From India's largest newsroom, I'm Arun George and this is the Times of India podcast. Ratings agency Moody's recently kept its credit rating of India constant and said it believes India's economy would remain stable. The agency also said that it expects India's economic growth to outpace all other G20 economies through at least the next two years. And this growth would be driven by domestic demand. However, the ratings agency had a word of caution as well for investors.
Moody said that the curtailment of civil society and political dissent, compounded by rising sectarian tensions, support a weaker assessment of political risks and the quality of institutions. This assessment came just around a week after a group of around 20 academics linked to IIM Bangalore, short of a letter to India's corporate world. Some of the signatories to the letter were retired, others are
still teachers at the institute. The faculty members were clear that they had written the letter in a personal capacity and they had done it to bring an issue to the attention of the corporate world. The letter pointed to the rise in hate speech and violence targeting certain groups. In the letter, the academics wrote that corporate India should be worried since it points to an increasing risk of violence in the country and in the worst case, possibly a
genocide. They also had some suggestions for the corporate world. They said corporate funding should be stopped to media and social media outlets that transmit hate speech. They urged corporate India to foster more inclusive workplaces. And they asked the business community to raise their voices in support of greater fraternity in the country. One of the signatories to the letters, Prateek Raj, an assistant professor at the institute.
In today's episode, he's in conversation with my colleague Alka Dupkar about the letter and the risk of letting hate speech become acceptable. The professor of strategy at IIM Bangalore, who is an IIT graduate and holds a PhD from University College London, talks about how hate speech can hit
India's grand economic dreams. Pratik Raj also talks about the worst case scenarios possible and why he still holds out hope for India. Alka started by asking Pratik Raj about the letter he is a signatory to and what inspired it. So you have Co wrote this letter. Tell us about the process of writing such open letters. What discussions took place which inspired writing these letters?
There was no plan per se, of writing a letter, and neither is it the case that we are constantly looking for opportunities to write a letter or anything of that sort. It's just that that particular week proceeding when we wrote the letter. Was particularly very distressing with a lot of issues of violence occurring in the
news. There was the Manipur violence, there was shootings in a Jaipur train and then violence began in Haryana. So this all seemed very distressing and that's when the idea came that. We can't be just silent spectators to everything. Much of this was being instigated by a certain kind of toxic conversation that we are having in the public discourse, not just in the media, which is the mainstream media, but also in the social media. And I would say social media is
a bigger culprit here. So we thought that where is this problem really stemming from? It is coming from the fact that this kind of visceral news gets eyeballs and then people want to dish this kind of stuff more out so that they can then monetize this kind of content. And that is the business model.
So that's how the idea emerged that we need to go to the root of the problem, which is. Monetization of this kind of content, asking corporates to do something about it, or to think about the externalities or the consequences of where their
money goes in advertising. Initially, the proposal came from me that we should probably write a letter to corporate India. So I wrote the first draft of it and then I shared with some of my colleagues who gave recommendations or edits to it. Then we shared it with the rest of the faculty members and requested anyone interested to
join. When we thought about who should be signing the letter, we just felt that faculty members who have signed are enough to make the point because this is a kind of an academic issue. Also that we as academics have direct relations with corporate India. So we are addressing this issue to them and we just felt that we don't need to involve students in this.
The letter also points out that the risk of genocide in India is no longer close to 0 and urges corporate India to use its voice to rise up against hate and stand up for fraternity. You're a professor of strategy and clearly you can see what is happening in India politically. How fast are we moving towards disastrous situation? I'm an economic historian also. Alka So I've studied marketplace for ideas for a long time.
So my PhD thesis was on studying the nature of content just immediately after the printing press was invented in the 15th century. And I've studied how lithography impacted the nature of conversations in India and Asian societies. I studied quite a bit on the nature of propaganda in Nazi Germany. So I've been looking at this kind of content for a while now. It's not easy to tell how fast or slow we are moving in the
direction of disaster. The way this works is that in all likelihood, this kind of hate speech will eventually die down and will be kind of superseded by a more healthier conversation over time. There are phases of really negative conversation that happen in all societies. If you remember just a few years ago US was having very toxic conversation with Donald Trump as president against minorities promoting racism, spreading misinformation about COVID, but
then it eventually died down. However, although on an average these issues will eventually die down. But really bad situations can also emerge, not because of some linear process, but because some sort of a disaster or mishap happens which triggers a certain kind of sensationalism, or a rumor, or a certain kind of hate. And that can snowball into a much more dangerous situation, although the probability of such a kind of. Violent kind of a conflict is very small, and it is always
small. But the nature of hate speech is it creates a kind of fertile ground that even those kinds of rare events can eventually happen. They are not easy to predict, but some random occurrence of something can give rise to it. So the World War 2 eventually triggered A Holocaust. Similarly, plague in. Europe in the 14th century created environment for murder of Jews in Europe. So how does hate speech translate to violence is not a linear process.
