Born there, not here? Dabur’s Toothpaste ad sparks debate over swadeshi claims

New Delhi: Dabur India’s latest print advertisement for its Red Toothpaste, framed around the government’s “Swadeshi” push, has triggered a debate on social media with both praise and criticism pouring in.

Dabur’s new ad for Dabur Red Toothpaste presents the brand as a homegrown alternative to foreign toothpaste brands that have long dominated the market. The campaign highlights the Prime Minister’s call to support locally made products and uses the Indian tricolour to reinforce the “Made in India” message. The ad asks consumers: “Born there, not here? Do you know your favourite toothpaste brand is American?” challenging them to rethink their loyalty to foreign brands.

The visual shows Dabur Red in the foreground as the Indian choice, with other toothpaste brands below. The ad also includes contact information for consumer feedback, making it interactive. It has sparked debate on social media, with some supporting the message and others criticising it. 

Overall, Dabur is encouraging people to pick the “true Indian” toothpaste and choose local over foreign.

While some LinkedIn users welcomed the move, others described it as opportunistic and misplaced.

Kushal Sanghvi, LinkedIn Top Voice and media-content specialist, praised the strategy, calling it a “smart differentiator and positioning.” In his post, he said Dabur’s narrative was in step with the Prime Minister’s call, adding that, “here’s more power to this Swadeshi choice.”

However, communications consultant Karthik Srinivasan, in a detailed post, argued that Dabur’s approach went too far. “Colgate may have been ‘born there,’ but it has been sold in India since 1937 and employs thousands of Indians ‘here’,” he wrote, adding that brand campaigns should not ride on “short-term nationalistic fervour” that could shift quickly with changing geopolitical ties.

The reactions to their posts revealed a clear split.

Some users defended Dabur, pointing out that Western FMCG brands had once demonised Indian practices. Tejasa Khambete wrote, “Western FMCG companies demonised our local cultural practices and products for decades with impunity… So why complain if you are now on the receiving end?” Another user, Deepak Repale, described Dabur’s approach as a “bold move to face off against global giants like Colgate and Sensodyne.”

Others were sharply critical, with some describing the ad as “cheap and disgusting,” while others noted that there is “a meaningful difference between celebrating a brand’s Indian roots and resorting to thinly veiled attacks on competitors using opportunistic nationalism.”

Some critics questioned the overall direction of the campaign, describing it as “out of touch with reality” and suggesting that Dabur should have focused more on highlighting the product’s quality rather than relying on nationalistic messaging. Others compared the approach to past opportunistic marketing campaigns, warning that such strategies often come across as simply “being opportunist and nothing else.”

At the same time, some observers acknowledged the potential of the campaign but urged caution. They suggested that it could have been executed more cleverly, noting that a lighter, satirical tone, similar to what other Indian brands have successfully used, might have been better received than a combative approach.

Questions were also raised about contradictions in the campaign. While Dabur promotes itself as a proudly Indian brand, it exports to over 120 countries, reflecting a global presence that goes beyond the domestic market. 

Some noted that consumers’ brand choices are not always influenced by nationalistic appeals, pointing out that product quality and reliability often remain the primary drivers. One comment summarised this sentiment, saying, “people will still line up outside iPhone stores” regardless of swadeshi campaigns.

Supporters view it as a valid assertion of local identity, celebrating an Indian brand in a competitive market, while critics caution that framing rivals as “foreign” risks alienating consumers who value both heritage and performance.