Tuesday, March 10, 2026
The disallusuionment with Silicon Valley
Sunday, October 26, 2025
Thoughts on Indian Immigration
Recently there has been a backlash on Indian-related immigration to the US. The chickens have come to roost finally on the immigration of Indians to foreign shores. Let me break it down for you. There were three ways in which an Indian could legally immigrate to a country which paid salaries in local currency :
1. Use the H1B visa for US - do engineering from a tier 2/3 college. Join a IT services provider on a sub-par salary. Have this unspoken covenant with them that eventually you will get to go "Onsite" and use the "Saving Potential" for a few years to make your money. Once you are onsite, you had two choices. Stay in the company and move to Sales or some other function building a long-term future in the company if you had the leadership chops. Or ditch your IT services employer and then go and work for another US company hopefully, who can continue to sponsor your stay legally in the US.
Everybody knew that this game was rigged. To get a H1B visa, the company had to show that these skills were 'difficult' to hire in the US. For this companies would give an ad in an obscure publication and hence establish that while it tried, one was not able to find the right 'talent' in the US. Suddenly an Indian engineer from tier-2/tier-3 engineering college became the sought after 'talent' which the world's best educational system in the world could not supposedly produce in sufficient numbers. Yes, one can agree that there might be certain niches where talent was deficient in the US but it spawned a systematic undermining of the flawed immigration system for 25 years. Mind you, there is no one villain here. The Indian company whose business model was dependent on this. The US immigration system which allowed this in plain sight for 30+ years, the immigration consultants and lawyers, the eager engineers who wanted to go to the US by hook or crook. Also US companies who could poach Indians once they left their IT services employers without having to do the H1B dance themselves or pay competitive salaries (the engineer is grateful that you are sponsoring his visa). No one entity is responsible. It was a collective, complicit system which benefited everyone concerned.
2. The other way was to use the Skilled visa program in some other anglophone countries (Canada/UK/Australia) and try to land up there. Of course, these countries wanted some smart immigrants as a part of their growth policies. But the problem was it was essentially a lottery that had to be won by using immigration consultants. The right documents and the right qualification would help you to emigrate. But when you went there, you would probably have to take up jobs much lesser than your qualifications. The trade off was - a sub-par job in a western country which paid dollar salaries vs making the hard grind in India. Another route was to do your graduation/postgraduation in these countries by paying full tuition and hope that you land a job after your education visa expires. The cost of this was prohibitive and families would spend substantially to sponsor a son/daughter to go to some tier-2 college in these countries and hope to land a job after graduation. (The US MS degree was relatively cheap and it gave scores of Indians a start without the H1B visa charade)
3. The third model was going to the middle east as a blue collar /grey collared worker and then move up the chain to become someone who is managerial in that country. The benefit of the middle-east was what while there was no freedom (everything brutally controlled by that country), India was a 2-hour flight away and effectively the entire GCC (Dubai/Oman/Bahrain) was populated with people from the Indian sub-continent. Most people around looked like you and while some were Pakistanis/Afghanis/Bangladeshis, the infra was way better than in India with significantly better salaries.
Now, there is a backlash across the world against Indians. It is rife in the Western world where Indians who went were sufficiently "white-collared" which led to the suspicion that the 'good' jobs were being 'stolen'. When there is a nativist backlash across the world, it is inevitable that Indians are in the cross-hairs. The reality is that very few people who emigrated were truly talented. They were just regular folks who just wanted to earn dollar salaries. This ugly truth is now being openly articulated by the populists who see that there is nothing special about the foreign visa holders. These jobs could have been done by regular Americans. They also have a valid justification that companies needed to pay just 60 K to the H1B Visa holders. Yes, some companies paid more but plenty just preyed on the desperation of the Indian to get and stay in the US by hook or crook.
The reason why there is little backlash in the middle-east is because you will find janitors and construction labourers which the middle-east locals know keep the region humming and are too rich to do these jobs. Also, the requirement that any business in the middle-east has to have a local partner meant that capital and power was always in the hands of a local. Yes the Indians did run some local banks/ companies but ultimately they were 'employees' at the mercy of the Seikh. BTW, the middle-east played a very good game. Since they did not have any natural advantages, (who would want to go and slog in 45 degree heat), it scrapped income tax. The country was anyway funded by oil wealth and they did not need the income tax from foreign workers. This was catnip for Indians who see any income tax they pay in India without any direct benefit to them.
