The Chairman’s Gambit: From Wife-Hating To Worker-Blaming — Will The Distraction Work?

When a powerful man fumbles, he doesn’t apologize. He distracts. And when one of India’s top corporate titans recently found himself in trouble for blaming wives for workplace inefficiency, he swiftly pivoted—to blaming construction workers for laziness.

The timing was too perfect to be a coincidence. Just days after his remarks about women sparked outrage, he delivered a new statement lamenting that India’s laborers were no longer willing to work due to the “comfort” provided by welfare schemes. Suddenly, the conversation shifted. No longer was he the executive who trivialized the role of wives; he was now the truth-teller exposing the so-called entitlement of the poor.

It was a textbook PR move. When caught in controversy, change the subject. And if the original offense alienated one group—say, women—make a new statement that appeases a more influential one, like the business elite.

Blaming the Poor: A Time-Tested Strategy

There’s no faster way to regain credibility in certain circles than by attacking the working class. This has long been a favored tactic of the wealthy, who, when faced with criticism, instinctively reach for the old “the poor have it too easy” narrative. It’s reliable, it’s effective, and best of all—it distracts from the real issue at hand.

But let’s pause for a moment. Are Indian construction workers truly living lives of “comfort”?

The Reality of Construction Work in India

Picture this: A laborer wakes up before dawn in a makeshift shack beside the construction site, his bed a thin mat on the ground. His wife, if she is with him, may be carrying bricks on her head for daily wages. Their children, if they are lucky, attend school instead of joining them at work. The air is thick with cement dust, the midday sun is relentless, and the hours stretch on.

That is the reality of construction work in India. These are the people being accused of rejecting employment because they are “too comfortable.”

India’s construction laborers endure some of the harshest working conditions in the country. They work at dizzying heights without safety nets, mix concrete with bare hands, and earn just enough to scrape by. Many are migrants, forced to move from one state to another in search of work, their families left behind in villages. If some of them are choosing rural welfare programs over urban construction jobs, it’s not because they’re lazy—it’s because the alternative is exploitative.

The Real Reason This Statement Was Made

Let’s be clear: This remark was never really about labor shortages. It was about shifting blame.

For corporations that thrive on cheap labor, any scheme that gives workers even a sliver of choice is a threat. Programs like MGNREGA, which provide basic employment in villages, reduce the desperation that keeps wages low. If a construction worker can earn enough to survive without migrating, he might just demand better pay. That, in the eyes of certain business leaders, is unacceptable.

This isn’t about welfare making workers complacent. It’s about workers realizing they deserve better.

The Two Audiences of This Statement

The chairman didn’t make this statement for the general public. He made it for two very specific audiences.

The first is his corporate peers—the ones who sit in boardrooms and complain about labor shortages over fine whiskey. To them, this statement signals solidarity. It reassures them that their struggles aren’t due to low wages or harsh conditions but to government interference. It reinforces the comforting illusion that they are not underpaying workers—the government is simply overindulging them.

The second audience is the policymakers. By framing welfare as an obstacle to economic growth, the goal is to pressure the government into rolling back social protections. The message is clear: If you want more people working, make poverty more unbearable.

The Chairman’s Pivot: From Wives to Workers

Of course, the most fascinating part of this entire episode is how neatly it served as damage control. When his comments about wives drew criticism, he needed a new headline—one that would play well with the business community. So, he reached for the most reliable distraction of all: blaming the poor.

It worked. Almost immediately, the debate shifted. News anchors who had been discussing gender roles in the workplace were now debating labor shortages. Business publications, always eager to amplify grievances against welfare, jumped on board. The controversy over his views on women faded into the background.

It was a masterstroke of redirection. But was it enough?

The Limits of This Tactic

Among the business elite, this pivot will work—at least for now. The rich have always been receptive to narratives that cast them as victims of government generosity toward the poor.

But outside those circles, people are watching. Construction workers, their families, and the millions who make up India’s labor force have heard these complaints before. And they are growing tired of them.

For every executive lamenting that laborers are no longer desperate enough, there are thousands of workers realizing that desperation should not be the foundation of an economy. And when enough of them refuse to accept that premise, no amount of clever PR will be able to bring them back.

So, the chairman may have successfully changed the conversation. But whether he has solved his real problem—or merely postponed it—remains to be seen.

The article is written by O.P. Singh, DGP and Head of Haryana State Narcotics Control Bureau.