I have to respectfully disagree. She is not "clearly mixed" and the comparison to Vanessa is fallacious. Based on your comparison, I'm assuming that you mean "mixed" to mean w/ white blood within the last 200-300 years - please clarify. Aishwarya and the many Indians who look like her are Indian. The issue is that people's definition of what constitutes "Indian" is narrow. Like I said earlier, if you look back to the art of ancient India [or more appropriately, the regions that make up what is now known as "India], you'll see plenty of deities and people that look like her. Taking into consideration the African populations that were bought to the Americas and the history of race relations in America, Vanessa Williams is clearly mixed (her family actually comes from the same small Long Island town as my grandma's).
I agree but you're conflating one issue (a genuine Indian who appears to the untrained non-Indian eye to be "mixed") with the other (prizing the beauty of those whose features appear diluted compared to the stereotypical appearance of others in their ethnic/racial group).
Aishwarya is clearly mixed. She is genuinely Indian like Vanessa Williams is genuinely black.
It is not necessary to dilute someone's ethnicity to the nth degree, to the point that you can barely see anything but Euro, to find a person that is "the most beautiful," imo. Case in point:
IMO, Aishwarya is the most beautiful euro, not the most beautiful Indian.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This statement reminds me of when Ash was interviewed on 60 minutes and the WM interviewer paid her a "compliment" - "you're a Greek beauty with an Indian heart".
erplexed I think his [not necessarily your] comment goes back to the assertion that AsianAfricanPrincess made - heavens forbid a certain group display a type of beauty that challenges the stereotypes and perceived "monopoly" that another group holds. Can't have that! So Ash, with her light skin and green eyes can't just be taken as an Indian beauty (believe me, her beauty is quite typical of Indian tradition, esp in certain regions), no she must be "Euro". 
)
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This statement reminds me of when Ash was interviewed on 60 minutes and the WM interviewer paid her a "compliment" - "you're a Greek beauty with an Indian heart".
As far as her being the most beautiful Indian, the concept in of itself is absurd. But I will once again emphasize that she is quite representative of one of the archetypes of Indian beauty/looks.
[And just so you know, Fluffy, I'm not getting heated. I just think this topic makes for very interesting discussion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This statement reminds me of when Ash was interviewed on 60 minutes and the WM interviewer paid her a "compliment" - "you're a Greek beauty with an Indian heart".
As far as her being the most beautiful Indian, the concept in of itself is absurd. But I will once again emphasize that she is quite representative of one of the archetypes of Indian beauty/looks.
[And just so you know, Fluffy, I'm not getting heated. I just think this topic makes for very interesting discussion.
True. But my point is that in native depictions of their own deities, myths and daily life, her look is quite common. I use art bc photos only back but so far and bc some people might refute a snapshot of the current Indian population as not representative of "undiluted" India (although it mostly is).
And therein lies the issue. Known to be dark by who? There is an incredible range of skin tones and phenotypes in the Indian population. To assume that bc Ash happens to have features in common with Euro is "colonialism at work" and why she's considered beautiful is tenuous - plausible, but tenuous. Even if we do accept that this is why her beauty is exalted, this notion doesn't detract from the fact that she's genuinely Indian and her beauty is representative of such. That's where the conflation is coming in - seeking to define the extent of her "Indian-ness" based on whether or not she happens to have features in common with the Europeans who once colonized India. It's not logically sound and history and reality proves it to be untrue.
No offense taken. Nope, I'm not. I meant to say in an earlier post that "I really dunno bc I have no authority on this, as I'm not Indian". I would say that I'm an "Indophile". I have relatives and friends who are Indo-Caribbean and I have Indian friends. But that's about it...
I think it's interesting, just looking at a map, where South Indians and Southern Africans are the darkest and in both places the north has the lighter people, and the northern (mixing pot) happens to be more easily accessible to others. In Europe, it's opposite. The south is the Mixing pot and the Italians are the darkest, the most remote, northernmost are the lightest.
Arguably, I would call Arabs themselves Africans. It's arbitrary where the "Middle East" lines were drawn. Call them Africans. It's semantics. They still happen to have a lot in common with people who are closer geographically than they do with people who are on the same continent but in less accessible regions.
Because the North Indians are in a geographic location where a lot of mixing has gone on.
Now, you know... She is very beautiful, but tons of girls, just as beautiful with a darker complexion are not even on the worldwide radar.
In my original statement, I said the following: "...so that much of what Africans are telling..." 
