Opinion: All That's Wrong, And Possibly Right, About A "70-Hour Week"

Few comments have provoked such viral reactions recently as the "70-Hour work week" advice by Infosys Icon and billionaire NR Narayana Murthy. Over the past week, there have been strong reactions from his former colleagues, Industry leaders, academics, labour activists and corporates - techie and non-techie.

Yes, if we were to take 70 hours of work a week as a literal suggestion, then it is not legal, it is disastrous for work-life balance and it is against the spirit of the better life standard that we aspire to, one we'd like to imbibe from rich economies.  

However, every writer who has criticised Narayana Murthy's 70-hour week suggestion has agreed that the low productivity in India that the IT icon spoke about - it was in that context that he made the suggestion - is a concern. It has also been pointed out, empirically, that working long hours is not necessarily more productive and India's low productivity is the product of lesser technological progress and quality of human capital.  

Be that as it may, the extent of the conversation and the reaction to it may be saying more than the comment itself.   

Two questions here - 1) Had it not been for Murthy's "70-hour week" remark would we even be discussing the issue that he has raised, about productivity? 2) Do we latch on to the controversial because it satiates us and spend endless energy conveniently ignoring the broader context? 

In the interview, Murthy was asking for the young in the country to commit themselves to improving productivity and voluntarily working 70 hours a week to that end. Nowhere has he said it needs to be enforced, it's a suggestion for success, from a man who did that.   

Had he merely said "everyone should work as hard as one can and be as productive as possible" or "hard and long work hours is the path to success", we may not even have taken note and it would have been just another interview.  

Isn't it true that unless someone says something controversial and sensational, we really don't care about what they are saying? And, when they do say something controversial, we are content with reacting to the controversy rather than the context?  

In the world of X and Instagram, which drive opinion increasingly, a majority of the 'first reactors' jump to an opinion without listening to a comment in its entirety. It only makes us dumb and dumber.   

An angry doctor in Bengaluru calculated the hours and posted the math on X. It may seem crazy to some, but those who don't have the choice do make it work.

For those who are so angry with the suggestion, there is a huge population for whom it's a reality. Think migrant labourers, workers in small factory units flouting labour laws, cab drivers and contract labourers. It is inhuman and certainly not justified, but it is a reality. They just may not have the time or means to comment on X.

Many in the police force, doctors, even politicians work much more than 70 hours a week. There are workaholics among top corporate leaders who do it. When I mentioned corporates to a young college kid, she shot back, "They all were and are foolish, don't force me to be that."

Those driven by career, success and passion may not necessarily be the happiest at the end of the day. At the same time, those we admire, from saints to revolutionaries, have worked extra hard. Bottom line - without that kind of work, that kind of success isn't possible. 

But, should we all aspire for that kind of success? Murthy's comments come from a point of view which takes for granted this is the right way to live. It's preachy and that's the first trouble with it. We are in a world where reverence is a rarity and each has their own way to live. Not everyone wants to give up today, to be a billionaire tomorrow. 

Secondly, as an Industry icon, the tone of the suggestion is one that does not reflect an inclusive point of view. Had he also said industry leaders must increase the reward for hard work and inspire the young to work harder, invest in technology and bring Indian salaries on par with the West, it may have been more inspiring. After all, the IT sector is running on the fact that it's cheaper to get work done by an Indian compared to someone in the West.

Interestingly, Murthy, in the interview, refers to the western influence as making us lazy. A tech Czar calling out the "western influence" may seem hypocritical. Ultimately, it's not money or productivity; as human beings, we want a better life. If the West offers a better life, why can't we aspire for it?  

References in the interview to post-war Germany and Japan rebuilding through hard work are highly contentious, but the point is, there are a multitude of views on this matter. Are we listening to them all or just having fun with the "70-hour week comment"?   

Whether it's just fun or an intelligent exchange, we may just have to thank Narayana Murthy for sparking off this conversation.

(TM Veeraraghav is Executive Editor, NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.