So the letter not only highlights the problem, but gives a four prong approach to the corporate defund hate speech, then asking them to stop funding hate and support responsible stakeholders. Curate A welcoming work culture and use their voice for fraternity. My question is, is it possible with the majoritarian political
environment? I think that a lot of times we think of hate speech and the situation in a very India specific lens when we should realize that the problem of hate speech and misinformation is also common in many parts of the world. Many Asian countries are having populist movements and we need to understand that this is a
global problem. This is not India specific political economy problem and partly what has happened over the last few one decade or so with the rise of social media is that bundled newspapers, a bundle of information is no longer being received by people. So all that we consume is individual articles. And because we consume individual articles, we are mostly consuming sensational
articles. And as a consequence, people are receiving more polarized, more sensational, more visceral, more emotive kind of news in place of what I would call more responsible journalism. So it's not really about whether it's possible in this environment for responsible journalism to be funded. What is more important is that.
We understand the crisis and the roots of the crisis and as corporate India, which is the primary funder of the Fourth estate, which is true everywhere, to think through of how it can go about doing things. My next question is about media organization. So in this question I really want you to talk about the solutions you are offering to the corporate in.
So we want, just like for example today every organization, any corporate organization thinks about whether they are funding pollution or environmental sustainability. It's a kind of a standard question that we all have in our minds when we are thinking about where our money is going. The same way we have to ask a similar question that when we are funding information, is that information good and responsible journalism? Or is it hateful or uninformed sensationalism and punditry?
And if it's latter, somebody should be responsible for saying that we will or we will not support that kind of content. But people need to be asked that question. That check and balance within corporate India is going to go a long way in fixing the problem in my view. You have also spoke about your rate of welcoming work culture. So what do you mean when you offer that solution to corporate
India? Organizations can be very siloed and they can become echo chambers where people are talking about work and then they are making jokes of some kind which can be insensitive to some set of people. This can be sexist jokes. This can be racist jokes. This can be. Dastest jokes. These can be homophobic jokes, and not just jokes, but
conversations. What I've noticed is that it's not out of malice that people make these kinds of statements and create a sort of a toxic work environment for people. Often it's just a lack of awareness that people do not know better and merely informing people that you have to be sensitive of who all is there in your organization and what kind of conversations you should have. Can really go a long way in improving the environment because people spend so much time in a workplace environment
and talking to their colleagues. Merely this kind of an awareness can really make people sensitized to the kind of content they might be consuming and sharing and create a much better environment for people. So I don't think that people are inherently malicious or hateful. It's just.
People are not thinking about what's going on, and just like people are not wondering about what kind of pollutants might be there in the food dates, they're also not thinking about the consequences of the kind of content they're consuming and sharing with people. And so we need to create awareness about it. In this letter, you have cited around 15 news reports and also held the media organizations responsible for spreading misinformation.
How is hate being amplified? So, you know, I think what happens is that Once Upon a time I would talk about just myself. Many types of content which were directly hateful towards a particular group of people would have been in a complete no, no or a taboo to share, right. But as it becomes more and more common to talk in a way that demonizes groups of people. That kind of conversation becomes normalized, and people start to think this is normal, to have that kind of
conversation. Slowly, the situation shifts to a more hateful normal than what it used to be. What's gonna happen is I saw the news, I found it to be very wrong and appalling that things are being discussed in this way. But because I'm being exposed to it for so long, over time I become normalized to it. And I find it to be OK. I think of it as just another opinion, and everybody is free to have an opinion of their own. But the question is not whether you can hold or not hold an opinion.
The question is, should that kind of an opinion be discussed in mainstream prime time news? You have been also emphasizing the difference between political activism and academic independence. What would you like to say to those who see your letter such political activism? When I joined IMD, I signed an oath to the Constitution of India and I think liberty, equality and solidarity are three things which are essential to the Indian Constitution.
Some oath bound to raise my voice if in case I feel genuinely that the solidarity in this country is under threat, if I genuinely believe that solidarity in this country is threatened. It is my both bound duty to speak up and I'm not having any allegiance to anything else other than the Constitution of India. I believe that this is not at all political activism or anything. It's my fundamental duty as a government employee of India, where I am both bound to serve
the constitution of the country. It's been almost a week since you released the letter. Are you satisfied with the reach and attention of it? Any objection or support from the institute? No, not at all. I think the media has covered it quite elaborately. What I would have really liked is if in case people from corporate India had. Probably.
I mean, I don't know how many people in corporate India have read it. I did receive some messages from people from corporate India. It is mostly mainstream newspapers which have carried this news, which is great. But I have not seen coverage in more business kind of news outlets, which is where I feel that the conversation should be. I do wonder whether. Such letter can make an impact with corporate India. Can it shape conversation and
which is where? What matters is that we have follow up conversations like this that I'm having with you that is not a one time instance that. We send that letter, it was in news for a day and then we forgot about it. We need to have a regular conversation about this question because the tough question, people see that this is an issue, but for various sets of reasons, because everybody thinks, well, I have my job to do and this is not my job, it is somebody else's job.
We kind of give up on this conversation and then things remain business as usual. I think it's also important that this is about media organizations. This is about the health of the country. And if tomorrow some sort of a negative mishap happens, journalists who sensationalized news will be asked what were you doing at this time? We would be asked what were you doing in this time. Corporate India will be asked whatever you do doing in this time.
