Case Study: FBB Raksha Bandhan Ad Controversy (2024)

In August 2024, Future Group's fashion retail brand FBB (Fashion at Big Bazaar) released a Raksha Bandhan campaign video featuring a woman tying rakhi to her male friend with the tagline "Bonds Beyond Blood." The advertisement, intended to celebrate platonic male-female friendships during the Hindu festival, immediately triggered backlash from conservative social media users and Hindu advocacy groups who accused FBB of distorting sacred rituals to promote progressive Western values.

"Reinterpreting religious rituals through modern social frameworks risks alienating traditionalist audiences who view such campaigns as external impositions on sacred customs, even when the intent is inclusivity."

1. The Campaign Concept and Immediate Backlash

The 60-second video opened with a young woman tying a rakhi (sacred thread) to a male friend while voiceover narration emphasized that "brothers aren't just born, they're chosen." The ad showed the duo shopping at FBB stores, with the brand positioning itself as a destination for festive gifting beyond traditional sibling relationships.

Within hours of the video's YouTube and Instagram release, right-wing social media accounts began circulating clips with overlays accusing FBB of "de-Hinduizing" Raksha Bandhan. Critics argued that the festival's religious significance is rooted in blood ties and the protection vow (raksha) that biological brothers make to sisters, and that extending the ritual to non-siblings dilutes its sacred meaning.

Hashtags like #BoycottFBB and #StopRitualDistortion trended regionally on X (formerly Twitter), with thousands of users sharing screenshots of the ad alongside demands for its withdrawal. Some users posted videos of themselves cutting up FBB shopping bags in protest, while others called for regulatory action against the brand for "hurting Hindu sentiments."

2. Polarized Public Reaction and Cultural Debate

The controversy exposed a sharp generational and ideological divide. Urban millennials and Gen Z users defended the ad, arguing that Raksha Bandhan has long been celebrated among friends and that the campaign simply reflected contemporary social realities. Many pointed out that tying rakhi to close male friends is already a widespread practice in metropolitan India and that FBB was documenting, not inventing, this trend.

However, traditionalists countered that corporate brands have no authority to redefine religious rituals for commercial purposes, even if some individuals have informally adapted the practice. They framed the ad as another instance of "woke marketing" that prioritizes progressive signaling over respect for Hindu traditions—a recurring theme in Indian ad controversies involving brands like Tanishq, Manyavar, and Dabur.

Cultural commentators noted that the backlash intensity was amplified by the broader political climate, where Hindu identity politics have become increasingly central to public discourse. Ads that appear to challenge traditional interpretations of Hindu festivals are now scrutinized through a lens of cultural preservation versus Westernization, making brand campaigns a proxy battleground for larger ideological conflicts.

3. Company Response and Campaign Adjustment

FBB initially defended the campaign in a brief statement, emphasizing that the brand "celebrates all forms of love and protection" and that the ad was meant to honor evolving expressions of sibling bonds. The company noted that it had received positive feedback from customers who felt represented by the inclusive messaging.

However, as boycott calls intensified and some offline stores reported drop in festive footfall, FBB quietly reduced the video's social media promotion budget and refocused subsequent Raksha Bandhan posts on traditional brother-sister imagery. The original video remained online but was no longer actively promoted through paid channels by the campaign's third week.

Brand analysts observed that while FBB avoided a full-scale PR disaster, the controversy likely cost the brand significant festive season revenue in tier-2 and tier-3 cities, where traditional interpretations of Hindu festivals remain dominant and boycott calls carry more weight among local retailer networks.

4. Strategic Takeaway

This case highlights the risks of brand-led reinterpretation of religious rituals, even when the reinterpretation reflects real social practices. While urban, progressive consumers may welcome inclusive messaging, traditionalist audiences—often the majority in festive retail markets—can perceive such campaigns as corporate overreach into sacred customs.

Brands must carefully assess whether their target audience for a festival campaign skews progressive or traditional, and whether the potential upside of inclusive positioning justifies the risk of alienating conservative consumers. Pre-launch cultural vetting, regional sentiment testing, and consultation with community representatives can help identify fault lines before campaigns go live.

Additionally, brands should prepare for the reality that ads touching Hindu rituals will be evaluated not just as marketing content but as statements in ongoing cultural debates about tradition, modernity, and religious identity. Neutral festive messaging—focused on gifting, family togetherness, and celebration—may offer safer ground than campaigns that explicitly reframe ritual meanings.