevaralak

Add one more dark skinned person with the same name Krishna, That is Arjun. Syamo,Yuva,Gudakeso, Darsaniyo Mahabhujah...This is the description of Arjun by Ved Vyas in the Epic, repeated again and again,even in war sequences. He is Dark,young,curly haired and handsome with mighty arms and personality.There are three Krishnas in the Epic who are irresistibly charming. Krishna, Arjun and Draupadi. In fact the author of the Epic also is dark skinned,Krishna Dwaipayan,VedVyas.

Exactly. So, all these individuals were dark, but none of the actors portraying them are? 😕 It's definitely not a coincidence. I just feel this whitewashing is done because casting directors believe (and maybe rightly so), that people will not accept darker actors. Sucks.

Originally posted by: clarity

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hello!

No, I think it is whitewashing when it is persistently done do to dark-skinned characters. What I mean to say is, how often is it that characters who were known to be fair are played by darker characters? I too really liked Pooja Sharmaa's Draupadi and SRJ's Krishna, so my issue is not with them They were fab. Even in some paintings I've seen of Draupadi, she is depicted as being fair-skinned, though there are paintings which show her original skin colour.

My question is, how come the complexion of darker skinned characters is altered for say, concerns like 'acting ability', but the same does not happen to light-skinned characters?

There is also the point of historical accuracy. It's like Priyanka playing Mary Kom. Gives the wrong idea about the character. If physical features were unimportant, then why is it that only features deemed 'undesirable' are changed, while features deemed desirable are not? For example, nobody would cast a girl from the North East when casting for Draupadi, so it's not like physical features are unimportant when casting, especially on TV. Aesthetics are taken into account while casting. Pooja and SRJ are great actors, but would they have been cast had they been dark? I have my doubts.

Ulupi was from Manipur, if I'm not wrong, but was the actress who depicted her on the show from the North East?

Also, I guess we will have to disagree on Pooja and Roopa being 'dusky'. They are fair according to me. 😆 Also, Krishnaa means 'dark' or 'black', and Krishna/Draupadi were not just 'wheatish', they were proper dark-skinned individuals.

I think modern depictions of such epics can set a good example for society by not glossing over dark skinned characters. I think it's done 'cause the idea that dark is ugly is still prevalent in society. Especially because there is so much discrimination against those who are dark.</font>

Well i agree with u on the part that some paintings portray draupadi to be fair skinned and that shouldn't be done! But the citation i posted in my post was from Adi Parva and according to that description it is clear that Pooja is perfect for the role of draupadi the way she is.And it's not only me but many people think that Pooja is dusky.sorry but i don't think she's fair! And ulupi was never shown in Mahabharat,so I don't have any idea what are you talking about.

Originally posted by: clarity

Exactly. So, all these individuals were dark, but none of the actors portraying them are? 😕 It's definitely not a coincidence. I just feel this whitewashing is done because casting directors believe (and maybe rightly so), that people will not accept darker actors. Sucks.

As far as Arjun is concerned, I am hundred percent thrilled with the selection of Shaheer for Arjun's role. Shaheer who is quite fair looked darkish in war sequences that is apt and convincing. I feel more than the complexion,the way actors emote forms the basis for their selection. Shaheer is charming,handsome and his eyes perfectly portrayed the required emotions for Arjun's role. He has attitude,he is sarcastic ,he is cute he walked,talked emoted exactly like Arjun. He is a natural actor. I thank the casting team for their wonderful casting. Similar is the case with SRJ and Pooja. I feel they got selected because of their extraordinary talent . So to me it is fine even if fairer actors are chosen as long as they look like the characters.I forgot to mention Shaheer's hair,that is absolutely Arjun like.Simply superb.

When you say characters depicted as dark, it has a different meaning.