Why some Desis are Democratic in their adopted countries but Bigoted when it comes to India?

Some days back I read a Social Media posting by my brother-in-law, who has been a US citizen for decades, about his meeting two young Indians in his adopted country. These young men told my BIL that Gandhi was a chor (thief), and he was called Mahatma by another chor — Tagore.

As expected my BIL was surprised. We all were. But not because someone is saying that this, or it being a biased, or crude expression. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with someone or someone’s views.

But rather because of the display of sheer ignorance of two individuals, who as expected could not deliberate on the topic beyond sharing the monikers for the two historical greats.

It is the gross simplification of history, to satisfy one’s inner biases, with no data or perspective to back it up — while at the same time having an opinion to be counted.

Now if we hear this from the so-called undereducated lot, or the early migrants to the happy shores (and who have a better life running a motel, or gas station, or clearing airport luggage) — we will not be surprised much. We will safely assume that they have become victims of propaganda.

But these are white-collar Indians who are providing high-end services to the countries they have migrated to — the US, Canada, and Western Europe. These are supposed to be some of the best India has. So now that we have such intellectual decadence on display?

And it is not just limited to the migrants, it is equally prevalent with well-traveled global Indians, the ones who stayed long outside, or who are based here but equally connected with global business.

However there is one trend I have seen, it is most prevalent among the folks in the technology industry.

So why so? Should they not be, given being part of a global business, the harbinger of liberal education and values, rather than being shallow and bigoted?

To understand this, we need to understand both the migration story and the genesis of the IT industry.

If we take out the migration of the rich Indians to Britain for education, the 20th-century movement of Indians to the developed countries, till the sixties, was primarily to do the jobs that locals did not want to do or had significant cost arbitrage.

So, for example, a large number of Heathrow’s backend staff are Indians. Or the motel, restaurant, gas station helpers, or cab drivers in the US. Over a period many of them set up their own services businesses and became extremely successful.

Then in the sixties, Indian institutes of higher learning started delivering. And we have seen the migration of highly educated, and often highly talented people migrating. Very often it has been called the brain drain — engineers, doctors, economists, social scientists, psychologists.

But in 90’s something new happened. India, thanks to a few pioneers, cracked the IT services outsourcing model.

The crux of this model was (and largely still is) cost arbitrage. This means the replacement of local high-cost labor with lower-cost Indians for routine development, maintenance, or implementation work.

However once the model succeeded, the cost-cutting busing IT outsourcing model became the most important deliverable of the CIO.

Looking at obvious cost advantages, global IT services companies also set up shops in India. And then came the companies themselves — with their captive units.

So by the late ’90s, the trickle became a flood. The service companies started recruiting an average of 250,000+ every year.

So soon the premier engineering institutes ran out of supply and increasingly became outpriced as global recruiters started picking a handful from there for niche development.

So where will such a large number of engineers come from (engineers need IT services for easy processing of visas, not for the work)?

Unfortunately, India had never really focused on education beyond certain institutes of excellence. They were producing very few graduates. However with a low level of industrialization, a focus on technology transfer, and a controlled economy — they were more than enough before the IT revolution.

Like anything else in India, hundreds of engineering colleges sprouted in places like Pune, Coimbatore, Bangalore, and Hyderabad. They were almost all started by business people, politicians, or both.

In many cases, it is just a building, with no labs, few teachers, and weak pedagogy. All were managed.

But who cares? People were ready to sell their land or ornaments or mortgage their house to

send their children to any college, as it was a ticket to an IT job, foreign land, and value in

matrimony. And almost no college cared so long the hefty capitation fees were paid.

All were happy. Colleges getting big money. Regulatory authorities took care. Students getting

degrees and jobs. Companies getting warm-bodied engineers, who can get a visa easily with so-

called differentiated skills, and corresponding revenues.

And the global CIOs and their bosses too — as the board showcased the offshore story and cost

reduction.

But hang on. How do students who had a very poor academic background, got admission based

on capitation fees, and go through very poor engineering colleges will deliver when they join

an organization?

Well, India produces the third-largest number of engineers in the world after China and the US,

around half a million. But 80–90% are not job-ready.

But the IT services industry managed this. To start with IT work is middle to low end. The

students though fundamentally weak are more often smart in daily life. And all large companies

give them intensive, residential training to be job-ready (not life-ready).

So what is it that we have now?

Starting from the late nineties the IT industry, specifically, the IT services industry has recruited

and deployed approximately three million engineers to maintain legacy software, systems, and

installations across the world.

Around a million of them have moved abroad. And today they are the most visible face of India

in the developed countries — at least in numbers. They are global, articulate, successful, and wealthy.

But a large number of them never had a solid academic foundation and were there at the right

time when the wave was rising. So they have to sense the country’s history, culture, geography,

and complexity.

This does not affect professionally, as most of the jobs are routine. Also, the best in OECD countries are not in IT.

It does not get addressed socially, as most Indians find it difficult and scary to break into local social circuits, at least in the first generation.

But it affects them intellectually. With weak foundations and awareness, which has not been worked on because of quick success, social isolation (aggravated by the nature of the job, which mostly involves interactions with a computer), recent exposure to the past through group thinking, and quick and biased snippets on the social media, and an innate desire to have a view on everything because of economic and social success — it is a lethal combination.

So we see what we see. From where we started.

The so-called successful ones are intellectually repugnant. And more often than not in the technology industry, which incidentally is most global.

And mistake me not — it is not about Indians outside.

It is about an entire genre of Indians — here and abroad, whose financial success stands on weak fundamentals. And they are not perpetrators, but rather victims.

So Gandhi and Tagore Chors.

With no context or content, or consequences for the individual.

But let us move a few steps behind and think.

Because one can’t build by trashing the core. Time to be concerned about a lost generation of consciousness.