Opinion Why Indian CEOs should stop preaching about public health
Corporations often frame health issues as matters of personal choice and responsibility, but public health is first about ensuring access to healthcare facilities down to the last mile
Infosys founder and billionaire N R Narayana Murthy “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane,” said American civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr, talking about the segregated nature of public health programmes. One wonders what he would have said of the injustice of corporate leaders arrogating to themselves the power of speaking about the health of the masses from a position of privilege, passing off their private views as change-making ideas and disguising their messianic zeal as well-meaning concern.
What else explains the flurry of statements over the last few days from corporate bigwigs, all righteous about the healthy lives we should be leading? Infosys founder Narayan Murthy repeated his 72-hour work week logic based on China’s 9-9-6 formula (9 am to 9 pm, six days a week), legitimising relentless target-chasing as a recipe for a good life over work-life balance and health. Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu has asked the younger generation to do their “demographic duty” by marrying and having children in their 20s. Upasana Konidela, vice-chairperson of CSR at Apollo Hospitals, told young women at IIT Hyderabad to freeze their eggs. Meanwhile, Zomato’s Deepinder Goyal stirred up an online debate when he introduced his research foundation’s findings on longevity, saying gravity ages the brain.
Nobody disputes the self-made fortunes built by each of these bigwigs, but that does not give them the right to overreach or the mandate to normalise conversations on subjects outside their purview. Murthy was perhaps driven by a passion to build his own empire, but every young person may not be motivated to do so and be happy with a stable job. And given the spiral of young heart attacks and chronic illnesses in the IT hubs of Bengaluru, would stressful work days contribute to a nation’s productivity? That’s why China withdrew the 9-9-6 work ethic in 2021 itself.
At a time when the job market is fiercely competitive and even a degree is no guarantor without upskilling, Vembu’s suggestion of taking up a family responsibility in one’s 20s without consolidating career goals or stabilising incomes is tone-deaf. Yes, India’s fertility dip is coming, but shouldn’t we look at maximising the democratic dividend of the youth now, before they become part of the elderly population? For women, it’s a far tougher call. A pregnancy in their early 20s means that the first rung of their career ladder would slip out of their grasp and perhaps deny them the opportunity to excel “at any age”, in Vembu’s words. This is also the decade when a young careerist can innovate, take risks. Unless one has the cushion of generational wealth or a care in the world, nobody has the economic luxury to afford a family life so early.
The problem with blanket suggestions at public fora is that they end up being a talk-down handout rather than initiating a bottom-up approach. Konidela may be right about egg-freezing being a fertility insurance and empowering a woman’s choices from her position of privilege. But many young women may not have the financial resources to budget for a procedure that costs up to Rs 2.5 lakh per cycle, besides a recurring annual storage fee of up to Rs 50,000. Further, it is to be first considered by women with medical conditions that affect fertility, like cancer. Egg-freezing is not a guaranteed way to have a baby either. Realistically speaking, a woman may need more than one cycle of IVF to conceive and has to budget for both her healthcare and procedures.
Why is there a sweeping assumption that all young women would not be able to have a natural conception beyond 30? Why isn’t there an awareness campaign about easing child adoption, which is at a low rate in India, though it can offer hope to infertile couples?
Most neurologists have countered Goyal’s Gravity Ageing Hypothesis, which suggests that the constant pull of gravity on blood circulation ages the brain over time. Truth is, the human brain is the most resilient and can regulate blood flow independent of gravity, when we change posture, run, bend or sleep. Besides, what the brain needs is a healthy regimen of diet, exercise and sleep. Goyal’s food aggregator service is certainly not diet-friendly or protective of brain health.
Corporations are known to invest heavily in lobbying, campaigns and funding research to influence government health policies and regulations in their favour. Can Goyal honestly deny that his very public take on brain health did not generate a buzz about his research foundation? Just as longevity crusader Bryan Johnson’s own body experiments in the public space have everything to do with pushing his Project Blueprint, his reverse ageing platform. Or that Konidela’s pitch had nothing to do with the chain of fertility speciality centres run by the group she represents. Clearly, these also align with their commercial agenda rather than just serving public health needs or their CSR efforts.
Corporations often frame health issues as matters of personal choice and responsibility, but public health is first about ensuring access to healthcare facilities down to the last mile. It cannot depend on either isolationist recommendations or loud voices on social media. Public health is not just about a cursory news grab moment, but a well-considered practice.
rinku.ghosh@expressindia.com
Share
