Vouge INDIA's fashion photo session with indian poor

Indian poor (African poor also) always is a lucrative, fashionable subject of photography/art for some art house camp and individual. Now fashion grasps them. What vogue India done in the name of photo session (vogue India august issue) with Indian poor, just an example of perverse nature of liberal new market economy,  well defined proof of moral degradation in a consumer world. An attitude to just dump ethos and a tendency to create a market or capture a market leads to the shameful demonstration of creativity in the name of fashion.
How vogue India looks at poor, as a metaphor of art or dream people? The perspective of vogue India as it revealed as they conceive an idea of self imposed superiority in a domain which made them blind to an extent that they are loosing their feet on the ground. Whole demonstrations came out as a flimsy idea for a saleable “creativity” with use of poor. One billion people, 30 million middle class, so sell them anything, make them anything.

On The new York times

“not just tacky but downright distasteful” said Kanika Gahlaut, a columnist for the daily newspaper Mail Today that is based here, who denounced it as an “example of vulgarity.”
There’s nothing “fun or funny” about putting a poor person in a mud hut in clothing designed by Alexander McQueen, she said in a telephone interview. “There are farmer suicides here, for God’s sake” she said, referring to thousands of Indian farmers who have killed themselves in the last decade because of debt.

And

This is what VOUGE INDIA editor said:
Vogue India editor Priya Tanna’s message to critics of the August shoot: “Lighten up,” she said in a telephone interview. Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said.
“You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” Ms. Tanna said. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said.

B V Krishnamurthy wrote on Harvard business in an article “Vogue, Vuitton Marketers Don't Understand India” as:
While there is nothing wrong in those earning high salaries having aspirations and getting into the rat race, flaunting such wealth in a manner that is disdainful of the suffering of millions is sure to sow the seeds of undesirable tendencies among the have-nots. Organizations, marketers and users can ignore these at their own peril.

Comment by G S Julka on article of B V Krishnamurthy as:

Most of the luxury brands make the same mistake. Mercedes came to India merely looking at a billion people. Result: It is a failure. If it was an Indian company, it would have been declared bankrupt. It has lost its net worth.

Jim Johnson wrote on his blog "(Notes on) Politics, Theory & Photography "

Moreover, as crucially important as material well-being is, what is at stake here is humiliation and cruelty. The individuals in the photographs might not quite grasp the cruel, humiliating implications of the Vogue photographs (although I would not want to pre-judge that), but virtually every relatively well-off reader of Vogue surely should be able to do so. How condescending are these images? "Oh, look at the poor woman and child! How fortunate that the baby can wear that charming bib!" The consequences of so cavalierly displaying such attitudes in any society are immense. That the folks at Vogue, as well as many of their readers and sycophants, seem unable to grasp that fact is truly disturbing.