‘We really mean it…’: IIM-Bangalore professor who penned letter critiquing corporate funding of ‘hate speech’

“We believe that maintaining peace, stability and cohesion in the country is of paramount importance to corporate India without which India cannot become an economic powerhouse. The leaders of corporate India have an important and substantial role to play in curbing the spread of hate and misinformation,” the letter reads.

An open letter by Indian academics, seeking accountability and responsibility from the corporates, Professor Prateek Raj believes, “raises the reputation of the Indian academia,” impressing the possibility for its members to be both “independent” and “critical”. Raj co-wrote the letter along with his colleagues, and shared it on LinkedIn on Tuesday.

“Some people say it’s a very courageous act to write such letters. But there’s another aspect to keep in mind, when people see that academics at IIMB can be independent in their thinking, and critical of what is going on, it raises the reputation of Indian academia. That Indian academia is independent, if not everywhere, but at least at some places,” he says, a day after the letter was released on different social media platforms.

The letter was birthed amid a rising concern, caused by a spree of violent incidents, Raj says—citing the examples of Manipur, and the killing of two men on a moving train by a police official. “In the worst case, such acts of violence could culminate into a genocide, which would annihilate the social fabric as well as the economy of the country, casting a long dark shadow over India’s future. Corporate India, which hopes to reach new frontiers of international growth and innovation in the 21st century, cannot afford to live with even a small possibility of such a scenario,” the letter states.

The wheels moved quickly once the idea was conceived, with the final draft materialising in just a week. Raj wrote the first draft last Wednesday, before sharing it with his colleagues, who edited the draft for clarity. By Monday, the list of signatories was sealed, and the final draft was shared with them. The letter saw the light of day on Tuesday.

The letter cites 15 media reports from across outlets, in the country and abroad, in an attempt to lend evidence to its claims of “an increasing risk of violent conflicts in the country.” These risks, the letter avers, are a product of the rising “hate speech” and “misinformation” on news channels and social media, that are ultimately funded by the advertising from the corporates.

“The source of hate-speech is ultimately media, and media’s business model is advertising. The fundamental support to this speech happens through advertising. We thought that calling out Corporate India to be more responsible in how it funds advertising, and that it does some audit and introspection on where their money is going, where their ads are being displayed,” Raj states.

The institute hasn’t responded—neither supported, nor objected—to the letter. Raj says that the faculty at IIM Bangalore are relatively freer in that regard, and possess the room to speak up in their individual capacity. A similar letter to the Prime Minister, for instance, was written last year, and signed by both the students and the faculty. “It’s not the first time people have come together at IIMB,” Raj adds.

On being asked about the exclusion of students from this letter, Raj reasons it to be an academic exercise, arising out of a direct relationship between a professor at the business school and the leaders of the corporate. “We’re the faculty members at business school, and share a direct relationship with Corporate India. Students writing it makes it an act of political activism. Academic writing gives it more weight,” he points out.

The reception of the letter notwithstanding, Raj admits that it could’ve led to either the best or worst-case scenarios. He says that there is always a degree of uncertainty over the reach and attention these letters receive. “Our best case scenario is that hopefully someone will pick this up, and identify hate speech. The employees and marketing teams will pick up, and there will be some pressure in the company to justify their funding,” Raj underlines. In the opposite eventuality, he says, it will only be a record that some people were concerned at a point in history.

The professor denies any discrete aftermath of the letter. “There is no before and after though. It’s a continuous process.,” he says.

“When our students see the 17-18 of us sign a letter, they know it’s no PR or corporate speech. We really mean it,” Raj underscores.