Patriotism Beyond Slogans

Recently, the Prime Minister made an appeal that many people found unusual. He urged citizens to avoid unnecessary foreign travel, reduce discretionary consumption especially gold purchases, and wherever possible, adopt work-from-home flexibility.

Predictably, the statement created caution in the markets and among people. But on closer observation, many understood the larger concern behind the appeal: growing global economic uncertainty, geopolitical volatility, pressure on fuel imports, and the importance of preserving India’s financial stability and foreign exchange strength in the coming period.

Among all the suggestions, the one that directly affects the largest number of people is work from home.

It made me curious and I wanted to see how other companies are reacting to the appeal. I spoke to a friend who runs a mid-size business employing a few hundred people. He is also a strong BJP and PM Modi supporter. When I asked whether he planned to offer employees some flexibility to work from home, to my surprise, his answer was a clear no.

His reasoning was practical: every business has to evaluate what is feasible for its own operations. That is fair to an extent. Not every industry or role can function remotely. Manufacturing, physical operations, frontline services, and several other sectors obviously require physical presence. He argued that the nature of his business does not permit it and, moreover, he believes that overall productivity would dwindle.

I disagree and I have a question.  

Is resistance really about productivity, or is it more about reluctance to accept change?

Personally, I have seen remote collaboration work effectively for years, long before COVID made it mainstream. Early in my career at Deloitte, I once asked my manager whether I could work from home on a particular day. He simply asked me two questions: “Do you have work on your plate?” and “Will you complete it?” When I answered yes, he casually replied, “Then I do not care whether you work from office, home, or Timbuktu.”

That stayed with me.

I disagree that productivity declines in case of work-from-home arrangement. In fact, both studies and personal experience suggest that productivity can improve while working from home. In a typical office environment, people are frequently interrupted by conversations, meetings, informal discussions, and constant movement around them. Working remotely, on the other hand, often allows longer periods of uninterrupted focus and continuity of thought. Ultimately, the issue is less about location and more about work ethics. Someone who lacks discipline may remain unproductive regardless of whether they are sitting at home or in an office. But professionals with strong ownership and accountability generally deliver results irrespective of where they work from.

Professional maturity is not about monitoring physical presence. It is about ownership and accountability.

When I was working in Malaysia, I collaborated daily with team members spread across Singapore, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Australia. Geography and physically being away from each other were never the obstacle. Clarity, discipline, and accountability mattered far more.

Even today, many large organizations have embraced hybrid flexibility. Interestingly, this includes companies like Infosys as well. Despite the public debate around the founder's appeal for 70-hours work week, Infosys allows employees a significant degree of work-from-home flexibility. Employees can work remotely for nearly half the working days in a month, and even on office days, the emphasis appears to be more on productivity and deliverables than merely spending long hours physically present in office.

That is why I believe the discussion today is less about whether remote work is possible and more about how intelligently organizations are willing to adapt wherever feasible.

And I also want to make a different point here.

Supporting a leader or a political party is easy when it costs us nothing. Real support is tested when adaptation demands some inconvenience, flexibility, or change from our side.

The Prime Minister knew very well that such appeals would attract criticism, political attacks, market nervousness, and uncomfortable public debate. Yet, he disregarded his interest and the interest of his party and still made the appeal because he believed they were necessary in the national interest.

If leadership is willing to take political risks for what it believes is good for the country, then as citizens, businesses, and professionals, the least we can do is honestly evaluate how much flexibility we ourselves can show. 

Not every company can implement work from home. Absolutely agree with that. Not every role allows it. Complete work-from-home and permanent changes are also not required. But many organizations can certainly reduce unnecessary travel, stagger attendance, enable partial remote work, or adopt temporary hybrid models wherever feasible.

Patriotism cannot remain only emotional or symbolic. It also reflects in whether we are willing to make reasonable adjustments when the country faces uncertain times.

There is a famous line often heard in India:

“भगत सिंह सबको चाहिए, लेकिन अपने घर में नहीं, पड़ोसी के घर में।" (Everyone wants a Bhagat Singh - the legendary revolutionary - but not in their own home, only in the neighbour’s)

Everyone admires sacrifice and national commitment - as long as someone else is making the adjustment.

Perhaps the real test of patriotism is much simpler:

When the country needs flexibility, responsibility, and collective discipline, are we willing to contribute even in small ways ourselves?