US Vice President JD Vance’s remarks about foreign workers have raised serious questions about his grasp of history, immigration and the contributions of Indian professionals to the American economy. During an October 8 press conference, Vance criticised the H-1B visa programme, alleging that companies were replacing American workers with lower-paid foreign employees. Referring to these workers as “foreign indentured servants”, he accused companies, including Microsoft, of exploiting immigration arrangements. While protecting American workers from unfair employment practices is a legitimate concern, Vance must distinguish between historical indentured labour and modern skilled migration. Indian professionals recruited by American companies for their qualifications and expertise are not automatically indentured servants, and their achievements deserve recognition rather than historical mischaracterisation.
Vance alleged that Microsoft had laid off 6,000 American workers while benefiting from 6,300 H-1B visas and nearly 3,000 green cards. He also claimed that H-1B workers earned $20,000 less than comparable American employees, with some employed through outsourcing companies earning $48,000 less. These figures and allegations require independent verification and must not be treated as facts about every worker or company. If employers have manipulated visa programmes, suppressed wages, or unfairly displaced American employees, the appropriate response is investigation and enforcement. However, allegations against businesses do not justify labelling foreign professionals collectively as indentured servants. Vance must distinguish between alleged corporate misconduct and the individuals who have lawfully entered the United States to work.
Does Vance understand what indenture means? During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, hundreds of thousands of Indians were transported under indenture contracts to colonies including Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname, Fiji, Mauritius and South Africa. Many came from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu to work on sugar plantations and other colonial enterprises. Despite the existence of contracts, many endured harsh working conditions, low wages, restricted freedoms and racial discrimination. Their experiences form a painful chapter in Indian and colonial history. A modern engineer or technology specialist recruited by a reputable American company is in a fundamentally different position. An H-1B worker can face genuine vulnerabilities because employment and immigration status are linked, but that does not make every such professional equivalent to a nineteenth-century indentured labourer. Vance should study this history carefully before repeatedly using a term of such profound historical significance.
Consider Satya Nadella, Chairman and CEO of Microsoft, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Nadella was born in Hyderabad, India, joined Microsoft in 1992, and became its CEO in 2014. Pichai was born in Chennai, India, joined Google in 2004, became its CEO in 2015, and took over as Alphabet’s CEO in 2019. These men built distinguished careers in the United States and rose to lead some of the world’s most influential technology businesses. They were not indentured servants. Their professional journeys involved education, specialised skills, corporate recruitment and career advancement. Their success demonstrates how international talent can contribute to American business and innovation. Vance should recognise that birthplace, nationality and immigration history are not substitutes for an individual’s qualifications, professional achievements or personal circumstances.
The list of Indian-origin business leaders at the highest levels of American corporations extends far beyond Nadella and Pichai. It includes Arvind Krishna, Chairman, President and CEO of IBM; Shantanu Narayen, Chairman of Adobe; Nikesh Arora, Chairman and CEO of Palo Alto Networks; Srinivasan (Srini) Gopalan, CEO of T-Mobile US; Shailesh Jejurikar, President and CEO of Procter & Gamble; Vimal Kapur, Chairman and CEO of Honeywell; Lal Karsanbhai, President and CEO of Emerson Electric; Sanjay Mehrotra, President and CEO of Micron Technology; Kevin A. Lobo, Chair and CEO of Stryker; Reshma Kewalramani, President and CEO of Vertex Pharmaceuticals; Rajesh Subramaniam, President and CEO of FedEx; Jayshree Ullal, President and CEO of Arista Networks; Bob Pragada, Chair and CEO of Jacobs Solutions; Ravi Kumar Singisetti, CEO of Cognizant; Sumit Singh, CEO of Chewy; Niraj Shah, CEO and co-founder of Wayfair; Saumya Sutaria, Chairman and CEO of Tenet Healthcare; and Rahul Goyal, CEO of Molson Coors.
Their achievements span technology, manufacturing, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, logistics and consumer businesses. These individuals have diverse citizenship and migration histories, and their backgrounds should not be assumed to be identical. Nevertheless, their leadership illustrates the significant presence of Indian-origin talent in corporate America. They are accomplished executives, not a historical category of servants.
Vance must also consider whether America’s education and training systems adequately prepare American workers for the demands of an economy increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and advanced computing.
American university students and researchers are studying classical subjects such as sociology and the arts rather than engineering. Each year, digital companies need over 100,000 new engineers, yet in the USA, students are not taking engineering or computer science. Vance must check this. Without Indian and Chinese engineers to fill that 100,000 gap, the USA’s digital world will collapse. Vance is making political points before the primary elections. Among the world’s leading contributors to digital scientific progress, Indian and Chinese students lead the field and illiterate politicians must never underestimate them.
India and China will lead the world in the next 5 years. Many Chinese and Indians are returning to their countries and contributing significantly to artificial intelligence, software, and digitalisation. The losers are Vance and his cronies. Vance is finding it difficult to accept that the Indians and Chinese are brighter than the American workers. Maybe Vance must recruit American cowboys riding horses in the fields to manage their digital world.
However, businesses sometimes recruit internationally because specialised skills are scarce or because they believe candidates best meet their needs. India, China and other countries have developed substantial pools of scientific, engineering and technological talent. Rather than portraying foreign professionals as the problem, policymakers should ask whether America can strengthen domestic education, vocational training and research while maintaining fair recruitment practices. The objective should be to ensure that American workers are not exploited and that legitimate foreign professionals are not unfairly targeted.
Another question arises from Vance’s own family. His wife, Usha Vance, was born in San Diego, California, to Indian-origin parents. She studied at Yale University and the University of Cambridge and established a legal career before becoming the Second Lady of the United States. She is an American-born citizen, not an H-1B visa holder, and it would be inaccurate to describe her personally as an indentured servant. Her circumstances are different from those of temporary foreign workers whose immigration status depends on employer sponsorship.
Nevertheless, her background raises an important question about the language used in this debate: if Vance describes foreign professionals recruited to work in America as “indentured servants”, does he recognise the dignity of people from the same ancestral background as his wife? The point is not to equate Usha Vance with foreign workers but to ask whether political rhetoric should distinguish between legitimate immigration concerns and sweeping characterisations of people based on their origins.
India and the United States share extensive economic, technological, educational and strategic interests. Indian professionals have contributed to American businesses, universities, hospitals and research institutions, while American companies have benefited from international talent and investment. Both countries have legitimate interests: America must protect its workers, enforce wage laws and prevent immigration fraud, while India must ensure its citizens are treated fairly and with dignity. These goals are compatible. If companies abuse immigration programmes, investigate and hold them accountable. If American workers are unfairly displaced, examine the evidence and enforce the law. If employers exploit foreign professionals through visa programmes, protect them too.
Vance should learn these points by understanding the facts before making sweeping statements. Has he properly distinguished historical indentured labour from modern skilled immigration? Why should Indian engineers, scientists and technology professionals be associated with a system of colonial exploitation simply because they come from abroad?
Can America protect its workers without demeaning the international talent that contributes to its economy? Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai and the many other Indian-origin leaders of American corporations are not indentured servants. They are professionals whose achievements should be judged on their merits. America has every right to protect its workforce. Still, political leaders also have a responsibility to use historically accurate language, respect human dignity and distinguish alleged corporate abuse from the people who may be caught within it.
JD Vance has scored his own goal by misinterpreting English and making a huge blunder about a country like India, with a population of 1.45 billion people, which will be the next democratic superpower in less than 10 years.