rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
India’s cricket team faces defeat at the hands of Pakistan, who are unusually upbeat and furious. Players come into the dressing room with their shoulders bowed and sad. A visibly trembling, angry captain calls on them to unite.
“What happened guys? Do you want the world to say that we Indians are idiots; Pakistanis are the best, most aggressive and impossible to beat? Do you want me to just stand by; do I just praise them for How to kill us!” ,
The Captain used angry/despotic terminology – stupid, aggressive, impossible, defeated, killed. But he said this not in front of the world in any public press conference, but in front of his team. He said this in the context of his boys’ abysmal performance, not as a universal truth that applies to every match.
Now imagine if some smart troll took out the words in bold; Eliminate hubbub; Show only a close-up of the captain to make it a single, uninterrupted 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 edited audio-visual clip):
“We Indians are idiots; the Pakistanis are the best, most aggressive and impossible to beat. I just admire how they beat us!”
“Boycott him, bulldoze his house” (I will leave out the best abuses and rape/death threats given to his wife and daughter).
You see what I’m driving at, okay? A commentary is made within a context, within a closed group of people who have a shared mission, who have a shared history, so the words have a particular meaning that is subtle, a sterile, standalone dictionary. Is different from the same word described in.
This is not a public proclamation that would enrage the hoi polloi. This is not advice on a population scale, something that needs to be addressed by unknown, unrelated people. But do check out how mischievous trolls can twist those words and create a completely unwanted havoc.
Outrage on social media against L&T’s Subramanian
Now let me turn to the social media controversy that is troubling Gen Z. Yes, SN Subramaniam, chairman of Larsen & Toubro, a leading infrastructure manufacturer for India, made infamous, off-the-cuff remarks within a closed group. Company insiders, not in any public forum. To be authentic, let me reproduce his full statement:
“I’m sorry I can’t make you work on Sunday. If I can enable you to work on Sunday, I will be more than happy, because I work on Sunday. What do you do sitting at home? How long can you keep staring at your wife?
Break (introduced by me, although his statement was continuous)
How long can a wife keep staring at her husband? Reach office and start work.
to 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 trolls shortened his statement to “How long can you stare at your wife?” Naturally, liberals were outraged. Sexist comment! Gender shaming! How can he believe that women are not capable of doing professional work, let alone good as housewives?
But hey, he didn’t say that. In her next comment, which was easily missed by trolls, she said, “How long can a wife stare at her husband?” Therefore, they cannot be accused of gender stereotyping. All he is saying is that in his house both husband and wife find it very boring to wander around doing nothing on Sundays.
Not for a minute did he say that his wife is happy to laze around doing nothing while he, the macho man, the patriarch, finds it disrespectful to do so. No! He talked about their home lifestyle, which the couple willingly supported. I know many households where couples enthusiastically agree with Mrs. and Mr. Subramaniam. what’s wrong with that?
Now the second “blasphemous” thing he said, i.e. “If you want to be on top of the world, you have to work 90 hours a day”.
Did they say if you don’t work 90 hours a week you will be fired? If yes, it would be forceful.
Did they say that L&T will not hire you unless you work 90 hours every week? If yes, it would be discriminatory.
Did they say that if you work less than 90 hours per week L&T will reduce your salary proportionately? If yes, it would be illegal.
Did he mean literally 90 hours, or was he using this number as a “metaphor” for hard work? If there’s a metaphor, perhaps we’re misusing the “90s” to flog him.
It’s a matter of personal preference
Clearly, Mr Subramanian did not say anything that was coercive or discriminatory or illegal. He expressed a point of view using a metaphor. He expressed a strong belief. He expressed an opinion. Everyone is free to disagree with him. Everyone is free to work any number of hours per week they want, whether zero or 20 or 40 or 90. It is a matter of personal preference.
So, it all depends on an opinion and a choice. Mr. Subramanian has made it, and God bless him.
You, as a right-thinking adult, are free to make your own, and God bless you.
India, as a functioning democracy, will respect every authentic opinion and individual choice, and God bless India.
What is the need to troll, abuse, ridicule, misinterpret?
Postscript: Every word I have written above also applies to what Mr. Narayana Murthy said about working 70 hours per week, for which he was badly trolled, perhaps more than Mr. Subramaniam’s 70: In the ratio of 90!
