Missing oneness

Tatas should have stayed firm on the Tanishq ad

The furious backlash on social media that forced Tanishq, the jewellery brand of the Tata-owned Titan Company, to withdraw an advertisement from YouTube, is a sad reflection of the intolerant times Indians live in. The ad, a part of Tanishq’s “Ekatvam”, or “oneness” collection, showed a Muslim family organising a baby shower for their daughter-in-law, presumably Hindu. The delighted but confused young woman turned to her mother-in-law and said, “but that’s not your tradition.” The mother-in-law lovingly replied that keeping daughters happy was a tradition in every home. This portrayal of interfaith harmony, depicted sensitively, was however trolled heavily, with #BoycottTanishq trending on Twitter, with many claiming that the ad promoted “love jihad”, the disparaging phrase that radical right-wing groups often use to describe inter-religious marriages in India. While some supporters of the boycott call criticised the ad for promoting fake secular sentiment, others said the timing of the ad was insensitive as it came within days of the tragedy of 20-year-old Rahul Rajput, who fell in love with a Muslim girl in Delhi and was beaten to death by her family. These are vacuous arguments: The real reason is increasing intolerance, which has become a serious issue with important ramifications — both social and economic.   

It can be nobody’s case that India should become a country where public speech, eating habits, alternative ideas, are all subservient to a restrictive interpretation of a single majority religion. And a move away from Hindutva-inspired social vigilantism is important not only to harmony within the country but also to India’s considerable soft power abroad. One criterion to determine whether a country is truly democratic is the extent of dissent permitted. A liberal democracy is one in which all groups accept the fact that in a free country, people can have different opinions and beliefs and should have equal rights in voicing them. In any case, when societal attitudes militate against normally acceptable behaviour, the State has to leverage its constitutional mandate and protect those at the receiving end. Tanishq’s statement that it is withdrawing the ad “…keeping in mind the well-being of its employees, partners and store staff” should lead to some introspection on whether the State has failed to generate enough confidence about this.

On its part, the Tata group’s reluctance to stay firm was unfortunate and sent out a strong signal that it cowered in the face of bigotry. The statement that it was “deeply saddened with the inadvertent stirring of emotions” was almost an apology to those who held extreme views. This lends credence to the argument that if a group as formidable as this succumbs to pressure like this, it sets a bad example for the smaller and more vulnerable ones. After all, an ad of this kind must have gone through a series of internal checks before it was released and the group should not have given in so fast. Tanishq had everything going for it: The ad did not show anything harmful or insidious and the Advertising Standards Council of India, which reviewed the ad after receiving a complaint of it being objectionable, said nothing in the ad was indecent or vulgar or repulsive. The Tatas, who have always taken immense pride in operating a group raised on great values, could have done better.