For brands that have built their identity around being part of every trending conversation, silence can sometimes speak louder than words.
Over the past few days, Sonam Wangchuk's protest has dominated our social media feeds. He has been on a hunger strike for 24 days in support of students protesting the NEET 2026 paper leak and demanding accountability in the education system. The activist's protest has become one of the country's biggest talking points, drawing reactions from citizens, public figures and a few media channels. But one group has remained conspicuously absent from the conversation. Indian Brands.
This is especially unusual because brands have long claimed to be part of their consumers' lives. India's biggest names in real-time marketing rarely miss an opportunity to join the public discourse. From cricket victories and blockbuster films to viral memes and election results, brands such as Amul, Zomato, Swiggy, Blinkit and Durex have built a reputation for responding to the news almost as quickly as it breaks.
Amul, especially, has spent decades turning current affairs into topical creatives. Its advertising has referenced everything from elections and political developments to international affairs, sporting milestones and pop culture moments. Real-time marketing has become part of its vibrant identity. Other digital-first brands have followed suit, treating social media as a space where relevance is measured in minutes. Which makes the silence around Sonam Wangchuk's protest difficult to ignore.
For years, marketers have also spoken about building purpose-led brands, standing for values and staying culturally relevant. They have argued that consumers expect brands to have a voice, not just a product to sell. They have positioned brands as companions rather than advertisers. Marketing leaders often speak about becoming part of consumers' lives, understanding what matters to them, sharing their values and building relationships that go beyond transactions. If brands aspire to be part of consumers' everyday conversations, does that responsibility extend only to the moments that are safe? And when consumers rally behind an issue they believe in, should brands that claim to stand with them remain silent?
Why, when one of the country's most widely discussed issues dominates public conversation, have brands chosen not to say anything at all? Has the playbook for moment marketing changed? Or does real-time marketing only work when the conversation is comfortable?
According to creative consultant (who has earlier worked with agencies such as Ogilvy Mumbai) and writer-actor Sumanto Chattopadhyay, the silence is far from accidental. "It's a combination of opportunism and fear," he says. Chattopadhyay believes brands frequently claim to be part of culture and people's lives, but in practice, their participation in moment marketing is highly selective.
He argues that brands willingly join conversations that are emotionally engaging and commercially rewarding, but become far more cautious when speaking up carries the possibility of government displeasure or business consequences. Brands are not activists but businesses, and that their primary instinct is to protect themselves. "If taking a stand carries a risk of government displeasure or damage to business interests, most companies will choose silence over principle," he explains.
That exposes the limits of purpose-driven branding. He argues that such behaviour should make people more sceptical of brands' claims of ‘standing with people’. "Corporate courage extends only as far as it is commercially convenient," he adds.
Not everyone agrees that brands should be expected to participate in such conversations. Nisha Sampath, Managing Partner, Bright Angles Consulting, a brand consultancy firm, believes the issue is too significant to be reduced to a marketing opportunity. "What's happening is too serious to be turned into a moment-marketing opportunity. The protests affect our collective future, and the impact is still unfolding," she remarks.
Patagonia is one of the few brands that can credibly take political positions because its ownership structure aligns with its purpose. Sampath points out that the company restructured itself so that its profits fund climate initiatives rather than shareholders, making activism part of its business model rather than its marketing. India, however, presents a different reality. With regulatory and reputational risks at play, silence often becomes the more pragmatic choice.
A distinction also needs to be made between brands and the people behind them. While companies may choose caution, she argues, founders can still speak in their personal capacity. Deepinder Goyal, for instance, has publicly expressed his views and engaged with criticism.
And while brands readily support causes such as sustainability or women's empowerment, they often retreat when those issues become politically charged. Sampath cites Tanishq's withdrawn interfaith marriage campaign as an example. The real test is consistency. Chobani, despite boycott calls, stood by its refugee hiring policy because it reflected the founder's beliefs. "Before taking a stance, a brand should weigh the pros and cons, and then stick to its stance. Shifting or contradicting your position can damage equity," she says.
Silence feels so surprising, perhaps only because brands have trained consumers to expect the opposite. Years of moment marketing have conditioned audiences to believe that brands will show up for every major conversation. But according to Ashok Lalla, an independent brand and digital advisor, this isn't the first time they've stepped back. "Brands and celebs in general being silent about Sonam Wangchuk isn't really surprising or unexpected. It's been the same with several politically sensitive issues in the past too," he says.
For Lalla, moment marketing has always been about riding the momentum of a trending conversation to generate visibility. That equation changes when the issue becomes politically sensitive. "Safe is better than sorry," he says, noting that a misplaced post can affect not just a campaign, but also a company's wider business interests. Even those that champion purpose, sustainability and social impact tend to retreat when those conversations intersect with politics or religion, even if it leaves consumers questioning whether their commitment to social commentary is selective.
A senior marketing leader, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says organisations today distinguish between cultural conversations and issues that could be interpreted as political. "Each organisation has its own governance, risk appetite and communication framework," adding that brands also assess whether they have the credibility to contribute meaningfully to a particular issue. The executive points to Amul's long-running topical advertising as an example. While its creatives often respond to events already in the public domain, they typically do so through wit rather than advocacy. "A public movement is different. Any creative response to it is, by definition, likely to be interpreted as endorsing or opposing a particular cause," the executive says.
Perhaps silence is a strategy. Perhaps it’s caution. Or perhaps, it reveals that the boundaries of moment marketing are narrower than brands often claim. Whether brands see that distinction as responsible communication or whether consumers see it as selective silence is likely to remain a subject of debate. One thing, however, is difficult to overlook. This was never about one protest. It is about understanding which conversations brands are willing to enter, and which they are prepared to watch from the sides.
