The Boss of India conglomerate L& T is telling employees they gotta work on Sunday, instead of staring at their wives which is supposedly either a complete waste of time, or Indian women are just not sexy enough to warrant even some attention during the weekend.
Is this the kind of culture Vivek Ramasawamy claimed is the “Superior Indian Culture” why H1B visas must be issued without any cap?
‘How long can you stare at your wife?’: L&T chairman says he wants employees to work on Sunday too
The chairman of Larsen & Toubro, SN Subrahmanyan, has come under fire for saying that employees should work 90 hours a week.
SN Subrahmanyan is the chairman of Larsen and Toubro.
The chairman of Larsen & Toubro has come under fire for saying that employees must work 90 hours a week. During an employee interaction, SN Subrahmanyan was asked why Larsen & Toubro, a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, was still making its employees work on Saturdays.
Subrahmanyan replied that he regrets not being able to make his employees work on Sunday too.
“I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays. If I can make you work on Sundays, I will be more happy, because I work on Sundays,” Subrahmanyan was heard saying in an undated video that has emerged on Reddit.
“What do you do sitting at home? How long can you stare at your wife?” the chairman of Larsen & Toubro asked. “Come on, get to the office and start working.”
Subrahmanyan further gave the example of his interaction with a Chinese person who claimed China can beat the United States of America. Asked why that is, the Chinese man claimed that Chinese people work 90 hours a week, while Americans work only 50 hours a week.
“So that’s the answer for you. If you have got to be on top of the world.. You have to work 90 hours a week. Get going, guys. Come on,” he said.
L&T Chairman says “ he regrets he’s not able to make us work on Sunday and Sunday’s, 90hrs a week” in a response to his employee remarks
L&T Chairman says “ he regrets he’s not able to make us work on Sunday and Sunday’s, 90hrs a week” in a response to his employee remarks
by inIndiaCareers
The video was shared on Reddit where SN Subrahmanyan came under fire for his comments. Many people in the comments section compared him to Infosys founder Narayana Murthy, who earlier faced massive backlash for saying the youth must work 70 hours a week for nation building.
More about “Indian Superior Culture”…
British Raj Slavery in India
MYTH #1 : The British Abolished Slavery in India
1 very specific form of Chattel slavery they claim to abolish, ignoring the fact that they compensated the slave owners, NOT the slaves and sent the “freed” slaves into various other forms of slavery, as I will describe below
Indian Indenture
Normally, Normally Indentured Servitude isn’t normally considered slavery, but Indian Indenture was something else.
Millions of Starving, Impoverished Indians coerced to sign contracts they can’t even read, or simply kidnapped, taken onto ships in horrible conditions to colonies in Africa and the Americas; working under the scorching sun on plantations, getting whipped as a punishment is commonplace; wages are mysteriously withheld; and contract are mysteriously extended. Bonded Slavery continued after the Indenture, negating the abolition of the Indian Indenture in 1920. (and the Viceroy, Chelmsford, admitted it was only being done due to economic disadvantage, NOT goodwill.)
Sexual Slavery
Type 1: Women and even young girls are kidnapped in broad daylight by soldiers to cantonments, where they are r*ped. Rigorous ID system and “medical checks” only for girls, not for male soldiers. “Justification” is a deterrent to homosexuality.
Type 2, the Devadasi, is a female Hindu artist who is dedicated to the worship or service of a deity or a temple for the rest of her life. They were forced into s*xual slavery by the British after they defeated the patrons of the temple, the Kings. Even when the British passed the “Bombay Devadasi Protection Act, 1934, they didn’t even enforce the law, “justifying” it with “confusion between Devadsai and non-religious street dancers.”.
Indian Members of the Imperial Legislative Council passed the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, fixing the age of marriage for girls at 14 years and boys at 18 years. The British were enraged… They did not enforce the law, “justifying” it by losing support from Hindus and Muslims.
Prison Slavery
Their only crime fighting for their freedom, men, women, and children are sent to horrific prisons, where not only are they subject to inhumane torture, dehumanization, unethical human experimentation (intentional exposure to malaria, typhoid, plague, dysentery, and testing “cures” that only made the subject worse AND brutal electrical shocks for “mad patients” AND being “drowned in food and milk”), a jail “diet” with literal kerosene inside, but also backbreaking slave labor, e.g., oil mills. They are expected to extract more oil than a literal bull! Or grinding coconuts , which literally drove some insane.
