Volte-Face

If ever there was a lame attempt to save face, this (below) is it. This article was published in the Economic Times today.

*****

HAAGEN-DAZS probably did not realise that a sign, meant to tempt the Capitals creme-de-la-creme to its premium international quality ice-creams , would instead put it in hot water.

A day before the US brand opened its first outlet at a south Delhi mall, it put up signboards around the area for an exclusive preview for international travellers with the telling rider, Access restricted only to holders of international passports . An Indian, who saw the sign and was turned away from the store, only because of lack of space due to a weekend rush, according to Haagen-Dazs , took a photograph. He emailed it to a TOI blogger; within minutes it had gone around the globe, inciting a hail of protest that left the company red-faced .

An error was made in the creative execution, Anindo Mukherji, MD of General Mills India, which markets the brand here, told ET, adding more precisely, It was a wrong choice of words, and we regret the error.

As there are no such things as national passports they are after all used only for international travel it was apparent that international was used as another word for foreign . And since the booklets only use once the holder clears an airport immigration counter is a proof of nationality , the clear implication was that only foreigners would be allowed for the preview . It was not, however, intended to be a case of reworking the old British sign, Dogs and Indians not allowed .

No one was turned away because of nationality, insisted Arindam Haldar, director, Haagen-Dazs . I was present on all days. If people were refused entry momentarily, it was only due to overcrowding as there was a rush.

Obviously, Haagen Dazs is here to tap the Indian market, not keep it out, but the words of the teaser campaign left the company vulnerable to the charge of apartheid. And it was compounded by the very poor choice of words by TBWA, the agency that did the teaser campaign.

Upon sustained queries to company officials about the intention of the campaign, it emerged that what Haagen-Dazs really wanted to convey was, Now get a taste of abroad right here in India . But by preferring several long words that are liable to be misinterpreted instead of short, clear ones, they ended up generating a lot of heat: something ice-cream brands, in particular, should steer clear of, if they dont want their market to melt away, thanks to offended sensibilities. Especially, since it plans to open 30 to 40 outlets in the next few years.

*****

Let met tell you my issues with this argument:

1. There are no such things as "national" or "international" passports. However, when one says "international passport holders", one generally means people who hold passports of countries other than the base country. Therefore, if you're in India and you're referring to "international passport holders", you are indeed referring to foreigners/non-Indian passport holders. This isn't rocket science, really.
2. Phrases such as "Exclusive preview for international travelers" & "Access restricted only to holders of international passports" does by NO means imply "Get a taste of abroad right here in India". Not by a long shot. The only thing it implies is that Indian passport holders are not allowed in! Who are those guys over at Haagen Dazs kidding? Do they really think Indians are so dumb?
3. Haagen Dazs has conveniently shifted the blame on to their advertizing agency, TBWA, saying that they chose a wrong set of words, but didn't anyone at the ice-cream company care to check what the agency had come up with & what was finally going out in the market?

Well, guess what...I'm not buying their explanation. Not one bit of it. It's lame and retarded and a desperate attempt to get the egg off their face. And I doubt any self-respecting Indian will buy it either.

Say It Isn't So, Haagen Dazs!

Haagen Dasz is one of the creamiest ice-creams in the world (thanks to its high butterfat content!!) With flavors such as almond hazelnut swirl, baileys irish cream, butter pecan, chocolate peanut butter, cookies & cream, macadamia nut brittle etc. they have you salivating across their stores.

It’s a super-premium brand, a couple of scoops of which can set you back by a few hundred rupees but every single bite you take will be worth your money. I love Haagen Dasz ice-cream. Therefore, I was shocked to read that Indians were not allowed at their first retail store in Delhi!!!!!

The store in Saket, New Delhi put up a sign saying : “Exclusive Preview only for International Travelers. Access restricted only to holders of international passports.”

This is for real, people. And it’s shocking not to mention outrageous. I wonder which idiot advised the company to adopt such a ridiculous policy, or whether General Mills, the conglomerate that owns Haagen Dasz, knows of this in the first place!

This is a direct hark back to the British Raj when “Indians & dogs” weren’t allowed inside restaurants and other “white” places. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that the franchise owner is an Indian from Delhi. Since the news leaked out, he’s taken the sign off and even insists there was no such sign in the first place, but the picture above proves otherwise. The man who took it, an Indian & a friend of The Times of India’s Rajesh Kalra, wasn’t allowed to enter the store inspite of being an international passport holder because he’s an Indian. So essentially this store was denying entry to everyone of Indian origin!

I can’t fathom what exactly Haagen Dazs was trying to convey through such a policy – that Indians are not worthy enough to be the first patrons of their store in India? That we can’t afford their ice-creams? Well, in that case the company should take their business elsewhere, should they not? Or that Indians will blindly lap up any product that has been endorsed by foreigners?

