Does Agarbatti need Gandhi?

It was a typical day for Kavisha, walking across the road when an advertisement caught her attention. It wasn’t just an advertisement; it used the image of Mahatma Gandhi to promote Agarbattis (incense sticks). Bold letters proclaimed, “Gandhi ji said: ‘The incandescent sticks bring incandescent light to our life.’” Kavisha, who had been mentally preparing for a class discussion on the essay “Gandhi Now” by Salman Rushdie, momentarily stopped, contemplating the intersection of Gandhi’s legacy and modern-day marketing.

Photo by Pratik Chauhan on Unsplash

In that instant, Kavisha began to understand how deeply Mahatma Gandhi's image is embedded in India's collective consciousness and beyond. People look up to his ideologies, his sacrifices, and his teachings, and marketers know this. Using Gandhi’s image in advertisements is a strategy that plays on the reverence people have for him. But it also raises ethical questions: Is it right to commercialize the image of such a revered figure?

As Kavisha pondered over the Agarbatti advertisement, she realized that Gandhi’s image had been co-opted by marketers for a long time. His image — a symbol of non-violence, simplicity, and moral clarity — is often leveraged to sell everything from fashion to food, and even to the most mundane of products like incense sticks. This isn’t just coincidental; it’s a deliberate marketing strategy. The idea is that people associate Gandhi with moral authority, so associating him with a product gives the product a sense of credibility, goodness, and tradition.

In the case of the Agarbatti ad, Gandhi’s name is invoked to give the product an aura of wisdom and purity. The use of his image here isn’t about respecting his teachings, but about tapping into the brand value of his legacy to boost sales. This raises the first question that Kavisha and her classmates were forced to confront: Is it ethical to use the image of a deceased figure, particularly someone as important as Gandhi, to sell products?

While the answer may not be straightforward, the ad brings forth a larger reflection on how public figures, particularly those no longer living, are often exploited for commercial gain. Gandhi, however, presents a unique dilemma. His legacy is bound up with the values of non-violence, justice, and truth — all qualities that seem to stand in stark contrast to the commercial world. And yet, his image is used in this very world, where consumerism and profit often dominate.

Photo by rupixen on Unsplash

Kavisha’s train of thought didn’t stop at just marketing. She began to question whether using Gandhi’s image in advertisements could be seen as disrespectful to his legacy. Is it ethical to appropriate the image of someone who fought for truth and equality, to sell incense sticks or any other product? Should we, as a society, allow the commercialization of someone’s image once they are no longer alive, especially if that figure represents ideals we hold dear?

On the other hand, it’s also important to ask: What if using Gandhi’s image in advertisements helps keep his memory alive, reminding people of his values? It could be argued that by associating his name with positive attributes, advertisers may unintentionally spark conversations about his teachings, encouraging people to reflect on what he stood for. In that sense, the use of Gandhi in advertisements could be seen as a form of homage, albeit a commodified one.

However, the line between homage and exploitation is thin. Kavisha’s reflection mirrors the dilemma we face as a society: How do we balance the need to preserve the legacy of influential figures like Gandhi while ensuring that their image is not exploited for profit?

As Kavisha prepared for her class discussion, she recalled the essay “Gandhi Now” by Salman Rushdie, a text that explores the complexities of Gandhi’s legacy. In the essay, Rushdie critically analyzes Gandhi’s decisions, questioning his idealism, his stance on various issues, and whether he was truly a flawless figure. Gandhi, after all, was human, with his contradictions, mistakes, and limitations.

Photo by PyperA Flow on Unsplash

Rushdie’s essay compels readers to question the myth of Gandhi as a perfect hero. Gandhi’s approach to non-violence and his moral certainties were admirable, but they were also at times impractical or overly idealistic. His complex relationships with various communities, including his stance on caste, gender, and certain political issues, are often glossed over in popular representations of him. Rushdie’s essay encourages us to look beyond the saintly image and see Gandhi as a flawed, yet immensely important figure in history.

For Kavisha, this insight became pivotal. As she mulled over the ethical implications of the advertisement, she realized that part of the reason Gandhi’s image is so widely used in commercial contexts is that we have turned him into a symbol — a symbol that is largely divorced from the nuances of his real-life struggles and contradictions. The Gandhi in the advertisement is not the man who faced resistance and fought for a free India; it is a simplified, idealized version of him.

When Kavisha presented her thoughts in class, she was surprised by the reactions of her classmates. The discussion, which had begun with straightforward facts and opinions about Gandhi, took an unexpected turn. Her example of the advertisement sparked a deeper conversation about the things we take for granted — the images, the symbols, and the messages that surround us every day. As her classmates reflected on their own experiences of seeing Gandhi’s image in advertisements, they realized that while they had often seen such ads, they had never truly stopped to think about what it meant to use his image in such a context.

Photo by rupixen on Unsplash

This realization is at the heart of the conversation: What we see around us is not always what it seems. The images we encounter daily, whether on billboards or in advertisements, carry meaning and power that often go unnoticed. By questioning these symbols, we begin to reflect on how culture, commerce, and history intersect.

As Kavisha walked back home that day, she felt a mix of satisfaction and uncertainty. The class discussion had been fruitful, and she had introduced a powerful example that made her classmates think deeply. Yet, the ethical question lingered in her mind: Is it right to use Gandhi’s image to sell products?

In the end, there may not be a clear-cut answer. Gandhi’s image, like his legacy, is multi-faceted. It can be a tool for education, inspiration, and reflection, but it can also be co-opted for commercial gain. Perhaps the most important takeaway from this experience is that we must remain aware of how such figures are portrayed and used in the modern world. We should ask ourselves not only how we honor their memory but also how we ensure their teachings are not diluted for profit.

Ultimately, Gandhi was not perfect, but he left behind an enduring legacy that continues to shape our world. Whether in an advertisement or a classroom discussion, his image invites us to reflect on the values that matter most: truth, non-violence, and justice. And that, in itself, is something worth contemplating.