Famine Relief Camps
From the late 19th century, continuing well into the 1930s and 1940s, these horrific camps existed. Basically, after waiting for a few hundred thousand or a few million deaths in famines (of their own exacerbation due to exporting food), the British would set up these Famine “Relief” Camps, thousands of miles away from famine-stricken villages. If the already starving Indians managed to reach the camp, they would be literally forced to perform excruciating slave labor for a ration lower than Buchenwald, with literally zero nutritional value. Couple that with the overcrowding, lack of sanitation and hygiene, and even unethical human experimentation (e.g., they forcibly divided families, one outside the camp and one inside the camp, and questioned, “Hmm, in both cases, will they starve?”. (Not so fun fact, they did.)
So it’s no surprise that the mortality rates for some of the camps were as high as 94%! Only made the suffering of the starving Indians worse.
In 1935, a prominent British nutritionist stationed in India, W.R. Aykroyd, tried to put an end to this practice by giving rations of actually nutritious value, but he was flat-out ignored by his higher-ups.
Of course, in independent India, famines are extremely rare, so these camps were shut down and dismantled.
Criminal Tribes Acts
1871 onwards: One of the most draconian acts of the Raj, this categorized millions of people from various communities (mostly nomadic and semi-nomadic but also transgender people) as “criminals by birth.”. At first, they were subject to weekly reporting to the police, more discrimination than other Indians, awful police brutality, and surveillance.
However, in 1897 onwards, cultural genocide started through the legal kidnapping of children into so-called “reformatory” settlements.
From 1908 on, slavery was introduced in this act through forced resettlement to “special” settlements—slave labor camps. They were confined to essentially being enslaved for the rest of their lives.
In Independent India, while these communities still suffer to an extent from the pre-1897 actions, there are thankfully no more “reformatory” and “special” settlements.
Land Revenue Systems (most notably and long-lastingly, the Zamindari System)
- Zamindari System. Although it existed before British rule, the British made it in its most infamous form, the Permanent Settlement of 1793. The Zamindari System involved the British granting large and fertile tracts of land to feudal lords known as “Zamindars.”. They were responsible for collecting revenue for the millions of peasants working on the land and then paying a fixed amount to their British higher-ups. Sometimes there were “sub zamindars” between the peasants and Zamindars with varying degrees of power. However, the Zamindars severely exploited the peasants, imposing extremely high taxes on them and trapping them in a cycle of debt and poverty. And the British were fully complicit with them, and of course they profited the most out of this slavery. Only abolished after Independence.
- Ryotwari System. Introduced in the 1820s. It was meant to eliminate the Zamindar middleman between the peasants and the British; however, it came with its own drawbacks, as the rates for taxes were guaranteed to be 50% in the dryland and 60% in the wetland, so if the farmer had a bad harvest, well, good luck. To try and avoid this, peasants took loans from moneylenders, who of course didn’t give any sh*t about them being happy to exploit. So it was a lose-lose situation for the peasants. It was replaced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by similar systems to the Zamindari System!
- The Mahalwari System was introduced in 1822. The Mahalwari System was intended to protect village autonomy by making them the ones paying taxes directly to the state. However, since the British were absolute buffoons in their “assumptions” about the land area and crop yield in the system, this led to widespread corruption and exploitation. It had the same fate as the Ryotwari. “Out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
MYTH #2: “SURE, THE LAISSEZ-FAIRE POLICIES OF THE BRITISH LED TO GREAT FAMINES IN INDIA THROUGHOUT THE LATE 19TH CENTURY, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMINE CODES ERADICATED THIS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE “SPECIAL” CASE OF BENGAL IN 1943.”
I won’t go over Bengal 1943, as that is the topic for another post. There are a plethora of myths perpetuated by apologists, but I will go over the main part of this myth.
Quick terminology: A famine is considered a “great famine” if it has 1,000,000+ deaths.
First of all, if the Famine Codes eradicated the Great Famines, then what was the need for the “Relief” Camps to continue well into the 1930s and 1940s? (the picture of a “relief” camp is from 1936, Bengal.)
Or why did Aykroyd (unsuccessfully) recommend making the rations humane? It makes you wonder.
Let us quickly go over Bengal during the 1930s.
Between 1931 and 1942 (pic below), there were a “string” of famines which culminated in minimum 1 Million deaths; essentially, there was the equivalent of a Great Famine happening each year in Bengal alone this timeframe. Dispels the myth completely.
From “THE DEMOGRAPHY OF INDIAN FAMINES: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE” BY
ARUP MAHARATNA
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF PH.D. IN DEMOGRAPHY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 1992”
From Bengal, we go to Madras.
Between 1922 and the beginning of World War II, famine visited parts of Madras five more times: in 1924, 1931–32, 1934–35, 1937–38, and 1938–39.
