Bombae Ad Controversy

If you are on social media, you would be knowing about a controversy which broke out last week. A girl achieved high rank in a state's board exam and her picture was posted in newspapers. She had clearly visible heavy facial hair. Some people started sharing her pictures and started making fun of her facial hair. In such cases, the social media controversies start growing "organically" following a "lifecycle" and it is difficult to stop those. After initial trolling of the girl, a second wave came when another set of people started trolling the people who were trolling the girl! Okay; they deserved it, did not they? But after a few days, another bomb exploded when a brand called "Bombae", gave out a print ad asking the girl to start using their safety razor or other hair removal products; so that people could focus on her "All India Rank", instead of facial hair! Fine. But this ad gave rise to a third wave of trolling where everyone started slamming the company for giving out such an ad. They said that the ad disrespected the girl and women in general. So, a "women's only brand", which made products specifically for women, was really disrespecting women?  

Men and women both were found trolling the company. Men, in such cases are motivated by "virtue signaling". In today's world, there is high pressure on men to be seen respectful towards women and not doing anything which could remotely sound "anti-women". Hence, their motivation to make use of this opportunity to do strong "virtue signaling" was understood. 

But women who spent half day doing "makeup" themselves were seen protecting the rights of a girl to keep "lady moustache". Such women need special kind of praise. If there is so much difference between what they preach and what they practice, are they not misleading young girls? Bombae may or may not have right to take names, but its intention was not wrong. I will explain how. 

Bombae is a women's hair removal brand by Bombay Shaving Company. It specializes in "hair removal razor for women" - exactly what the girl needed. Hence it used the opportunity to increase its brand awareness by giving this ad. 

Check products from Bambae like this: Amazon

At this time, we don't know if Bombae took permission of the girl to use her name. Maybe they did take her permission! But online mobs are running behind them with daggers in hands. What kind of hypocrites we have become? If you love "lady moustache", please ask your wife/daughter to grow it and see their reaction. 

I saw an interview of the same girl and she mentioned that she was used to people making fun of her facial hair and hence she was ignoring all this controversy. I think her mother was interviewed too. While the girl and her family are calm about this, I don't think their acceptance is what is needed in this case. When products are available to remove the facial hair, why not use it? 

I guess the girl will start using something eventually. Everyone does! But once she starts, how will people who wanted her to keep all that facial hair and "sue" the company who asked her to shave it, face her? Will they start another, fourth round of trolling, slamming her for falling in the hands of "patriarchal, capitalist propaganda"? Are not the people who wanted her to keep the facial hair in the same league as those who wanted to remove it - just on the opposite side of the fence? 

Teenage is a sensitive phase of life when we all witness changes in our body. Eventually everyone understands what is what, and deals with things in a manner best suited. When boys start getting facial hair, they keep it for some time too, scared of shaving. Eventually, one fine day, they start shaving. What is big deal, if the girl does that too? Are not companies like Bombae who are making products specifically for women based on their specialized needs, actually empowering women? I think they do. Then why do such companies deserve our hate and suing? 

- Rahul 

Nupur Sharma and Live TV Debate Controversy

I had become a fan of Nupur Sharma after I first read about her. Her name was announced by the BJP as its candidate during Delhi Assembly Election 2015 against the big name of Arvind Kejriwal. I wondered who she was and searched the web to read about her. She had got splendid credentials. Born and brought up in Delhi, she studied Economics at the Hindu College of Delhi University and later completed her law degree (LLB) from faculty of law, Delhi University. Then she completed her Master of Law (LLM) from London School of Economics (LSE). This was enough to understand that she was a woman of great talent and intellect. But why was she in politics?

I read that she was involved in student politics from her Delhi University days. She was a member of ABVP and became President of Delhi University’s Student Union (DUSU). That was some feat. She has since then held several positions in the BJP, being associated with BJP’s youth wing and a member of state executive committee of the BJP Delhi.  

Way back in 2009, she was featured among the “Top 10 Most Inspirational Women in India” by the Hindustan Times. If we look at above credentials, it was a place well deserved. You can read more about her here on Wikibio,  or check her profile on LinkedIn. If our country has to become a developed nation and a nation of our dreams, we need well educated and honest people like her in politics too.  

