Coke Studio is a sensation, a cultural movement, a nostalgic visit to the past, the sound of the nation, a reformation of Pakistani image, a form of economic transnationalism, and perpetuation of neo-liberalism. Wait…what?
Coke Studio has come under fire recently with people in Pakistan and elsewhere deliberating whether to watch the newly launched season given the current crisis in the Middle East, – the genocide taking place in Gaza – and for Coca-Cola’s tacit support for Israel despite the Palestinian genocide. To boycott or not to boycott is the current ethical dilemma with strong arguments on both sides.
However, what does Coke Studio stand for? What are the political and social meanings associated with it? Does it represent a form of transformation, an alliance between the traditional and the modern?
Scholars have argued that the phenomenon of Coke Studio has allowed in promotion of an ‘alternative, more progressive image of Pakistan’. According to Ayesha Jalal, the historian, Coke Studio can be regarded as an achievement ‘in the midst of state-sponsored Islamisation and terrorism’.
But does Coke Studio carry some sinister undertones, notwithstanding the company’s current stance on the Palestinian genocide? Take for example the fact that before the advent of this movement, Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola’s bitterest rival held the greatest market share in the soft beverage industry within Pakistan. Pepsi-Cola as Bozkurt (2024) states led the market because devout Cricket fans identified with the brand due to the fizzy drink’s association with Cricket. It was an excellent marketing strategy, a coup indeed that firmly established Coke Studio as a household name in Pakistan.
And it really achieved its target. Coca-Cola was able to hit two birds with one stone – it drove up its sales substantially and increased its market share to 38.2 per cent and decreased Pepsi-Cola’s market share from 80 per cent to 51 per cent. Not to mention the amount of money that it makes through advertisements and subscriptions through its YouTube account and other channels. But the other achievement, the White-Savior complex also came to full force through this strategy. Coke Studio was able to help improve the image of terrorism-ridden and violence-driven Pakistan. And one cannot help but acknowledge that Coke Studio is produced in a way that appeals to the ‘alien’ gaze.
And how much of Coke Studio actually represents the ‘real’ Pakistan? Almost all the producers and executives of this venture come from, according to Najia Mukhtar, ‘very specific type of Pakistan stratum known to have fondness for western cultures and lifestyles’. While one could argue that there is much diversity represented in the show, the presence of khwaja-siras and faqeers, both populations very indigenous to Pakistan, are mere anecdotal as opposed to being routine.
This is also not to mention that many of the artists were already famous before they arrived on the Coke Studio scene, and some of them can be very much regarded as nepo-babies. With regards to the diversity in the language that the songs are sung in, Chocano (2019) provides evidence that majority of the songs are in Urdu and Punjabi, the two dominant languages in Pakistan. The political history of language cannot simply be disengaged when one analyses how much of Pakistan is being represented through Coke Studio. Or rather the broader statement that what is acceptable and malleable, is what is actually being represented.
Of course this could also largely be due to the market search that may have revealed a preference for specific types of songs. But this brings an important reality of the brand, the company behind Coke Studio: the Coca-Cola Company which epitomises everything which is wrong with globalisation. Under the pursuit of free trade agreements following the neo-liberal agenda, big corporate multinationals like Coca-Cola are able to enter emerging markets like Pakistan, exploit cheap labour for its production under the guise of providing employment and driving up economic growth of the country.
But moving into these emerging economies is a tactical move and a strategic maneuver since these companies are being pushed out of the developed world due to raising public health concerns surrounding diabetes, obesity, and dental caries. The focus of many of these multinationals has therefore moved to the third world, a phenomenon known as ‘dumping’ that allows rich corporations to market and sell what they cannot in their own countries due to legal restrictions and repercussions.
And while people can argue that boycotting the latest Coke Studio season is taking it a bit too far, and is unfair to the Pakistani artists who have worked hard and whose talents will go to waste, there are times when one needs to side with the right side of history. To stand against hegemonic powers that are more insidious. After all, multinationals and corporations have a voice and their board members and executives are movers and shakers. Boycotting drives down profits for these corporations and it is only when their bottom line is squeezed is when they will start to listen.
The writer is our Managing Editor and Assistant Professor at CBEC, SIUT.
