Harrods apology over Hindu bikinis

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-09 11:56pm

Harrods apology over Hindu bikinis

By Rajesh Priyadarshi
BBC Hindi online

London's Harrods department store has apologised to its customers for selling controversial underwear bearing images of Hindu goddesses.
Harrods removed the underwear and swimwear range from sale after a protest by a Hindu pressure group.

Hindu Human Rights said the garments, created by Italian designer Roberto Cavalli, insulted the religion.

The store said: "We apologise to those customers who have been offended or distressed by the situation."

Signatures

Hindu Human Rights, a group which says it "safeguards the religion and its followers", lodged a complaint with the store on Monday seeking the removal of the range.

"When we heard that Harrods was selling such garments, we registered our protest. We cannot bear the insult to our religion," said spokesperson Sheila Church.

"Our goddesses are revered by millions of Hindus. How can somebody use them for such purposes? We sent Harrods a large number of signatures protesting against it."

The summer range has been on sale for some time but the controversy started on Sunday when an Indian human resources executive, Amitabh Soni, saw mannequins bearing the brightly coloured bikinis.

"I was shocked to see them," he told BBC Hindi Online.

"When we see any image of goddesses we bow our heads with respect and here they were displayed in such an insulting way", Mr Soni said.

He is now happy at the outcome, but said the store had not listened when he asked it to remove the garments.

"So I got in touch with Hindu Human Rights," he said.

Controversies relating to Hindu icons are not new.

Hindu Human Rights is also protesting against the new film by Ismail Merchant, Shakti, in which rock singer Tina Turner plays the role of goddess Kali.

Last year another department store had to apologise for selling toilet seats with images of a Hindu deity.

Selling slippers with Hindu symbols created trouble for a third London-based retailer.

A number of designers have been attracted by the richness of Hindu iconography and the fad for exotic ethnic patterns.
_________________________________
When we see any image of goddesses we bow our heads with respect and here they were displayed in such an insulting way

Amitabh Soni,
human resources executive

Can you imagine if they’d put prints of the crucifixion or Islamic scripture on bikini bottoms? It would seem some “designers” need to be a little more selective in choosing their inspiration.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-09 11:59pm

Here's an example of what they were selling for those of you too lazy to click on the link, you can probably understand why some Hindus might find it objectionable.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-06-10 12:58am

Yes, very bad taste there. Wow, how could they not foresee massive protest over this.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-10 01:01am

Oh fucking come on. People really need to not be so fucking stuffy about their gods. I, personally, think that underwear looks awesome. To hell with people that can't take it and find it too offensive. They don't own their gods, they worship them. Should I start worshipping the great white emptiness then bitch about tighty-whiteys? No. You say it's not the same? Well you're wrong.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-10 01:05am

I don't get it. People where outerwear with Hindu goddesses on them all the time. Why does it matter if it's on panties?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-10 01:17am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I don't get it. People where outerwear with Hindu goddesses on them all the time. Why does it matter if it's on panties?

Because this way people can make a fuss.

What if I started worshipping those gods but in my version of the religion, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON PANTIES?

Fucking oversensitive bitches.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-06-10 01:43am

Neat- I want to see thongs with Jesus on them next. Maybe with something like "What would Jesus do...? Duh he would go for the Gold!".

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-06-10 01:58am

kojikun wrote:Oh fucking come on. People really need to not be so fucking stuffy about their gods. I, personally, think that underwear looks awesome. To hell with people that can't take it and find it too offensive. They don't own their gods, they worship them. Should I start worshipping the great white emptiness then bitch about tighty-whiteys? No. You say it's not the same? Well you're wrong.

Dude...come on. Tolerance.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-06-10 08:13am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
kojikun wrote:Oh fucking come on. People really need to not be so fucking stuffy about their gods. I, personally, think that underwear looks awesome. To hell with people that can't take it and find it too offensive. They don't own their gods, they worship them. Should I start worshipping the great white emptiness then bitch about tighty-whiteys? No. You say it's not the same? Well you're wrong.
Dude...come on. Tolerance.

He does have the barest framework of a point. Tolerance could be construed as not telling people what to do when it has fuck all to do with you...which, because your favourite fictional chatacter is now on their undies is to be honest, nothing to do with you. Dont expect to be on their *insert relevant hallmark holiday* card list, but dont feel obliged to do what they say either.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-06-10 08:28am

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Yes, very bad taste there. Wow, how could they not foresee massive protest over this.

[sarcasm]Well how many Hindu's are there in the world anyway?[/sarcasm]

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-06-10 08:37am

kojikun wrote:What if I started worshipping those gods but in my version of the religion, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON PANTIES?

Then you wouldn't be bitchin' about the fact that they are on panties, would you? What, do you require a diagram?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-06-10 09:05am

damn, i wouldn´t have thought that it´s anyone´s business what other people wear. fucking fundies.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-10 09:40am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:Dude...come on. Tolerance.

Generally, I'd agree with you, but it's kind of silly that they had to apologise. I mean, even I have a cool shirt with Ganesha on it and my Hindu neighbors have seen it before (at the time, they moved), and weren't offended at all.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-06-10 09:50am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Dude...come on. Tolerance.
Generally, I'd agree with you, but it's kind of silly that they had to apologise. I mean, even I have a cool shirt with Ganesha on it and my Hindu neighbors have seen it before (at the time, they moved), and weren't offended at all.

