Infosys founder Narayana Murthy has once again stirred a nationwide debate by advocating for a 72-hour work week.
In a recent interview with Republic TV, the 79-year-old industry veteran cited China’s controversial 996 work culture—working from 9 am to 9 pm, six days a week—as the benchmark Indian youth must emulate to drive national progress. He remarked that young professionals should get a life and then worry about work-life balance, asserting that no nation has ascended to economic power without extreme sacrifice and hard work.
Also read: L&T Defends Chairman’s 90-Hour Workweek and Rs 51 Cr Salary
While Murthy views this regimen as a necessary engine for growth, public health data and productivity studies suggest such a model is counterproductive and dangerous. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization released a joint study in 2021 that presents a grim picture of excessive labor. The study found that working 55 or more hours per week is associated with an estimated 35 percent higher risk of a stroke and a 17 percent higher risk of dying from ischemic heart disease, compared to working 35 to 40 hours a week. In 2016 alone, long working hours led to 745,000 deaths from stroke and heart disease, a 29 percent increase since 2000. Implementing a 72-hour week would push Indian workers far beyond this critical danger threshold.
Beyond the physical toll, the economic argument for a 72-hour week faces scrutiny when examined through the lens of productivity science. Research consistently shows that more hours do not linearly translate to higher output. Studies from Stanford University indicate that productivity drops precipitously after 50 hours a week, and output at 70 hours is often negligible compared to the additional cost in errors and burnout. This phenomenon, known as the law of diminishing returns, suggests that exhausted employees are more prone to making mistakes that take even longer to fix, effectively negating the value of the extra hours worked.
Murthy’s reverence for the Chinese model also omits a crucial legal development. While the 996 culture helped drive China’s tech boom, the human cost became so severe that China’s Supreme People’s Court declared the practice illegal in 2021. The ruling came after a series of high-profile deaths and a growing social movement where young workers chose to lie flat rather than participate in the rat race. By promoting a system that China itself has legally dismantled to protect its workforce, the call for a 72-hour week appears out of sync with global labor trends, and an entrenchment of capitalistic measures that rewards the few at the cost of the many.
The backlash from the Indian workforce has been swift and grounded in local realities. Unlike their counterparts in developed nations, Indian professionals often grapple with debilitating infrastructure challenges. In cities like Bengaluru and Mumbai, commute times can average two to three hours daily. A 12-hour workday1 effectively becomes a 15-hour engagement when travel is factored in, leaving less than nine hours for sleep, meals, and basic hygiene, let alone family time or leisure. Critics argue that expecting first-world productivity metrics while offering third-world wages and infrastructure is inherently exploitative.
Data from the International Labour Organization already places India among the most overworked nations, with the average worker clocking nearly 47 hours a week and over 50 percent of the workforce exceeding 49 hours. Pushing this limit further to 72 hours risks accelerating a mental health crisis in a country where burnout is already rampant.
The consensus among health experts and economists is clear: sustainable growth comes from innovation and efficiency, not from exhausting the workforce to the point of collapse.
