In the name of nation-building

A new trend has started of India Inc members waxing eloquent on the need for working extraordinarily long hours, and how it’s needed if India has to become a global economic powerhouse. In this quest it’s often forgotten that they are treading into the private space of citizens, which a liberal, democratic society needs to respect.

While Infosys co-founder NR Narayana Murthy’s call for a 70-hour workweek started it all, as he felt that the country needed it, Larsen & Toubro (L&T) chairman and managing director SN Subrahmanyan took it to another level by advocating a 90-hour workweek, citing the need for nation-building. He went overboard, saying: “I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays. If I can 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? How long can the wife stare at her husband? Get to the office and start working.”

He also compared Indian workers to their Chinese counterparts, stating, “Chinese people work 90 hours a week, while Americans work only 50 hours. If you want to be on top of the world, you have to work 90 hours a week.” Subrahmanyan’s remarks were made at an internal event and he could have curbed the damage by clarifying that he was speaking in jest but regrets it. What is more disturbing is the statement that the company subsequently issued. “At L&T, nation-building is at the core of our mandate. For over eight decades, we have been shaping India’s infrastructure, industries, and technological capabilities. We believe this is India’s decade, a time demanding collective dedication and effort to drive progress and realise our shared vision of becoming a developed nation,” is what the company said, defending Subrahmanyan.

Earlier, Ola founder Bhavish Aggarwal had dismissed weekends as a “Western” concept, forgetting that his cab-hailing and other ventures did not have roots in ancient India.

The common thread in the statements of these India Inc leaders is that they use “nation” and “economic greatness” to back their exhortations. The comparison, or perhaps obsession, with China is another common refrain.

While economic growth is a legitimate goal, pushing it to extremes risks fostering a dangerous precedent of equating long hours with patriotism, drawing parallels to oppressive historical regimes.

Corporate leaders who cite China’s work culture to justify excessive hours often ignore the broader context. China, an authoritarian state, imposes a rigid, top-down approach to governance and labour. This system stifles individual freedoms, sacrifices worker welfare, and suppresses dissent — realities that starkly contrast with India’s democratic ethos. Will these leaders accept the broader implications of emulating China’s system, including its treatment of ordinary citizens and corporate leaders? Such selective admiration reflects an opportunistic mindset rather than a genuine commitment to progress.

Moreover, suggesting that employees forgo personal time for “nation-building” is both overreaching and paternalistic. Workplaces are entitled to set rules including working hours, but the decision to prioritise leisure or family time is a private matter. When leaders make disparaging comments about how individuals spend their time off — as Subrahmanyan did with his remarks on spouses — they cross a line into unwarranted moral policing.

The rhetoric of “nation-building” as a justification for labour exploitation has a dark history. From Hitler’s Germany to Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China, oppressive regimes have invoked similar narratives to coerce extraordinary efforts from their citizens, often at immense human cost.

Adolf Hitler framed labour as a patriotic duty, with massive public works programmes like the Autobahn touted as symbols of national pride. Beneath this veneer, forced and slave labour became widespread, with millions toiling in inhumane conditions to fuel Germany’s militarisation.

In the USSR, under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans, workers faced impossible production targets, long hours, and brutal penalties for failure. Labour camps (gulags) housed millions of political prisoners and dissidents who were exploited for infrastructure projects under the guise of socialist construction.

Similarly, in China during the Great Leap Forward, workers were mobilised into unsustainable industrial efforts, leading to widespread famine and millions of deaths. Mao’s propaganda glorified labour, masking the suffering it inflicted on the populace.

Today’s corporate leaders risk replicating these mistakes by conflating long hours with productivity and patriotism.

India indeed has a unique opportunity to shape this century, but the path to greatness lies in sustainable, inclusive growth. Corporate leaders should channel their influence into creating equitable workplaces, advancing innovation, and addressing systemic challenges rather than resorting to rhetoric that risks alienating the very workforce they seek to inspire.

While in the past it was political leaders in Germany, Russia, or China who goaded citizens to work hard to make their country great, in contemporary India corporate leaders are doing so. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known for working extraordinarily long hours and not taking any leave, is not heard saying that he regrets not being able to make central government employees work on Sundays. India’s first PM Jawaharlal Nehru, who was tasked with building independent India, did not lecture citizens but had Robert Frost’s lines on his desk: “The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.”

Perhaps it’s time for overworked India Inc members to take a break and catch up on history and literature.