The restrictions on Indian technology professionals are a reminder that talent mobility cannot be taken for granted. India must turn this moment of uncertainty into an opportunity to build a world-class technology ecosystem of its own.
The US has long presented itself as the land of opportunity, attracting the world’s brightest minds to its universities, laboratories, companies, and research institutions. Indian professionals have been among the most successful beneficiaries of this openness. Today, however, Washington appears increasingly determined to restrict their entry and constrain their prospects for permanent residency.
The latest decision to suspend the processing of employment-based permanent residency applications under the Permanent Labour Certification programme for eight technology companies, including major Indian IT firms, has heightened uncertainty for Indian professionals. US vice-president JD Vance’s description of foreign workers as “foreign indentured servants” has added an especially troubling dimension to the controversy. India’s ministry of external affairs rightly called the terminology “unwarranted and deeply offensive”, drawing attention to its painful historical and colonial connotations.
India deserves considerable credit for responding firmly without abandoning diplomatic restraint. Its message is important: Indian professionals are not merely beneficiaries of American generosity – they are highly skilled contributors to the American economy, its innovation ecosystem, and its global competitiveness.
But India must go further. The most consequential response to this episode will not be another diplomatic statement. It will be a national strategy that transforms an external constraint into an opportunity for domestic technological advancement. India must stop seeing the American technology market as the ultimate destination for its best talent and start building an ecosystem in which that talent can create its greatest value at home.
The debate surrounding Indian technology professionals is frequently framed as though the US is generously providing employment opportunities to Indians who would otherwise have few prospects. This is a fundamental misreading of the economic relationship.
American companies recruit Indian engineers because they possess the skills, expertise and experience that those companies need. Indian professionals help businesses develop products, conduct research, build software, manage complex technological systems, and remain competitive in rapidly evolving markets. Their contributions can generate new intellectual property, strengthen research capabilities, support productivity, and create wealth.
American businesses have benefited enormously from the ability to recruit globally. Indian talent has contributed to the success of technology companies, financial institutions, research laboratories, and countless enterprises across the US.
Nor is the contribution confined to the individual worker. Technology professionals support teams, develop products, mentor colleagues, establish businesses and participate in research networks. Successful enterprises create demand for complementary skills and services, potentially supporting employment beyond the original position.
None of this means that every foreign hire necessarily creates additional American jobs, or that legitimate concerns about wages, recruitment practices and the displacement of domestic workers should be dismissed. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that labour-market rules are respected and that workers are treated fairly.
But there is a profound difference between enforcing labour-market protections and portraying foreign professionals as exploitative outsiders. The former is a legitimate public-policy objective; the latter risks obscuring the economic value that skilled migration can generate.
The American technology ecosystem has flourished partly because it has been able to attract global talent. If Washington chooses to narrow that openness, it must also accept that talent is not a resource over which it enjoys an exclusive claim. Skilled professionals have choices, and countries competing for their abilities will respond accordingly.
MEA’s response has rightly emphasised the mutual benefits of talent mobility and defended the dignity of Indian professionals. It has also clarified an important distinction: Suspension of the PERM process does not, by itself, invalidate existing H-1B visas or alter the legal status of their holders and dependants, although it can disrupt the permanent-residency pathway for affected employees.
That distinction matters. India should neither exaggerate the immediate consequences nor underestimate the uncertainty created by increasingly restrictive policies. But the country should resist the temptation to treat this primarily as a dispute over access to America. The larger question is why the professional ambitions of so many talented Indians remain so closely tied to opportunities overseas.
For decades, India’s technology industry has demonstrated its ability to compete internationally. Its software services companies have become global enterprises, while its engineers have established strong reputations across industries. Yet India has not fully converted this talent advantage into leadership in the creation of globally dominant technology products, proprietary platforms, advanced research, and intellectual property. The next stage of India’s technological development must address this gap.
The government should seize this moment to launch a serious initiative to attract Indian technology professionals who wish to return, as well as those already in India who have the expertise to build globally competitive businesses.
The first step should be to listen. Many professionals working abroad may welcome the prospect of returning, but they will not relocate simply because a government invites them to do so. They will consider career opportunities, research infrastructure, compensation, professional autonomy, the quality of their children’s education and the prospects for their families. India must address these considerations through practical policies rather than patriotic appeals.
A national technology talent programme could connect returning professionals with Indian companies, universities, research institutions, start-ups, and public-sector innovation initiatives. A dedicated digital platform could help match experienced engineers, product designers, Artificial Intelligence specialists, cybersecurity experts, and research scientists with organisations seeking their skills.
The government should also facilitate recruitment, recognise relevant qualifications, improve access to research funding, and encourage universities to create positions that allow experienced professionals to lead laboratories and mentor young researchers. For entrepreneurs, India should offer predictable regulations, easier access to capital, stronger intellectual-property protection, and a more supportive environment for scaling technology businesses.
Companies, too, have a responsibility. Indian technology firms must move beyond a business model that relies predominantly on supplying skilled personnel to overseas clients. They should invest more aggressively in original research, proprietary products, artificial intelligence, advanced computing, semiconductor design, and other areas in which Indian expertise can create enduring competitive advantages.
The objective is not to bring every Indian professional home. Nor should India discourage those who choose to work abroad. Global mobility enriches individuals and can strengthen India’s international networks. The objective is to ensure that returning is an attractive choice rather than a reluctant response to shrinking opportunities elsewhere.
India’s greatest opportunity lies in combining its existing strengths with the capabilities of professionals who have acquired experience in the world’s most advanced technology ecosystems.
Consider what this could mean for AI, biotechnology, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, and semiconductor design. Professionals returning with experience of cutting-edge research, product development and global markets could help Indian enterprises move up the value chain. Their networks could attract investment, establish research partnerships, and connect Indian institutions to international innovation systems.
The government should measure success not merely by the number of professionals who return, but by the businesses they build, the patents they generate, the research they lead, the products they commercialise and the high-value employment they help create. Such a transformation will require sustained investment, institutional reform and a willingness to tolerate entrepreneurial risk. Talent alone cannot compensate for weak institutions, inadequate research funding, or regulatory uncertainty.
Yet India possesses an advantage that should not be underestimated: a substantial domestic technology industry, a large pool of skilled professionals, expanding digital capabilities and a growing market for sophisticated technological solutions. The task is to combine these assets into a coherent national strategy.
There is an irony in the current controversy. A country seeking to protect its technological leadership by restricting access to foreign talent may inadvertently strengthen the capabilities of competing economies. Whether that happens will depend on the opportunities those economies create; it is not an automatic consequence of American restrictions.
India must therefore avoid both complacency and triumphalism. American policy may change again, and access to global markets will remain important. The US will continue to be a significant partner in technology, trade, investment, and research. But partnership should not become dependence, and opportunity abroad should not come at the expense of opportunity at home.
The dignity of Indian professionals must be defended. The economic contribution they make to America must be recognised. And the Indian government is right to object when political rhetoric diminishes their achievements. Ultimately, however, the strongest answer to the suggestion that Indian professionals are merely fortunate to be admitted into the American economy is to create an Indian economy in which their abilities are equally valued, their ambitions can flourish and their innovations can compete with the best in the world.
If America chooses to close some doors, India should not spend its energy knocking ever more desperately on them. It should open new doors of its own.
(The views expressed are personal)
This article is authored by Shishir Priyadarshi, president, Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi.
