Most of you know that I have resigned from political writing. Yet, sometimes, the activist / anarchist / naxalite / left liberal in me wakes up from its slumber and urges me to write. So here is a post on the recent Fabindia controversy regarding their collection/advertisement campaign- Jashn-e-Riwaaz. I know I am a little late to the party, but to whom do I owe promptness?
At the outset, I am not a linguist and I am not a cultural / history expert. This post is also not about those things. This post is on first principles.
Fabindia, a popular brand for traditional attire in urban India, posted a tweet (now deleted) about its new festive collection - "Jashn-e-Riwaaz" (Celebration of Tradition). The name of the collection was in Urdu. The timing and the description of the tweet gave the impression that the collection was for the festival of Deepavali.
Soon after the tweet, #BoycottFabindia started trending on social media. It can be quite difficult to find out the origins of a Twitter / Social Media trend. In the instant case, the 'origin' appears to be a tweet by Mr. Tejasvi Surya, who is a Member of Parliament from Bengaluru South constituency.
His tweet read as follows:
Eventually, Fabindia recalled the advertisement.
I had a couple of thoughts regarding the Mr. Surya's tweet and the events that followed:
On Language
1) Firstly, what is 'Abrahamisation'? I googled and I could not find any crystallised definition of this alleged process. I am guessing that it is an alleged process by which a particular faith (and its traditions and beliefs) are converted / aligned to Abrahamic faiths. If that be the case, it baffles me that the Urdu terminology of 'celebration of tradition' leads to such conversion. Is calling Diwali "The Festival of Lights" in English lead to conversion of Hindu festivals? Is calling Christmas "बडा दिन" in Hindi lead to Hinduisation of Christian festivals? The mere reference to a particular festival of 'Faith A' in a language that is widely spoken by members of 'Faith B' cannot possibly lead to conversion of Faith A into Faith B.
2) Secondly, the tweet is hurtful to Hindus that speak/teach/learn Urdu, as it typecasts them as non-Hindus/lesser Hindus. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Surya, but there are Urdu speaking Hindus. My grandparents were survivors of partition and came to Delhi, after leaving their everything in (present day) Pakistan. They spoke and read Urdu. I fondly remember my maternal grandfather reading an Urdu newspaper in Delhi, as late as the 1990s. My mother tells me that she would try and copy the script to impress her father. My paternal grandfather used to sign in Urdu. I have old documents of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (as late as the 1970s) which are also in Urdu. My wife did a thesis on an Urdu poet. Merely because we speak/write/study Urdu, are we "less Hindu"? Mr. Surya's comment is hurtful to my grandparents and my memory of them. In fact, if anything, this whole idea that all Hindus must speak a particular language and dress in a particular manner is antithetical to ethos of Hinduism. A Hindu's dharma is determined by various factors such as her context, birth, place, station in life etc.
On Attire:
3) Thirdly, what is traditional Hindu attire? For men, is a Nehru jacket traditional? Is a chudidaar traditional enough or should one only wear a dhoti? Is a stitched dhoti not traditional enough? Is even a kurta traditional, as some suggest that it came from Central Asia? Is a Jodhpuri/bandhgala suit even traditional? For women, is a blouse traditional? Where does it end? Where does it begin? One thing is for certain, calling out people on their clothing is not a core Hindu value.
4) Having said that, let's examine the image. I fail to see what is non-traditional about a saree or a suit or a kurta or a Nehru jacket? One of the objections was that the women are not wearing bindis. But I saw the video - THEY ARE WEARING! Anyway, even if they are not, does the absence of a tilak or a bindi take away the Hindu-ness of a Hindu? I don't tilak my forehead everyday - Am I 'less' Hindu?
On Accusations:
5) Further, Mr. Surya's tweet ascribes motives to Fabindia i.e.: the whole campaign was a deliberate (a word he uses twice) attempt on Fabindia's part towards the abrahamisation of Hinduism. This is not a small accusation. It accuses a renowned brand of calculatedly designing a campaign through which it can convert Hinduism, that the objective of Fabindia is to undermine Hinduism and that Fabindia is necessarily anti-Hindu. All of these accusations are made on the basis of one video. I suppose that's how politics works - one video and no evidence. This is purely anecdotal, but I think Fabindia has probably had the contrary effect. It has significantly contributed in bringing 'traditional' Indian attire in the everyday wardrobe of urban Indians.
6) The remedy suggested by Mr. Surya is that the brand must suffer a boycott. A boycott is not a small action - it is a collective decision to disengage with an entity. It should be deployed with caution; as otherwise, the seriousness of a boycott is severely diluted. Why such intense hate for an average advertisement campaign? The last time this country boycotted a form of attire was during the freedom struggle. English goods and garments were burnt and deliberately not purchased. It is hilarious that 70+ years hence, an elected member of Parliament suggests that we should boycott a brand that sells 'traditional' Indian attire.
7) During my debating days, I was taught that ad hominem was not a fair or valid response to an argument. But this is politics. Here, ad hominem is fair play. The message of Mr. Surya's tweet is poorly (or not at all) reflected in his persona. His cover photo on Twitter is in non-traditional attire. He does not wear a tilak. He tweets in English, which is a language far more alien to India and Hinduism vis-a-vis Urdu. If anything, Mr. Surya's tweet was a (deliberate?) misadventure.
On Free Speech:
8) I am not for a moment suggesting that Mr. Surya did not have the right to tweet/express. I am a free speech person, everyone should be allowed to speak/express themselves. But I was saddened to hear that Fabindia recalled the advertisement. I understood their motivations. They were probably scared that it was a matter of time that an FIR would be registered against them, their executives would be arrested and denied bail and their stores would be vandalised. If I had such a grim picture in front of me, I would also recall the ad. Why should a prudent businessman fight the battles of free speech? I felt sad that they recalled (possibly) under fear and not under the conviction that there was an error. It is sad to see free speech die like this.
9) I saw the whole video advertisement. There is one place where the word "fake" is used. As a Hindu, I felt 'maybe' that should not have been used. But given the protagonist's age and state of mind, the usage of the word could be justified. IF ANYTHING, that could have been avoided. But I did not see it as very serious. For a long time, people of all faiths have heard many things about their Gods and texts. It is your faith and shraddha that matters and not what anyone else has to say. Hinduism has withstood much more over thousands of years. A clothing brand does not have the power to shake the foundations of Hinduism with a less than 5 minute advertisement campaign. To imagine so, would amount to giving too much power to the clothing brand and ascribing too much weakness to Hinduism. [Addendum: The above was struck out later, when it was pointed out that I had misheard the advertisement]
10) An alternative point of view of the campaign could be that Hinduism assimilates all. It assimilates and accepts all languages - Hindi or Urdu. It assimilates and accepts all people and allows them to celebrate her festivals. It assimilates and accepts all clothing, as what matters is the Essence. Hinduism is not about one language, one way to dress, one way to celebrate etc. The Oneness that Hinduism upholds is that of You and God. The Oneness of All. Instead of being hung up on attire and language (which is what Mr. Surya's tweet does), we would do well on focussing on the Oneness that lies within. In my opinion, Mr. Surya's tweet causes far more damage to Hinduism and Hindus vis-a-vis an ephemeral advertisement.
I am reminded of the words of Swami Vivekananda - "There is a danger of our religion getting into the kitchen. We are neither Vedantists, most of us now, nor Paurânics, nor Tântrics. We are just "Don't-touchists". Our religion is in the kitchen. Our God is the cooking-pot, and our religion is, "Don't touch me, I am holy". If this goes on for another century, every one of us will be in a lunatic asylum."
ॐ