Online retail giant Amazon drew the ire of Indians abroad and in India by selling doormats with the tricolour printed on them. The e-marketplace also sells other items to which some Indians take deep objection — including flip-flops with the image of iconic leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. While objecting to such practices is a fair enough response, what we had in the external affairs minister herself taking an interest may have been a somewhat excessive reaction. The message was, however, clear that Indians are extremely sensitive about anything they hold sacred or sentimental, and that such objects shouldn’t touch our feet, considered one of the dirtier parts of the anatomy as it’s in direct touch with the environment.
The foreign minister went to the extent of threatening to cancel the valid visas of Amazon executives if they didn’t take down these products. Amazon is a marketplace with goods from various third party vendors, selling products globally in modern e-commerce and can only be vicariously responsible for what’s on offer, although it stands to reason they have to be more aware of the sensitivities of various nationalities they deal with. Of course, the company understood the nature of the complaint to stop the sale of the offending goods and complied with Indian objections. Given the import of India as a marketplace, with the number of customers in hundreds of millions with the capacity to spend, Amazon may have had little choice but to comply.
It wasn’t so much an overdrawn sense of nationalism that was to be perceived in the manner in which official India responded as much as an overbearing sense of authority in holding out visa threats, particularly at a time when we invite global companies to operate in India. The matter could have been solved with the dulcet diplomacy to be expected of the foreign minister. Why the economic affairs secretary found it prudent to step into the issue in handing out dire warnings, and then later compromising his position to the extent of saying that he spoke only as a concerned citizen, remains a mystery.
A measured response from someone as highly regarded as the external affairs minister would have more than sufficed to drive home the point of embarrassment being caused by the sale. In a diverse world, it’s not possible that everyone would always be aware of everyone else’s sensitivities, and it’s in proper communication that messages can be conveyed to close such cultural gaps. It’s not really India’s concern that the flags and icons of many nations are marketed in this way. It’s not exaggerated patriotism or any belligerent belief in national superiority that we make known our sensibilities over our national symbolism and icons that we hold dear.