And what of the ones who escaped ? Yes they did get their dollar salaries and as is inevitable human nature, started to perhaps brag to the cousins back in India that they have escaped. Most folks who went to the US, would look down upon others who were 'left behind' in India while constantly pining about India in the US. (the household help, the $10 dollar dosa, the 'love' of parents who they knowingly ditched). They would come to India during Christmas, stay in 5-star hotels, bring some goodies for the cousins and get fawned on by the adoring family as a world-conqueror. (in reality a database admin in some town in Texas)
In my view they were the ultimate hypocrites. I have no problem with people who have left India willingly and don't look back. If you agree to become a citizen of a given country, you have to leave your allegiance with the previous country. You cannot put your feet in two boats. (culturally Indian with a US passport). For example, the desi emigrants wanted their sons and daughters to behave as is if they were in India (no/only dating desis, filial obedience and choosing safe careers). They took pride in the classical music and dance lessons without teaching them the history/values of their now-country. Basically they want the best of both worlds. The economic benefit of that country and the real deep-seated (political and cultural) allegiance of the mother country. If you have chosen to become the citizen of a given country (nay, waited years and years for that elusive green card), then your allegiance has to be that country (US), not the country whose passport you were so willing to ditch. I have no problem in people willingly emigrating and never looking back.
They never tried to be the 'insiders' - and perhaps could not be even if they tried. They look different and act different. Yes, some of them became CEOs in the US but it speaks more about the meritocracy of the US system than the ability of Indians (BTW, none of these CEOs are Indians anymore. They are all US citizens and we Indians take false pride in saying how great we are because 10 out of 3 million Indian-Americans became global CEOs).
So why did Indians want to emigrate so badly ? Purely economic. Because the Indian economy was not able to provide respectable jobs to the vast majority of the everyday population. The rat-race is brutal in India and there is a lack of reasonable jobs here. Why is that is the topic for another post ?
So where that does leave us ? The only way is that we have to build a better economy and better jobs in our country. No citizen of a country wants to emigrate if economic reasons are not there. How many foreigners have you found in India or China who have willingly moved there because of economic opportunity ? Look around in Mumbai or Delhi or Bangalore. Not many.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Should India have proportional representation ?
This call to 'reform' the system is manifestly false as the motivation is not electoral reform but to discredit the achievements of the single party. The first-past-the-post rule has been well-understood by everyone in the last few decades and regional parties have exploited it disproportionately in the era of coalition politics. (The thought that regional parties with 20-30 seats and sub 3 % vote-share could sometimes dictate national policy on security (say Sri Lanka) in opposition to the national interest was a perverted sense of democracy.)
So lets for a moment examine what would happen if we suddenly did away with the current system. In an instant all regional parties would lose their power. Because even the most dominant regional party can not get more than 5 % of the vote and 5 % of the seats - 25 seats at best. So now, lets do the math. In such a situation, say no party can realistically get 50% of the vote and hence seats. Hence we will have a proportional representation as follows :
- Party no 1 : 30%
- Party no 2 : 20%
- Party no 3 : 8%
- Long tail of say 30 parties each between 0-5% of the voteshare
In our system "Majority is 50%". Why 50 % ? What is so special about 50% ? Because 50% is first-past-the-post in a 2-party situation. Say that there are only 2 parties and the voteshare split is 51-49% of the vote-share. One view could be - how can the 51 % party be the ruling party as 49% of the voters have rejected it ? (the same argument put right now with the nos changed)
We can do one of the two things if we want to go to proportional representation in a multi-party system:
- Only allow 'national' parties to compete for Lok Sabha (the current definition is a technical one of % voteshare plus representation in 4 states). In that case, most of the regional parties will get bumped-off. Do we want that ? Perhaps 'No' as India is an incredibly diverse country with a plurality which is mind-blowing. Sections of the population should be allowed to express their POV though the ballot - even if such views seem to be parochial. Democracy is about diverse opinions even though you might not agree with some.
- Allow the multi-party system of proportional representation but there should be nothing sacrosanct about 50 %. Basically the party with the highest vote-share governs. Realize that this is first-past-the-post at a voteshare level vs the constituency level.
In any case no voting system is perfect. For a mathematical explanation click here.
