EURASIA REVIEW, March 29 2026, 

For nearly three decades, India has lived with a peculiar contradiction. On paper, the country may be prohibiting the advertising of alcohol and tobacco. In practice, however, the public sphere is saturated with “club sodas,” “music CDs,” “glassware,” “water bottles,” and “brand philosophies” that bear an uncanny resemblance to whisky, rum, and cigarette brands.

This is the world of surrogate advertising—a regulatory grey zone that has allowed harmful products to maintain cultural visibility while technically complying with the law. The result is a system that undermines public health, confuses consumers, and erodes the credibility of regulatory institutions.

Today, as the Government of India is reportedly drafting sweeping new rules ( See here, here and here ) to impose a blanket ban on surrogate advertising, the moment is ripe to examine why this loophole must finally be closed. Alcohol at any level is injurious to health

The Anatomy of a Surrogate Ad

A recent (27 March 2026) newspaper advertisement in a popular Mumbai daily featuring a cricket icon is a perfect example. The copy celebrates “walks” rather than “runs,” culminating in the unmistakable tagline: KEEP WALKING.

No bottle is shown. No alcohol is mentioned. Yet the brand recall is immediate.

This is not creativity; it is strategy. Surrogate ads rely on familiar taglines, brand colours, emotional storytelling, celebrity associations, sports sponsorships. Ad creators design them to trigger memory without triggering regulation.

I hasten to add that surrogate advertising of Alcohol may not be illegal formally now. The purpose of this article is to request the particpants particulalarly the cricket icon and other celibrities to desist from this practice so that our young generation is not tempted to follow the practice blindly 

Why Surrogate Advertising Is Harmful?  

Surrogate advertising normalises harmful products. Alcohol and tobacco advertising bans exist for a reason: these products cause disease, disability, and premature death. Surrogate ads reintroduce glamour and aspiration through the back door.

It targets young audiences: Sports, music, and celebrity culture disproportionately influence adolescents— are they note precisely the group most vulnerable to early initiation.

It undermines regulatory intent: A law that can be circumvented by renaming whisky as “soda” is not a law; it may at best be a suggestion.

It creates an uneven playing field. Companies that comply with the spirit of the law lose visibility to those who exploit loopholes.

The Current Framework is not Enough

India’s regulatory landscape is fragmented. The Cable Television Networks Rules (1994) prohibit direct alcohol ads. ASCI guidelines restrict misleading brand extensions. State excise laws vary widely.

Enforcement remains inconsistent. Surrogate ads flourish because penalties are low and definitions are vague; it is easy to fabricate brand extensions. It is dfficult to regulate event sponsorships.

The result is a system where the letter of the law is followed, but the spirit is routinely violated.

 Is There a Case for Stronger National Rules?

The government’s upcoming rules—expected to ban surrogate ads, brand extensions, and sponsorships—represent a long‑overdue correction. A strong national framework should include a clear definition of “brand extension”. Only genuine, revenue‑generating products should qualify—not phantom sodas or fictional music CDs!

The rules should ban using alcohol brand elements in any form. Taglines, colours, mascots, and logos must be treated as part of the alcohol brand identity.

The Penalties for violations must have real deterrent value. Fines must outweigh the marketing benefits of violating the rules. Endorsers must be accountable. Celebrities should be liable for promoting misleading brand extensions. There must be restrictions on event sponsorships. Sports, music, and cultural events must not become vehicles for indirect alcohol promotion.

A Brief History: How We Got Here

Surrogate advertising in India has evolved in five phases: Pre‑1990s: Direct alcohol ads were common. 1995–2000: Ban introduced; brands pivoted to sodas and water. 2000–2010: Explosion of surrogate ads—Bagpiper, Royal Challenge, Kingfisher. 2010–2020: Shift to events, festivals, and lifestyle branding. 2020–present: Government and courts increasingly recognise surrogate ads as misleading and harmful.

The pattern is clear: every time regulators tighten rules, the industry innovates around them!

The Way Forward: A Public Health Imperative

India cannot afford half‑measures. Alcohol consumption is rising, and its social costs—accidents, violence, chronic disease—are borne disproportionately by families and public health systems.

A genuine ban on surrogate advertising is not moral policing; it is evidence‑based public health policy. The question is not whether brands will resist. They will. The question is whether regulators will hold their ground.

Time to Stop Walking in Circles

Surrogate advertising is a sophisticated illusion. It allows harmful products to masquerade as harmless ones, and it allows companies to claim compliance while undermining the law India now has an opportunity to close this loophole decisively.

A ban on surrogate advertising is not just a regulatory reform—it is a statement of national priorities. It affirms that public health outweighs corporate creativity, and that the law cannot be gamed indefinitely. It is time to stop walking in circles. It is time to walk forward.

Dr. K S Parthasarathy is former Secretary, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and a former Raja Ramanna Fellow in the Strategic Planning Group, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai. Dr. K S Parthasarathy may be contacted at ksparth@yahoo.co.uk

Original message

Post Navigation