MAM
Manthan- A trip down memory lane
MUMBAI: The story of women farmers which started with the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation‘s (GCMMF) ‘Manthan‘ ad in 1996 has now been re-created in the new Amul TVC. The ad is an extension from the previous campaign, where women are shown to be multitasking and handling more than just routine domestic work.
The ad shows the progressive journey of women – from looking after cattle to studying and teaching in management colleges to even financing their children‘s education abroad.
The earlier campaign was based on the 1976 National Award winning movie ‘Manthan‘ directed by Shyam Benegal which was sponsored by 500,000 farmers of Gujarat, constituents of the GCMMF. And to revive this great story of success, GCMMF created a TVC titled Manthan in 1996 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW9DSUbZX34) with the song – ‘Mero gaam kathaparey‘.
|
|
The ad was a specially created film which incorporated clips from the movie – Manthan, featuring actor, Late Smita Patil. The commercial celebrated the economic independence of women farmers, thanking the co-operative movement by Amul India.
In 2011, GCMMF produced another version of the commercial called Manthan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bma1OE4sMVc) which was conceptualised and executed by Draftfcb Ulka.
|
|
The earlier TVC showcased how women in rural villages have become entrepreneurs by supplying milk to millions in India with the help of Amul India. The advertisement was unique as it drew a parallel between the rural and urban lifestyle.
The new campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv0hzVTfHkY) for Amul India shows the appropriate model for rural development and especially the advancement of women farmers.
|
|
Draftfcb Ulka chief operating officer Nitin Karkare said, “The new TVC is an extension of the earlier versions. While, the earlier ones were about the whole journey, right from the milk collection, processing to delivery to the urban homes, the latest TVC celebrates women empowerment. The idea is to showcase men acknowledging women as financially independent and celebrating their role as the Shethani.”
“The core objective was to communicate – ‘AMUL – A co-operative movement that empowered 35 lakh women farmers.’ And thus bring alive the societal impact of the cooperative movement. Our primary targets are opinion makers and housewives.”
When asked if the account was on pitch basis, Karkare added, “No campaign for Amul is a pitch. The brands are clearly aligned between the two agencies which build a strong sense of ownership and accountability with the agencies. We are promoting this commercial mainly via television supported by Digital.”
The latest TVC, directed by Subodh Poddar, has composite lyrics – ‘Mari Bairi Bani Sheethani‘(My wife is the head of the family and business) and ‘Mare ghar jhanjar laxmi ke baje‘ (in my house, the bells of wealth ring) which symbolises success. The foot tapping music has been composed by Umesh.
The TVC merges the commercials from 1966 to 2011 and showcases the gradual progress of women from homemakers to entrepreneurs.
GCMMF managing director R S Sodhi said, “We are extremely proud of the Amul journey so far and the role played by women in managing the dairy cooperatives. This film is an attempt to celebrate their contribution and demonstrate their capabilities to the urban world.”
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
