India’s approach to gutka and tobacco-containing pan masala has once again exposed an uncomfortable contradiction.
On one side, the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reportedly issued show-cause notices to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff over an advertisement alleged to indirectly promote a prohibited product.
On the other, Karnataka has decided to withdraw a one-year ban on gutka and tobacco-containing pan masala, with concerns reportedly raised about the economic impact on arecanut farmers.
The two developments may involve different state governments, laws and regulatory circumstances. But viewed together, they raise a legitimate public-policy question:
How can authorities discourage consumption and promotion of tobacco-related products while simultaneously relaxing restrictions on their sale?
Maharashtra: “Don't Promote It”
The Maharashtra FDA’s action sends a clear public-health message.
If a product is prohibited or restricted under applicable law, using celebrities to associate it with glamour, success or popularity can undermine the very purpose of those restrictions.
Celebrity advertising is particularly powerful because actors have enormous influence over consumers.
The concern becomes even greater when advertisements use “surrogate advertising”—promoting a brand or product category in a way that can indirectly evoke a restricted tobacco product.
The show-cause notices, however, are not findings of guilt. The actors and other parties involved should have the opportunity to respond to the regulator’s allegations.
Then Comes Karnataka
Meanwhile, Karnataka’s decision to withdraw its one-year prohibition on gutka and tobacco-containing pan masala has generated a very different policy signal.
The reported reasoning includes concerns about arecanut farmers, whose livelihoods are connected to the supply chain.
That creates a difficult policy dilemma.
On one side:
Public health.
On the other:
Agricultural livelihoods and economic interests.
Neither issue can simply be dismissed.
But the contradiction is obvious enough to deserve scrutiny.
The Government’s Two Messages
Imagine the message reaching an ordinary citizen.
Message No. 1:
“Don’t advertise or promote these products. They are a public-health concern.”
Message No. 2:
“Restrictions may be withdrawn because banning the product could hurt an agricultural sector.”
The citizen is left wondering:
Is the priority public health—or economic convenience?
Arecanut Farmers Are Not the Same as Tobacco Companies
This distinction is important.
Arecanut itself is not equivalent to tobacco.
Farmers growing arecanut may depend on the crop for their income, while the eventual processing and sale of tobacco-containing products involves manufacturers, distributors and retailers.
Therefore, protecting farmers does not necessarily require making harmful tobacco products freely available.
The government could instead explore:
Crop diversification.
Alternative markets for arecanut.
Farmer support schemes.
Better agricultural value chains.
Transition assistance.
Stronger enforcement against tobacco products.
Farmers should not have to become collateral damage in a tobacco-policy debate.
And What About the Celebrities?
The celebrity angle adds another layer.
Actors command enormous advertising power.
When a popular actor appears holding or promoting a product associated with pan masala, the advertisement can normalise consumption—even when the commercial technically promotes a different product.
This is precisely why regulators have increasingly scrutinised surrogate advertising.
But accountability should be proportionate and evidence-based.
If the law prohibits indirect promotion, authorities should clearly establish:
What product was actually advertised?
What product did consumers associate the advertisement with?
Was the advertisement designed as surrogate promotion?
Which legal provision was allegedly violated?
Who approved the campaign?
The Real Hypocrisy Question
Calling the entire government “hypocritical” may make for a strong headline, but the policy contradiction deserves a more precise examination.
Different states can legitimately adopt different policies.
Different laws can also apply in different circumstances.
A state government can reasonably consider farmer livelihoods while another regulator takes action against advertising.
But the Union government and states still need a coherent public-health strategy. If tobacco consumption is considered harmful—and India’s own public-health policy recognises the serious health risks—then restrictions should be based primarily on health evidence rather than changing political or economic pressures.
Why the Contradiction Matters
Tobacco is not an ordinary consumer product.
Its consumption is associated with serious diseases and substantial public-health costs.
That means policymakers have to answer a difficult question:
If the government knows a product causes harm, should economic dependence on its supply chain determine how aggressively it regulates the product? If the answer is yes, then the same logic could potentially be applied to many harmful products.
If the answer is no, governments need credible alternatives for workers and farmers affected by restrictions.
Don’t Blame Only the Consumer
There is another uncomfortable reality.
Consumers are frequently told:
“Don’t use tobacco.”
But at the same time they see:
Celebrity endorsements.
Aggressive branding.
Attractive packaging.
Widespread availability.
Weak enforcement.
Policy reversals.
That creates a confusing environment.
Public-health messaging becomes less convincing when regulation sends mixed signals.
What Should the Government Do?
A consistent policy would involve several steps.
1. Apply advertising rules consistently
If surrogate promotion is prohibited, the rules should apply equally to major celebrities, corporations and smaller advertisers.
2. Explain policy reversals
Whenever a ban is withdrawn, authorities should publish the scientific, economic and legal reasoning.
3. Protect farmers without encouraging tobacco consumption
Support farmers through diversification and alternative markets rather than relying on continued consumption of harmful products.
4. Strengthen enforcement
A ban that exists only on paper achieves little.
5. Maintain a national public-health framework
State-level differences should not undermine broader tobacco-control objectives.
The Celebrity Is Not the Whole Story
The Maharashtra notices may create headlines because famous actors are involved.
But the larger story is much bigger.
The real issue is policy consistency.
If authorities believe indirect pan-masala promotion is harmful enough to warrant regulatory action, citizens have every right to ask why restrictions on tobacco-containing pan masala are being relaxed elsewhere.
And if Karnataka has genuine economic reasons for changing its policy, the government should explain them transparently.
Final Word: Public Health Can’t Be a Switch
One day, the message is:
“Don’t promote pan masala.”
Another day, the message becomes:
“The ban is hurting farmers, so let’s reconsider it.”
Perhaps both positions can be legally and economically justified in their respective contexts.
But together, they create a public-policy contradiction that governments must explain.
Because public health cannot operate on a simple ON/OFF switch depending on advertising pressure, agricultural interests or political convenience.
If tobacco is dangerous, regulate it consistently.
If farmers are vulnerable, protect their livelihoods.
If celebrities violate advertising rules, investigate them fairly.
And above all: Don’t tell citizens one thing about public health while government policy quietly tells them another.
