Tanishq ad controversy of 2020

Advertising in India is not merely a medium for promoting products; it is also a reflection of cultural values, aspirations, and social discourse. Advertising of different eras and countries can give a glimpse of the society it was made for. After all, every advertiser has one thing in mind- what does my audience want to see that will make them want my product? 

           

In October 2020, the jewellery brand Tanishq released an advertisement under its Ekatvam (Oneness) campaign that sought to celebrate harmony and inclusivity. However, what began as a commercial showcasing love across cultural and religious lines quickly spiraled into one of the most controversial advertisements in recent Indian advertising history. The incident is significant not only as a marketing case study but also as a mirror to the complexities of interfaith relations, public sentiment, and corporate responsibility in contemporary India. It also raises questions of ethical dilemmas we face in corporate world.

To give a gist of what the advertisement was- The advertisement depicted a Hindu woman married into a Muslim household. In the video, the Muslim mother-in-law organizes a traditional Hindu baby shower (godh bharai) for her pregnant daughter-in-law, who expresses surprise at the gesture. The mother-in-law responds by saying that the ritual “should be celebrated in every home.” The narrative was simple yet powerful, conveying a message of mutual respect, cultural acceptance, and unity amid diversity. 

There were a lot of stigmas addressed here- first and the most obvious being an interreligious marriage being shown between a Hindu and a Muslim. Then the fact that the mother-in-law who is mostly depicted in Indian pop culture as cunning and hateful, is shown as a loving and accepting figure.

Tanishq’s intent with the advertisement was to position itself as a progressive brand that aligns with ethos of plurality and inclusiveness. Especially considering the political atmosphere of 2020 where due to a global wave of progressiveness, many brands were focusing on showing up as a beacon of progress in hopes of profiteering off of political activism (or so a part of society believes). The campaign attempted to showcase jewellery as a symbol of shared celebrations that transcend cultural boundaries as jewellery is a significant part of both Hindu and Muslim communities.

The Tanishq advertisement attracted severe backlash on social media platforms like twitter. The criticism primarily stemmed from sections of the population (notably those who identify themselves as right wingers) who interpreted the ad as promoting “love jihad,” a controversial and politically charged conspiracy theory alleging that Muslim men seek to marry women of other faiths (focusing on Hindus) to convert them to Islam. Hashtags such as #BoycottTanishq began trending on Twitter, with users calling for the brand’s boycott. 

The backlash highlighted the polarized nature of public opinion in India. While some condemned the advertisement for allegedly undermining cultural sensitivities, others praised it for promoting unity in diversity. The controversy escalated to the point where Tanishq disabled comments on the video and eventually withdrew the advertisement entirely, citing concerns for the safety of its employees and partners. This makes it a crisis situation for a brand.

A similar situation took place the year after this incident, when 'Manyavar and Mohey', a brand famous for its exquisite, high-end wedding dresses like Sherwanis and Lehenga caught itself at the epicenter of another online hate trail in regards to its ad featuring the famous Bollywood actress Alia Bhatt. The ad questioned the necessity of Kanyadaan and asked if unjust traditions which contribute to harm of certain communities should be allowed to continue in this era as well.

An interesting point worthy to be noted is that now, in 2025, we are observing an opposite wave of political discourse in business advertising where brands that were showing up with progressive values are again turning back to conservative values in hopes of amassing public’s attention. For example, American Eagle made a controversial ad where the ad was inspired by a 1980s infamous ad where an underaged girl (Brooke Shields) was exploited and saying supposedly inferred racist remarks, and yet this 2025 ad has not stirred the public except a few communities. This is a good way to evaluate where the majority of the society is currently standing in terms of politics. 

THE CORPORATE DILEMMA

This event exemplifies the corporate dilemma that companies face when balancing progressive messaging with commercial pragmatism in a political/societal scenario. Tanishq’s intent was aligned with its brand philosophy of celebrating togetherness, inclusivity, and diversity (as it always does and has done later on as well after this ad). In a multicultural country like India, such themes are both socially relevant and needed. However, the backlash revealed that brand narratives do not exist in a vacuum; they operate in a sociopolitical climate where religious identities are deeply sensitive. The mere message of inclusivity became the focal point of division, creating a sharp disconnect between corporate intent and public reception. The decision to withdraw the ad may have addressed immediate safety concerns, but it raised questions about the long-term erosion of brand courage and distinctiveness. This could lead to mistrust amongst its consumer base.

Brands can face huge losses if their messaging does not align with their entire consumer base. While socially conscious messaging can strengthen a brand, it must be carefully calibrated to the cultural phase of the moment. Even positive portrayals can be misinterpreted in polarized environments. 

In cases of such controversies and potential boycott risks, companies must be prepared to face the crisis. Companies need robust crisis-management frameworks that include social media monitoring, stakeholder communication, and contingency planning.

Most importantly of all, Corporations must decide whether they are merely market-driven entities or if they also bear a responsibility to advance progressive social narratives. This balance defines not only brand reputation but also corporate identity in the public imagination.

THE SOCIAL MEDIA EFFECT

This case is a remarkable example of how businesses and advertising will never be the same now that we live in the age of social media. It is both a boon and a bane. It can make your advertisement flourish if a certain population tweets positively of it or vice-versa. Collective thinking and herding of opinions is common in sites like twitter. Social media thrives on emotion-driven content. Positive responses to the ad were soon drowned out by more aggressive calls for boycotts. Algorithms that prioritize engagement often boost polarizing content, meaning outrage spreads faster than support. As a result, what might have been a thoughtful conversation on inclusivity quickly hardened into a binary: either support for diversity or opposition to perceived cultural threat.

THE SOCIAL CONCERN

While we have discussed enough about the corporate aspect of this ad, as humans, lets look at it in the lens of the society.

While as a society, we must respect the opinions and theories of all, we must ask ourselves does the freedom to right of speech and opinion allow us to question the freedom of choice of others? Why are people furious to see an ad depicting a loving and accepting family? Why can't our society in 2025, let two consenting adults make their own decision of whom and how to marry and live their lives? Why is inter-religious (and even inter-caste as a matter of fact) still looked down in India despite the preamble of our constitution making it clear in bold letters that we are a SECULAR country. Perhaps, its time to question some morals and traditions of the Indian community as well and weed out the prejudices from our collective thinking for the happiness and rights of our own kind.

Certain social medias cater to different demographics depending on various factors. For most, like twitter (now X), such debates means profit. More opinions and enragement a topic gathers, more traffic generated on website. So if such debates and controversies are profoundly helping these companies, the question arises whether they intentionally ignite these conversations more? How do we assess the generic summation of where the public stands regarding a social issue? A certain demographic could well be louder than the others leading to an assumption that the generic so-called 'society' holds this viewpoint then you have the shared information bias also in play.