Four Vectors of Political Parties
1. Caste
2. Religion
3. Region
4. Class
The core appeal for all parties is one or more of the above. In that sense, the Congress is the only party which has an appeal across all vectors.
The question is that which of these vectors will remain viable over the next 20-30 years and which ones will fade away into oblivion. For example, one can postulate that caste will become increasingly unimportant in a rapidly urbanising country.
One answer to that question can be looking at the experience of other parts of the world and see which way have they gone. After a lengthy discussion, here are a few thoughts that I will leave right now and come back later for validation.
- The caste vector will rapidly merge into the class vector. At the end of the day, the caste divide will only become an economic one where the lower castes will want to have more economic independence.
- The religion vector will continue to remain as an important element but the distribution of religions of India is such that the core minority vote banks will be it might increasingly splinter into different parties who want to focus on the 'minority' vote.
-The region vector is the only one that will have to continue to have it's appeal for some more time. Since India is very plural in terms of language, customs etc this will continue to be an important dynamic. Regional parties will continue to pull in considerable heft as they look to secure their 'pound of flesh' from the central govt.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Why I am against immigration
1. Economic migrants behave as if the folks left back in India are the 'poor things'. They attribute their immigration to being 'superior'. I would argue, if they had the guts, they should earn the equivalent PPP in India.
2. Leaving the country for merely the convenience of not paying taxes is the lowest form of entitlement mindset. (every country in the world - of course the middle-east excepted) pay taxes.
3. It is absolutely important that economic migrants take up the values of the host country. Working in US and not expecting your son/daughter to date is regressive at best, criminal at worst.
Living in the US and not supporting a US-world view is bordering on betrayal. If you have left India for economic reasons, please accept the cultural/values compromise that comes with it as well. One cannot compartmentalize - I am only an economic migrant and I covet the US passport but my values will be "Indian". This is the absolute worst form of hypocrisy.
Group membership view of Michael Sandler.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
No party worth voting for excuse
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Do we deserve the leaders we get ?
One of the biggest debates around democracy revolves around two persusive arguments.
On one side we have the view that "we deserve the kind of politicians we get". i.e. the political class essentially represents the larger nature of the electorate, given free and fair elections. Now this would mean that in a country like India whose political class is hugely corrupt, bigoted and regressive the larger electorate by extension is corrupt, bigoted and regressive. Also that the electorate largely votes for local leaders rather than the larger national agenda. These smart leaders will then subvert the national agenda and put roadblocks on long-term economic development. This also encourages the always-difficult choice between the long-term and the short term. Economic development and structural reforms are tough in the short-term but will yield benefits in the long-term. However do voters tend to value the populist-but-bad policies in the short-run having little patience to wait it out. So if the average voter is selfish and wants 'free power' / 'free food', and agrees to vote for any unscruplous element the voter is equally culpable for bad governance.
The other argument is that that the electorate is so poor that whoever promises the moon and even delivers a fraction, will come to power. That large sections of the population have been so repressed and poor that whoever is willing to stand up and give them a sliver of hope and respect, however fantastical will win. On one hand we can blame the electorate for it's gullibility that a few individuals can manipulate it so brazenly and get away with it - effectively putting brakes on long-term development. In a nut-sheel, one can argue that those who are struggling to suvive do not really care about the national agenda. They are only looking for short-term goodies every election as that is the best they can hope for. It does not help to wait for "long-term economic development" when you are starving. Hence we 'psuedo-intellectuals' with out bellies full and ability/access to write a blog should be more kind in judging our fellow-citizens. Does extreme poverty, bigotry and obscurantism can make a mockery of democracy rendering it ineffective ?
The lesson to take away is that democracy is related to "informed" choices. So does this mean that in a country with universal adult sufferage, those folks who are not 'informed' should not have a right to vote ? It also begets the uncomfortable question that if numbers are what are important in a democracy then that population that procreates more heavily will, in the long term have a disproportinate say in the government ? (In the US context where the red states have higher birthrates, these states will in the long-term assert their numerical superiority ?)
What is the first requisite of being "informed" ? I guess it is primary eductation. For democarcy to succeed in India, the first thing to do is educate everybody. Primary education is however hampered by poverty and regressive soical values. These however, cannot be eliminated without primary education and this, sadly, remains a vicious cycle.