And this is not a game. So corporate India, media organizations need to think about it. That's the real impact that will happen. If a few media organizations just think that, OK, let's be a little bit more responsible than before. So don't you and your colleagues fear professional setbacks for indulging in such activities? At least I don't because this is my area of work that I study marketplace for ideas.
So I would say that, at least in an international setting, I would be damned if I don't do this, because it's kind of my job to say things. When things seem to not be appearing to be healthy, it's like saying that an epidemiologist should not raise an alarm if in case they see that there is a pandemic on the brink. So it's depending on my professional responsibility to do this, and I don't really care about people who are too scared,
so I don't work on egg shells. I have not thought about this question. The honest answer is this. Can you explain one thing that how can hate speech and resultant disturbance disrupt India's run to become of hydrillian economy tree? So I talk about this in a different place that I feel that the political economy of South India is very different from North India and personally my view is that the threat of hate speech and it destabilizing.
An economic environment of India is a bigger issue in North India than in South India. So in my view, political economy of South India is quite healthy. It will go around doing its thing. If you understand that a lot of times this kind of hate speech resolve ends up in violence because there are a lot of unemployed people who are having the time to think about issues that are trivial in a broader context and my perspective is that. Young S Indians are not like this, and I'm a North Indian
myself. They are busy working and busy building an economy, serving the service and manufacturing sector and they are going to be fine and they're not going to be
affected by this problem. This problem is going to be be a bigger issue in North India, in my opinion, where economic growth has not taken off at the same scale that it has in South and West India. And the problem is that if it doesn't take off, and instead this kind of a culture of violence and lynching and people sitting and hating on each other's communities, that's the kind of culture it emerges. Then that region will completely stunt.
So $5 trillion economy? Sure, India will still have a $5 trillion economy or even $10 trillion economy. The only thing is all that growth and development will happen in South and West India and North India will completely be out of that growth journey. And as a North Indian, as a
Bihari, that worries me or not. After looking at the Manipur violence, how the government responded, then the shooting in a moving train and many such incidents, many feel that we have reached a point of polarization and hatred where there is no return, but you still have hopes. Where does that hope comes from? No. Well, this hope comes from the fact that India is the only multicultural liberal democracy in the world. Hate speech is not an India only phenomena, it's a phenomena.
In the US it's a phenomena. In Europe, it's a phenomena in most countries of the world today because of, as we discussed, the breakdown in the business model of journalism and news. Given the diversity of this country and the kind of hate environment that exists globally, things could have been much worse actually, if this was
any other country. But because India is an intrinsically diverse and intrinsically tolerant nation, we have been able to resist just merely because of not like some active resistance, but merely because who we are.
We have been able to not slide that back far as any other country, including the United States would have had it been in a similar kind of situation where it was a country of multitude of languages and multitude of religions and ethnicities etc etc. So my faith is that India has always been a tolerant, multicultural society where tolerance is intrinsic to our culture.
So I would love if in case all these stories, 20 years down the line, people will come and say, oh, you guys were alarmists about this and nothing happened. I'll be very, very happy if that happens. And that goes back to the question of how soon or do you think things will go bad. It's all probabilistic. There is a slight probability that things will go really bad, but I still believe that a large probability is that we'll be able to overcome this.
And why do I also believe it more now is Because if this was not the case, you know, 30 odd media channels would not have covered this issue. And so much of positive response to our letter would not have come by had it not been the case that the DNA of this country is tolerant and multicultural, which is not the case for say, Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
So I think that is something that gives me hope that we are a fundamentally different nation and that's something that we should always remember and be proud of as a country. Including social media influencers, there is a wave of young entrepreneurship in India. Majority of them either prefer silence or support those who are in power. So the intimidation is working perfectly. By all means. What is the one advice you will
give to this? Young entrepreneurs, Well, first of all, I think as a historian, there's always a large majority which stays silent when things go wrong. But what I also noticed is that this silent majority isn't always promoting those people who are spreading hate. I think we underestimate the kind of passive resistance or annoyance that a lot of young people have towards hate speech that's happening in this country.
And it's not a surprise that most young people don't watch TV news anymore to know how the world is running. They have their own new sources. So I think that the only advice I can give to people is that go out, make friends who are different from you, and if you are from one community, make friends from people with another community and learn from them and understand them and have empathy towards each other.
If we can have that kind of a simple attitude, much of these problems will go away in an instant. They don't have to raise their voice or you know, stand with a placard or anything. Just make friends of from people who are different from you. People who you might fear, for example, and see how do they see the world? And you'll realize that they're not very different from you. And their concerns as young people is exactly the same.
They want to travel, they want to make reels on Instagram, they want to have a good life, have fun. That's the main goal of everyone and justice. Realizing this commonality can be the best anecdote to hate in this country, if it's spreading. Today's episode was produced by Jayaraj Singh and Anuja Singh. For a daily spotlight on people, ideas and stories that matter, subscribe to us. We're available on TOI, Spotify, Apple, Google Podcasts, and all
other platforms of your choice. For any news tips, e-mail us at TOI Podcast at Timesinternet in.