Have a glance! ( http://youtu.be/tI9xefhezlI) Here, we have a beautiful ad, shot at pretty locations, featuring a pretty girl and another pretty lady, a pretty flower and some pretty yaks. The pretty girl in pretty pink dress is shown collecting some water droplets inside her pretty pink flower right from the melting ice of the Himalayas, carrying the water carefully through the ranges, treading carefully on the rivulets, riding carefully on the yak-back, all the way to an upstate workplace to give it to a pretty lady who is then refreshed with the purest mineral water. The girl meanwhile watches the lady drink her water, dismally, as her work is completed successfully. Understandably, Himalayan mineral water grants a comparable service.
And I am stupidly and orthodox-ily stuck at finding this advertisement insensitive.
It may not be. A village girl may have been shown taking pains carrying the water through weathers, the terrains at the age when she shouldn’t be shown doing anything other than studying or playing or maybe fighting and crying; maybe just a sheer because she wants to. What’s huge in bringing someone a flower of clean water? And what does the placement of our receiver at an air-conditioned office in a maybe-posh locality have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. Or maybe something.
At a time when we are intensely fighting for children rights, this advertisement comes out as downright insensitive, if nothing else. It may not be intending to depict anything, but we as people are disheartened with this picturisation when the purpose could have been solved using any mature villager. Maybe I am drawing too much out of this, but it wouldn’t have hurt the ad-makers with another cast like it has hurt me and a few others with this one. Maybe I am waiting for an India where everyone thinks about affectations and results prior to indulging in some activity. Maybe I am expecting far too more, far too early.
The advertisement is very pretty, and insensitive; I believe. If it is not, do clear my misconception.