And what if you had Ganesha's trunk running down the outline of your cock? Do you think they would have been ok with that, too? Come on, this isn't a difficult call; disrespect was shown, and got what it deserved.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-10 10:02am

Crown wrote:Then you wouldn't be bitchin' about the fact that they are on panties, would you? What, do you require a diagram?

No, but I think you do because you completely missed the point of what I said.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-06-10 10:13am

kojikun wrote:
Crown wrote:Then you wouldn't be bitchin' about the fact that they are on panties, would you? What, do you require a diagram?
No, but I think you do because you completely missed the point of what I said.

I'm a dumbass, could you please post your point again?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-06-10 10:19am

BoredShirtless wrote: And what if you had Ganesha's trunk running down the outline of your cock? Do you think they would have been ok with that, too? Come on, this isn't a difficult call; disrespect was shown, and got what it deserved.

i wouldn´t necessarily call it disrespect. perhaps the wearer thinks it´s a sign of respect to wear ganesha underwear. perhaps the wearer doesn´t want to make a statement by wearing it at all.

underwear being somehow degrading is something completely subjective and because of that can´t be a sign of disrespect in general.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-06-10 10:36am

Well, it was not very tasteless.

But not as bad as if you would have the picture drawn on the bottom of you toilet bowl...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-06-10 10:40am

salm wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: And what if you had Ganesha's trunk running down the outline of your cock? Do you think they would have been ok with that, too? Come on, this isn't a difficult call; disrespect was shown, and got what it deserved.
i wouldn´t necessarily call it disrespect.

I would. And so do the people who managed to change Harrods mind. One could also argue [weakly due to lack of evidence] that Harrods now thinks it's disrespect too.

perhaps the wearer thinks it´s a sign of respect to wear ganesha underwear.

You may find the odd lunatic who reckons wearing a picture of a God next to his or her genitals is showing "respect", but businesses generally don't cater for lunatics because it marginalises the much larger market; ordinary people.

perhaps the wearer doesn´t want to make a statement by wearing it at all.

Perhaps.

underwear being somehow degrading is something completely subjective and because of that can´t be a sign of disrespect in general.

So you'd feel nothing if I took a picture of your mother and screened it onto the crotch of my underwear?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-06-10 10:47am

BoredShirtless wrote: So you'd feel nothing if I took a picture of your mother and screened it onto the crotch of my underwear?

lol.
that´s different though. i´d be very suspicious that you might be some fucked up stalker since my mother is an actual person.

hindu gods are not actual persons, or even if you believe in them they´re not persons who whom you could stalk.

so i wouldn´t necessarily feel anything because it might seem degrading but because you might be some sort of fucked up killer.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-06-10 10:56am

salm wrote: lol.

You're missing the point, so it's time to play a game. Substitute the words:
"mother" with "Ganesha"
"a Hindu" with "salm"
and try telling me again that it isn't disrespectful to put Ganesha on underwear:

Putting salm's mother on my underwear would be disrespectful [amongst other things] to salm, but could draw a shrug of the shoulders from a Hindu.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-10 11:31am

I could see it offending people. I think landoverbaptist.com was selling Jesus thongs for a while. Those were obviously meant to offend certain groups, even more than their usual cards and T-shirts. Last time I checked it didn't look like they were selling them anymore, though. Too much even for them?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-10 12:09pm

I think people have an absolute right to have whatever pictures they choose next to their genitalia, I also think other people have a right to get pissed off if the picture involved is disrespectful to something they value.

There have recently been a bunch websites selling “what would jesus do” underwear and I don’t object to that in the slightest. My surprise here was that a major store like Harrods was selling them because unlike politically motivated comedy websites they have an image that needs protecting and a store which can be picketed.

It seems to me this isn’t quite the same as the jesus thongs as this was less a deliberate political statement than a lazy designer raiding a minority (in Britain) culture as a shortcut to exoticism, it seems is more insensitivity that anything.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-10 03:15pm

BoredShirtless wrote:I'm a dumbass, could you please post your point again?

I'll act it out, since that seems to work for people better than explanation.

"I declare myself to believe in those gods that the Hindus believe in. Not only that, but I declare that my religion dictates that they must be printed upon skimpy undergarments."

And now there's a problem, aint there? Because my little "religion" and their religion both conflict, and there's no logical way you can say they have more right to the images than I do. Then you have to wonder why religion even enters into it, since belief is belief, and it was Harrods belief that it should print undies with Ganesha and such on it. Now, why is Harrods belief (or atleast the peoples who work there) less vaild than Hindus? Because they were using Hindu symbols? They're only Hindu symbols because Hindus attach themselves to the symbols, not because they own them.

People can take offense at anything they please, the only reason Harrods is appologising is because theres enough Hindus in London to hurt their business by not shopping there.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-06-10 03:57pm

Mayabird wrote:I could see it offending people. I think landoverbaptist.com was selling Jesus thongs for a while. Those were obviously meant to offend certain groups, even more than their usual cards and T-shirts. Last time I checked it didn't look like they were selling them anymore, though. Too much even for them?

Too much? Landover Baptist? UNPOSSIBLE!