What would be the correct response on our part as a nation? Would a public apology from Haagen Dasz be enough, or should the company not be allowed to do business in India at all? The second option would mean a loss for Indian consumers – because Haagen Dasz ice-creams ARE heavenly - but then the company HAS adopted a racist approach by looking down at Indians as people who can’t afford their products or people who are still reeling under slave mentality and think a product that is endorsed by foreigners will surely be good. Should we as Indians encourage such a company to flourish on our land?

It would be very comforting to know that it's not the company Haagen Dazs that came up with such a policy but a stray Indian who tried to play on the racial insecurities of an entire nation that was once a victim of racism.

'He' Had A Dream

Ladies & Gentleman, It’s Barack Obama for America!!

I was going to write a post on my absolutely fabulous trip to Bombay last week, but I'm assuming the election of Barack Obama to the post of the President of the United States is a bigger defining moment in History & world politics, and therefore it should come first. My post on Bombay will just have to wait :)

Who would have thought that a Black, or a “person of color” as non-whites are referred to in politically correct terms, would become the President of a predominantly White America?

Obama won by a landslide. This signifies change, for sure. I guess Americans have been craving change for a while, and they’ve never desired it more desperately than now when their economy is battered & their country alienated courtesy George Bush’s ‘Shock-N-Awe’ military policy across the globe.

Obama’s election signifies progressiveness, but it also proves that skin color can only run so deep. Ultimately, it’s your vision for your country & its people, your beliefs and how steadfastly you stand by them, that will see you through.

This is indeed a historic moment for African-Americans in America. For centuries they were enslaved, segregated. There was a time not too long ago, when everything in America was segregated – schools, work places, public transport. There were separate schools for black & white kids. The ones for white kids had better infrastructure, of course. Offices were segregated along racial lines. Blacks sat in a different portion of the bus/train, usually at the back & were expected to give up their seats to Whites.

The Civil Rights Movement officially started in the mid-1950s with the Montgomery Bus Boycott when the Blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, led by Rosa Parks (who was asked to give up her seat to make room for a White passenger, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. The Movement got its nationwide pioneer in the form of Martin Luther King Jr. who, through his ‘I Have A Dream’ speech, galvanized the African-Americans of the entire nation to fight for their freedom. America to this day celebrates his birthday in January as a national holiday.

Unlike MLK Jr. however, Obama does not ride the wave of Black politics. He has been voted in as much by Whites as by Blacks. It’s his vision for America & the constructive role it can play in the world at a time of financial & political crises, that saw him at the hem of the country. In spite of considerable improvement in race relations across America, African-Americans still continue to live at the fringes of society, for a large part. But change seems to have finally caught up with the country.

Barack for America, I say.

No longer a gentlemen's game

The sledging controversy is the most unfortunate thing to have happened to cricket in a long time and it doesn't seem to end. One player makes a disparaging comment about another, the offended player retaliates, five other players on both sides jump into the fray, and what started as a single comment becomes an incessant episode of name calling. Funny thing is, neither the Australian players nor the Indians seem to know what they're aiming to get out of the whole thing. What they are unwittingly getting is a lot of bad name, not to mention they're disgracing the game itself. The original aim of sledging, to rattle the mental equilibrium of opposition players, seems to have been lost in a mindless exchange of words & is all about revenge now!

Sadly, the media is linking sledging to racism in a bid to grab eyeballs and gain back the viewers who have become indifferent to the media's classification of anything & everything as 'Breaking News' even if it's something as trivial as Amitabh Bachchan having caught a cold (I'm not kidding, this was actually "breaking news" on a Hindi news channel!!). And the audience is biting the bait!

Let's stop & think for a moment...Do we even understand the meaning of racism? There's a very thin line between what can be classified as racist & what's just mindless name-calling.

Racism need not necessarily be expressed in words. It can be felt as well. It is essentially a belief that all members of a race possess characteristics (usually negative) specific to that race, characteristics that somehow make them inferior to other races. Our attitude towards people belonging to that race, that stems from such a belief, is racist attitude. Therefore racism can be in the form of prejudice, discrimination or violence towards an ethnic group based on their skin color, and need not necessarily be of the verbal kind.

I don't think calling someone a 'monkey' or an 'obnoxious weed' classifies as racist. They sound more like personal diatribes. They would have qualified as racist comments if it had been said that white people are monkeys or Indians are all obnoxious weeds!

Classifying sledging of the sort that has plagued international cricket of late is tantamount to trivializing racism as a cognizable offence, and giving mindless jabber more importance than it deserves.

Truth is, there is no place for sledging in the world of sports. The teams go out there to play a game they love enough to have dedicated years of their lives to it, and they should focus on doing just that. Once the players understand why they're out there on the field, unpleasant incidents such as sledging will automatically cease to occur!

However, since neither the Australians nor the Indians seem to be able to grasp this fact, maybe it's time for the ICC to intervene and declare that a ban will be imposed on any player that indulges in sledging, irrespective of whether he's the offender or the retaliator. It may seem harsh but it seems to be the only effective way to get the message across to a bunch of mindless idiots that the game is bigger than any individual player.