Opinion | Questions Nike’s Colin Kaepernick advertisement poses before India

Kaepernick is not only a popular American football player, but also one of its most controversial for the stand he has taken — exemplified by his kneeling during the US national anthem — to highlight police brutality against African-Americans among other racial abuses in the US.

Kaepernick’s actions received praise and support but also attracted criticism, including from United States President Donald Trump. Since his protest in 2016, Kaepernick has not played in the National Football League (NFL).

Nike’s decision can be seen as an astute advertising strategy to bring the spotlight on the brand. It is, however, a daring one, given the political and emotional significance of the issue. Trump criticised the advertisement and a city mayor in the state of Louisiana has ordered that no government funds be spent on Nike products.

But why is Nike’s Kaepernick advertisement important?

It’s because what’s fundamentally a human rights issue (racial abuse) that has taken political undertones is now hotly debated because of an advertisement by a sporting company! It’s a case study of how different planes in society align on a common platform. At one level, it shows how ‘contemporary capitalism’ has picked up a social and political issue to further its cause. At another level, it is a reflection of the permutations democracy offers dissent and debate. Given this, dismissing the advertisement simply as a publicity stunt will be belittling the issue it is raising.

Nike’s advertisement is a good lens to turn the focus on India and ask whether such an incident would happen in this country. Will India have a Kaepernick? And if it did, would a brand stick its neck out to support a human rights cause that’s not in consonance with the views held by the government? It’s highly unlikely for a celebrity or a sportsperson — perhaps, a cricketer, because what the NFL is to the US, cricket is to India — or for a brand to take such a public stand.

The unpleasant experiences faced by celebrities who’ve chosen to speak their mind are stark reminders.

In late 2015, Bollywood actor Aamir Khan was targeted by a section in society for voicing his concerns about a “climate of insecurity” and he subsequently lost an advertisement deal. Incidents where celebrities have been targeted for voicing their opinions have happened before and after this incident — but this one stands out for it showed how business establishments could bow to pressure from social media. Such pressure tactics have been witnessed thereafter as well. In 2016, filmmaker Karan Johar was forced to apologise for casting an artiste from Pakistan, and in a video he had to profess his patriotism.

India is unlikely to have its Kaepernick not because there aren’t sportspersons and celebrities who lack a conscience, but because the country lacks a system that backs the rights of dissenting voices from being heard. Such voices are muffled in the cacophony of competitive populism.

It is the doubt our leaders have in the power of democracy that makes them apprehensive of its strengths. This, in turn, makes them defensive — even offensive, at times — where there is no real threat. Unfortunately, this is a poor reflection of the health of our democratic systems.

The debates over Nike’s Kaepernick advertisement shows the riches of democracy in the United States; the lack of such debates leaves us poorer.