Fabindia named a Diwali-season line 'Jashn-e-Riwaaz' — the ad was pulled in two days

In October 2021, ahead of Diwali, Fabindia promoted a clothing collection under the name 'Jashn-e-Riwaaz' — an Urdu phrase roughly meaning 'celebration of rituals'. On 18 October critics, including BJP figures, attacked the brand for linking the Hindu festival to an Urdu term. MP Tejasvi Surya tweeted 'Deepavali is not Jashn-e-Riwaaz', called the name a deliberate attempt to 'Abrahamise' Hindu festivals, and said brands 'must face economic costs'.

#BoycottFabindia trended on Twitter the same day. By 19 October Fabindia had withdrawn the ad from social media and issued a clarification: Jashn-e-Riwaaz was not its Diwali line — the Diwali collection, 'Jhil Mil se Diwali', had not yet launched, and the company releases collections for many festivals, with the phrase simply meaning festive celebrations.

The withdrawal did not end the coverage: the case ran for days as a nationwide debate over brand naming, and commentators grouped it with Tanishq's interfaith-ad withdrawal the same month as proof that festive advertising in India had become a political risk.

Fabindia withdrew the ad and clarified the line was not the Diwali one, but the denial came after the boycott trended, making it read as retreat.

A religious festival's biggest shopping moment was branded with a name that a vocal part of the customer base read as a provocation

The collection sat in the open for a full news cycle before the company clarified it was not the Diwali line — the denial arrived after the boycott had formed

Fabindia's defence was accurate but reactive: it explained the name's meaning instead of answering the charge, so the clarification read as retreat

The calendar decides the meaning: a collection shown in Diwali week is read as a Diwali collection whatever the brief said. Naming was the creative choice; timing made it a statement.

The Jashn-e-Riwaaz episode became a fixture in Indian round-ups of ad backlashes, cited alongside Tanishq's Ekvatam withdrawal as evidence that festive naming had become a political risk. The pattern it established — name, boycott, clarification — was invoked repeatedly in coverage of later festive-ad controversies.