R. Suryanarayana Rao, a member of the SIS and Social Service League of Madras, pushed for more Indian contribution to relief than the horrible camps set up by the British. He was a vocal critic of the Madras Famine Code, and rightfully so.
In 1937, the Government of India Act 1935 commenced, which, although still retained British superiority and even had some regressions (Churchill described the broad sweep of “emergency” powers given to Lord Linlithglow as “likely to rouse Mussolini’s envy”), it gave some concessions to Indians, i.e., more provincial autonomy.
This was good news for Rao:
Rao joined the Madras Famine Code Revision Committee in 1938*, when parts of Madras were still in the midst of a famine. Alarmed by the* scale of the famine that affected several districts at once*, the committee evaluated the current response and reached the conclusion that a “bolder policy” was needed. It offered* far-reaching recommendations for the reform of the provincial famine code*, such as the* abolition of the grain equivalent and the increase of wages and rations*. It noted that* women workers received an insufficient amount of calories and that children’s rations lacked fat*. It also pointed out that the* allowances of vegetables were lower than in jail diets and thus generally insufficient*. These minute recommendations were overshadowed by the demand for a* more fundamental change*.* The committee recommended that the preamble of the Madras Famine Code broaden the duties of the government in times of famine.
“It must also be remembered that while the main object of state intervention is to save life, it is no less essential to maintain people in good health to prevent physical deterioration and dispiritedness among them so that they may be in a position to resume their ordinary pursuits with advantage to themselves and the State on the advent of better times.”
From “Ending Famine in India: A Transnational History of Food Aid and Development, C. 1890–1950” By Joanna Simonow
Guess what the British (Lord Erskine, Governor of Madras Presidency) did? He just didn’t implement the policy. Even worse, he literally did this for a political grudge, for he disagreed with some policies of the First Premier of the time, C. Rajagopalachari.
A Famine broke out the next year in the Ceded districts. Rao toured the area, checking if the policy was properly implemented; to his dismay, it wasn’t.
The death toll for all the famines mentioned in this Madras Section is likely the equivalent of a few Great Famines, noticing the scale and severity.
And also, a tragic tale in Bombay.
We all know of the influenza pandemic; it was devastating for the entire world, but for India, it was particularly horrible. 10–20 million lives were lost—greater than any other country. When the influenza entered villages, it was at the wrong place at the wrong time, as the population was already on the brink of starvation (due to a famine so devastating in 1918-19 & 1920-21 that basic necessities prices shot up—it could be argued that they were repercussions of WW1, but that does not quantify there being a repeat). So they fled to cities, but the British considered them to be a ‘threat’ and confined them in “relief” camps. This not only literally starved and enslaved them, but also made the influenza much worse.
From “Ending Famine in India: A Transnational History of Food Aid and Development, C. 1890–1950” By Joanna Simonow
MYTH 3: “THE BRITISH BANNED SATI”
Yes, Sati was barbaric. But the notion that the British came and saw this widespread practice told the high-caste Hindus, “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them and confiscate all their property.” and abolished it, is FALSE (the quote is true but everything else is FALSE)
1.) Centuries prior to the British, in nearly all cases, the practice of Sati dramatically changed. Foreign Invaders were killing Indian men, so their widows had two choices. Burn herself alive, or get abused.
2.) By the time of the British, Sati was *not* widespread, and I mean NOT widespread. Literally the opposite.
3.) Peshwas banned Sati throughout their domains in 1800
4.) Shri Swami Narayan was campaigning against Sati in 1801.
5.) Hindu Maratha kingdom Savantvadi banned Sati in 1821
6.) Christian Missionaries campaigned to ban Sati!… in order to forcefully assimilate Indians to Christianity…
7.) Ram Mohan Roy, Indian royal who joined the EIC, campaigned for the banning of Sati in Bengal. Later, the British banned Sati in Bengal.
8.) Except… recent research has disputed whether Sati was actually practiced there in any notable way.
Rachel Cook Titties to protest the insane “Superior Indian Culture” espoused by Hindu Supremacists like Vivek Ramaswamy…
Rachel Cook
Born: January 8, 1995 (age 23 years), Seattle, Washington, United States
Height: 1.75 m
Nationality: American
Rachel Cook Titties
TRASHY | SCANDALOUS
👀 More 🍆🍌 Sextapes 💦 Page 2 ⬇️
Cynthia Alesco Titties as Elon Musk Censored Canada’s Penthouse Strip Club for displaying Marquee: “Forever Neighbours, Never Neighbors.” (Spot the different spelling)