"Girls we love for what they are; men for what they promise to be." -Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

While perusing CNN.com this evening, I stumbled across an article that piqued my interest, as my mind is a magnet to controversy. The article explained that Indian officials recently apologized to the public for featuring a foreign persona in an important national ad campaign. The ad, which depicted a handful of significant public figures, included Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed, a former air force chief from Pakistan. Ahmed's inclusion in the campaign rattled the palpable tension between India and Pakistan, a product of three wars and decades of hostility.

What was the ad campaign, you ask? Good question, because its message is completely buried by the public outcry of disapproval. The ad supports National Girl-Child Day, a day that celebrates female children and raises awareness about female feticide, "sex-selective abortions blamed for a skewed ratio of males to females in India." The ad depicts several prominent men, with a caption that reads, ""Where would you be if your mother was not allowed to be born?"

After reading the article, I found myself somewhat sad and slightly disgusted that such a message is now eclipsed. I have to wonder how many people actually took in the ad for what it was instead of whom. I've worked in PR and I know how important it is for the client to be satisfied with their image, but isn't the client female children here? Isn't it their promotion that needs to reach the citizens of India? If I had to guess, I would venture that many women in India, who have compassionate parents to thank for their mere existence, are not too thrilled that their day was ruined by an advertising faux pas.

To read the article for yourself, go to:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/25/india.pakistan/index.html