Skip to main content

Operationalizing corruption: Hypocrisies and paradoxes in the Indian landscape

In preparing for my talk in Denmark this coming week, I have been contempating on the corporate practices under neoliberal governance that epitomize corruption. These forms of corruption range from lying about specific actions and practices, to stealing the property of indigenous peoples and then patenting them, to stealing the lands of the poor under the name of development and urbanization, to using a wide variety of legal methods to silence the voices of the poor from policy and justice platforms. However, the beauty and effectiveness of neoliberalism lies precisely in its capacity of utilizing a variety of public relations tools to put forth a variety of labels and naming devices to hide the fundamentally corrupt and unethical nature of these practices.

In a piece titled "Public Relations as Knowledge Production under Neoliberalism," I put forth the argument that producing knowledge that is fundamentally untrue lies at the heart of this large-scale exercise of corruption. So when the seeds of the poor are stolen by pharmaceutical corporations and then patented under patent laws, the facade of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) serves as the face for the straight forward act of stealing.

TRIPS under neolioberalism therefore exists to steal, and even further, after the act of stealing, to fundamentally deny the poor in the global South their right to these indigenous forms of knowledge. Furthermore, the corporatization of the act of stealing under TRIPS makes it perimssible to do so, also removing the act from interrogations of the legal or ethical ramifications of stealing.

But corporations are not simply entities that exist outside of the people that inhabit them, develop policies, and carry out these policies. Corporate practices are products of strategies and tactics carried out by individuals who work in these corporations. Therefore, by extension, I argue that the people (the army of corporate executives, lawyers, scientists, ethnographers etc.) who are employed by these corporations and are responsible for carrying out these practices ought to be litigable. The consequences for the crookish acts of stealing ought not to only pertain to some invisible corporate body, but also ought to be extrapolated to the men and women who carry out these acts.

By that extension then, any discussion of corruption ought to move beyond the practice of pointing fingers at seemingly corrupt and uneducated politicians (which seems to be the majority of the thrust of this Lokpal movement; notice here too the elitist thrust) to fundamentally interrogating the corrupt corporate practices that have become rampant amidst middle class and upper middle class Indians. We need to interrogate the fundamentally corrupt nature of the many of the jobs we are employed in, and the very corruption of these jobs. Much of the money we make come through corrupt means.

We need to ask serious questions of ethics about the ramifications of the jobs we do, and the consequences of our corporatized decisions on the poor. Here, corruption is not simply the act of giving or taking bribes, it is much much more than that. It is the act of re-naming stealing under patenting, re-naming manipulation under corporate social responsibility (CSR), stealing people's money in the name of investment banking to pay our heavy bonuses and fat salaries, and so on and so forth. So, for my middle class Indian friends who are ever so animated about the Lokpal bill, you have to begin by thinking about the ways in which you lie, steal, and falsify as an everyday practice in your job. You have to begin by thinking about where does your big fat paycheck that affords you your comfortable lifestyle come from?

Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Disinformation, Zionist propaganda, and free speech: Far right cancel culture

Thursday October 12, 2023. The settler colonial occupation had unleashed its infrastructure of violence over the Palestinian people over a period of five days. Gaza was being indiscriminately bombarded, with mass civilian casualties that Amnesty International noted " must be investigated as war crimes ." At 3:32 p.m., my office phone rang. I was occupied and the call went to the voicemail. "Dutta, you are a murderous, f***ing, racist c***. Go back to where you belong...I will see to your termination in New Zealand." A couple of hours before that, an email had gone out from the Zionist Dane Giraud to the email listserv of the Free Speech Union, performed as a supposed apology for attacking my academic freedom. In the email, Giraud referred to my earlier b log post on the interlinkages between far-right Zionism, attacks on academic freedom, and the free speech union, noting how he had been enraged by the following statement on my blog: "I was therefore not surpri