Now I will come at the reason I am telling about her. Yesterday, I got to know through News that a fellow politician from AAP shouted at her and verbally abused her during “Live” TV debate. You can read about it here or here. The leader from AAP was claiming that the BJP was using Shri Ram for political gains; when Nupur Sharma intervened and then the man lost control and started abusing her. Nupur Sharma has said that she would be taking legal action against him for defamation and character assassination. This episode “broke the internet” and last night, #WeStandWithNupurSharma was trending on Twitter as #1 trend in India.

These days, I have been increasingly getting annoyed with the needless “controversies” breaking on the internet and on the TV news media. Anything and everything become prime time news and discarded after a few days once another controversy-worthy news comes out. This is a never-ending trend and creates unnecessary stress in our minds.

I was thinking about how to end this “media mess”. I think we have too many TV News channels and they are continuously fighting among themselves for “breaking news”. In this competition, truth becomes a tragedy. I was reflecting on yesterday’s controversy and wondered how to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. I noticed that this issue happened because the debate was a “live” debate. Had this been a pre-recorded debate, the TV channel could have edited and cut out that portion when the man went berserk. You may ask what the benefit is of “hiding” things and an abuse is an abuse, whether it is shown on TV or not. If the channel hid the abusive portion, would it not be unfair for victims like Nupur Sharma? I think, even if the clip is cut out from being aired to the viewers, the portion would still be recoded and hence if the victims want to take legal action, they could still do it, because they were defamed and abused in front of a larger panel and their peer and that amounts to insult. But it would at least avoid bringing out the controversy in front of the public, save them from some stress and avoid wasting their time hearing or discussing about it. Overall, it will save productivity and energy of the viewers if we ban such content.

Therefore, I was thinking that all TV channels could avoid “live” TV debates. If channels don’t do it, government should ban live TV debates because all such programs become too risky to air. If the show is “live”, anyone among the panelists can always abuse the platform for fulfilling stupid or evil goals. “Live” debate can be misused to spread a false anti-national propaganda, or to defame and harm the image of an important person or organization, for example.

Apart from the risks involved in airing “live” content, this controversy on social media also highlighted how "online abuse" is often tolerated by the same set of people, but if the same incident happens on TV, those people are furious. It proves that TV as a medium is still so powerful, perhaps since it is more "personal" and online content is still taken lightly. If you are on social media platforms, you would notice that people use abuses very frequently while commenting on famous people’s tweets. No action is taken against such people. But if something of that kind happens on TV, it has serious repercussions.

I think that at some point of time we should start making such controversies as “examples” to make real systematic changes in our country. One Nupur Sharma filing a legal case against one stupid man won’t change anything. But if TV channels are made responsible and held accountable for showing bad content to the public, that may be a really beneficial change. The ideas I shared in this blog post may not be perfect. But if we start trying to find ideas and solutions to fix systematic problems, we may create a better future for our country.

What do you think about it?

- Rahul Tiwary

Propaganda of Retail

A government ‘study’ has come up, proving that organised big retail is harming the unorganised small retail shops’ business. [Link] This survey (and they call it a study) was started on the directive of UPA chairperson. The survey involved around 1000 small retailers in four Indian cities, including 800 who were within a 2.5 km radius of new organised retailers. The methodology of the survey involved asking small unorganised retailers whether their sales have been affected by the emergence of big retailers or not. The result? 50% of small retailers reported lower sales, and 61% of surveyed retailers pointed to competition from organised retail for their declining financial health.

In my small town, my neighbourhood kirana store gave me some discount even over the maximum retail price (MRP), at lease for some items like Chyavanpras, Horlicks, and some local made products. Here in Mumbai, the neighbour mom-n-pop store takes not a penny less than whatever is printed over the packet, even if the item is an agarbatti. On the other hand, they will keep complaining of the Big Bazars and the big malls. The point is, in absence of an option, I will have to buy from the small shop, at higher price and some times bad service. But if I get an option and go to a Big Bazar or Hyper City, the small store wallahs would complain.

I don’t understand why either the government or the industry should take note of this survey. This is common psychology that a small shop owner would always complain of losses due to the presence of a big retail outlet. If we had to remain small, whole India would remain nothing but a Sabji Mandi! I believe organised retail is a thing whose time has come.

How many small unorganised retailers give you proper receipts and pay income taxes to government? How many of them cover their employees with insurance? How many of them give dignity to the employees they take help of? How many never employ child labour? It is sad that while the governments worldwide would like the unorganised sectors to migrate into organised ones, the politics of numbers would make the governments in India try to keep up the status quo. India should remain a nation of snake charmers, you know. Pappu paas kab hoga?