90 is the New 70: Defending SN Subrahmanyan and Narayana Murthy!

Most of the trolls truncated SN Subrahmanyan's statement at “how long can you stare at your wife?”.

Both Narayana Murthy and SN Subrahmanyan were criticised on social media for advocating longer working hours. 

(Aroop Mishra/The Quint)

India’s cricket team gets mauled by Pakistan, who are on fire, unusually inspired and aggro. The players troop into the dressing room, crestfallen, shoulders drooping. A visibly shaking, irate captain calls them to a huddle.

"What happened guys? Do you want the world to say that we Indians are idiots; the Pakistanis are the best, most aggressive, and impossible to defeat? Do you want me to just stand around; should I just admire how they kill us!"

The captain used angry/absolute terminology – idiots, aggressive, impossible, defeat, killed. But he said it in a huddle to his team, not at a public press conference to the world. He said it within the context of a humiliating performance by his boys, not as a universal truth applicable to every match.

Now imagine if some smart trolls were to extract the words in bold; crop out the huddle; show just the captain’s close-up to make it a solo, unhinged comment; and put this clip on Instagram with a wicked lead-in graphic:

"India’s Cricket Captain is a Pakistan Loving Gaddar. He is a desh drohi (traitor)" (cut to the edited audio-visual clip):

"We Indians are idiots; the Pakistanis are the best, most aggressive, and impossible to defeat. I just admire how they kill us!

"Boycott him, bulldoze his house" (I will leave out the choicest abuses and rape/death threats that shall be heaped on his wife and daughter).

You get what I am driving at, right? A comment is made within a context, within a closed group of people who have a shared mission, who have a shared history, so words have a special meaning which is nuanced, different from the same word described in a sterile, standalone dictionary.

It’s not a public proclamation that should rile up the hoi polloi. It’s not advice on a population scale, something that unknown, unrelated people are required to heed. But do see how mischievous trolls can twist those words to create a wholly undeserved mayhem.

Social Media Outrage Against L&T's Subrahmanyan

Now I cut to the social media controversy that’s convulsing Gen Z. Yes, the infamous, off-the-cuff-remark made by SN Subrahmanyan, Chairman of Larsen & Toubro, a trail-blazing infrastructure creator for India, within a closed group of company insiders, not on any public platform. To be authentic, let me reproduce his full statement: 

“I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays. If I am able to make you work on Sundays, I will be happier, because I work on Sundays. What do you do sitting at home? How long can you stare at your wife? 

BREAK (introduced by me, although his statement was continuous) 

How long can the wife stare at the husband? Get to the office and start working. 

BREAK 

Chinese people work 90 hours a week, while Americans work only 50 hours a week. If you want to be on top of the world, you have to work 90 hours a week. 

See the first point of mischief. Most of the trolls truncated his statement at “how long can you stare at your wife?”. Naturally, liberals were outraged. Sexist remark! Gender shaming! How can he presume that women are not capable of professional work, are good only as homemakers? 

But hey, that’s not what he said. In his very next remark, conveniently omitted by trolls, he says “how long can the wife stare at the husband?”. So, he cannot be accused of gender stereotyping. He is simply saying that in his household, both husband and wife find it pretty boring to lounge around doing nothing on Sundays.

Not for a minute did he imply that his wife is happy to hang around doing nothing, while he, the macho man, the patriarch, finds it demeaning to do that. No! He talked about the lifestyle in their house, willingly endorsed by husband and wife. I know of many households where couples would enthusiastically agree with Mrs and Mr Subrahmanyan. What’s wrong with that? 

Now to the second “blasphemous” thing he said, ie that “if you want to be on top of the world, you have to work for 90 hours”. 

Did he say you will be sacked if you don’t work for 90 hours every week? If yes, that would be coercive. 

Did he say L&T will not employ you unless you work for 90 hours every week? If yes, that would be discriminatory. 

Did he say L&T will pro-rata reduce your salary if you work for less than 90 hours per week? If yes, that would be illegal. 

Did he literally mean 90 hours, or was he using the number as a “metaphor” for hard work? If a metaphor, then perhaps we have been unfairly using “90” to flog him.   

It's a Matter of Personal Choice

Clearly, Mr Subrahmanyan did not say anything that amounts to being coercive or discriminatory or illegal. He expressed a point of view, using a metaphor. He expressed a conviction. He expressed an opinion. Everybody is free to disagree with him. Everybody is free to work however many hours they want to work every week, whether nil or 20 or 40 or 90. It’s a matter of personal choice.  

So, it all boils down to an opinion and a choice. Mr Subrahmanyan has made his, and God bless him.  

You, as a right-thinking adult, are free to make yours, and God bless you.  

India, as a functioning democracy, shall respect every bona fide opinion and personal choice, and God bless India.  

What’s the need to troll, abuse, ridicule, misinterpret?       

Postscript: Every word that I’ve written above also applies to what Mr Narayana Murthy said about working 70 hours per week, for which he was viciously trolled, perhaps in a 70:90 ratio compared to what Mr Subrahmanyan has been subjected to!