The Tech Paradox:

Racism in the Age of Indian Innovation

Racism is invisible but omnipresent in USA. In the glittering campuses of Silicon Valley and the boardrooms of global tech giants, Indian minds have been pivotal in architecting the digital future. From Sundar Pichai at Google to Arvind Krishna at IBM, and thousands of anonymous engineers powering codebases and cloud networks, Indian talent is the invisible infrastructure of global tech. Yet, racism—sometimes subtle, sometimes glaring—is a persistent undertone that shadows these contributions.

The paradox has moved beyond quiet murmurs into the open. During Sam Altman’s 2023 visit to India, the prominent AI pioneer and OpenAI co-founder made an offhand, stereotypical comment regarding India’s potential role in artificial intelligence. This wasn’t merely a slip of the tongue—it exposed an underlying bias. While Altman subsequently issued an apology saying that he was taken out of context, the harm had already been inflicted. It highlighted a troubling question: If this is how leaders of the AI revolution think aloud in public, what remains unsaid behind closed doors?

The irony couldn’t be starker. India is not just another participant in the tech race—it is arguably the backbone. Consider this:

• Over 4 million Indian-origin professionals work in the global tech industry, from entry-level coding jobs to C-suite leadership.
• Nearly 70% of H-1B visas in the U.S. go to Indian nationals.
• Indian-origin researchers and scientists are at the forefront of AI, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and space tech.
• India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) is now operating in Dubai, Singapore, France, and beyond—a soft power projection of public digital infrastructure unmatched even by Western nations.

And yet, the average Indian engineer in the West still encounters bias, microaggressions, and sometimes outright discrimination. This is not just anecdotal—it’s systemic. Universities have reported incidents of bullying and isolation of Indian students. In workplaces, Indians are often praised for their “work ethic” but rarely considered for leadership unless they erase all traces of their accent, culture, or dissent.

This is not new. It’s colonial residue.

From Colonial Racism to Corporate Gaslighting

In colonial times, the British openly displayed signs in parks and clubs: “Dogs and Indians Not Allowed.” Today, those signs have vanished, but their spirit lingers. The gatekeeping is now done in softer fonts—in hiring panels, venture capital meetings, and editorial boards. The narrative has shifted from overt exclusion to polite sidelining. “We love your hard work—but leadership requires cultural alignment.”

It’s not just personal slights. The economic history is damning:

• After World War II, the UK owed India £1.16 billion in sterling balances—India’s share of war contributions. That debt, roughly 10% of India’s GDP, was never fully honored.
• India had no Marshall Plan. Unlike Europe, rebuilt with U.S. aid after the war, India faced a series of crises—famines, communal riots, and partition—without any international help.
• Instead, it was sanctioned repeatedly by the West—for nuclear tests, for aligning with the Soviet bloc, for defending its borders. Even today, despite being a democracy of 1.4 billion, India is lectured on human rights while arms are sold to regimes with far worse records.

No Peace Dividend—Yet Here We Are

Unlike post-war Europe or post-Cold War Eastern Europe, India never got a peace dividend. Instead, it faced:

• Wars imposed by Pakistan, a U.S. ally.
• Betrayal by China, whom India supported diplomatically in the early years.
• Constant pressure to devalue its currency and open its markets before it was ready.

Despite this, India has:

• Launched a world-class Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) stack (UPI, Aadhaar, DigiLocker).
• Built ISRO, sending missions to the Moon and Mars on a shoestring budget.
• Provided cheap, high-quality STEM education at scale.
• Created the world’s largest democracy with continuous elections, without military coups.

“India” as a Slur: Rediscovering Bharat

The resurgence of the name “Bharat” in diplomatic forums—from G-20 summits to bilateral visits like that to France in 2023—is not merely a cultural assertion but a historical correction. While official explanations trace “India” to the Indus River, older British-era dictionaries reveal the term Indian was often used to connote uncivilised, exotic, or savage populations. It was a label constructed by colonizers who wanted to frame the subcontinent as backward and passive—a land needing “civilising.”

Signs that read “Dogs and Indians not allowed” were not innocent slippages of language; they were ideologically constructed racial hierarchies, and “India” was a useful term to enforce them. “Bharat,” on the other hand, is indigenous, constitutional (Article 1: “India, that is Bharat…”), and civilisational—one of the few names that predates both colonialism and even Abrahamic religions.

The reclaiming of “Bharat” is not about erasing the past but rejecting the slurs embedded in it.

Historical Evidence Supporting “India” as a Slur:

• Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:
  

  “Indian: Pertaining to India or its people, who are generally considered to be of darker complexion and inferior civilization.”

• Oxford English Dictionary (early editions):
  

  “Indian: Used sometimes contemptuously to refer to natives of the East Indies, especially as a class seen to require civilising influence.”

• James Mill, History of British India (1817):
  

  “The Hindus are credulous and weak… their intellect inferior… their civilization not real but illusory.”

• Thomas Macaulay, Minute on Indian Education (1835):
  

  “A single shelf of a good European library is worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.”

• Colonial Signage:
  

  “No Dogs or Indians Allowed” — a phrase seen across clubs, parks, and railways in colonial India.

These were not isolated instances but part of a larger ideological framework in which “India” was more than a name—it was a colonial slur backed by policy, prejudice, and pedagogy.

Accent Translators in the Oval Office

In a revealing moment in 2025, the U.S. President reportedly used an accent translator—a tool or interpreter that modifies spoken English to an American accent—during press interactions, allegedly in scenarios where strong foreign accents made comprehension for the President difficult. Mercifully the executive orders of 2025 focused on language (making English the official language) but did not mandate or mention translators whose sole role is to render English in an American accent

In 2025 itself the President Trump complimented the UK Prime Minister on his accent. He said ““What a beautiful accent. I would have been president 20 years ago if I had that accent.” The remark was met with laughter from the audience and appears in multiple official transcripts, including the official White House transcript released by the Office of Communications.

This was not just about linguistics—it was a projection of cultural hierarchy. It showed how language, tone, and delivery are still used to mark who belongs in the room and who must be ‘interpreted.’

Modern-Day Sanctions: Economic Bullying in a Globalised World

The colonial playbook may be gone, but its tactics live on in economic coercion. In August 2025, the United States imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods— and a week later an additional 25% as a punishment for India’s continued oil trade with Russia. This, despite the fact that the USA and Europe themselves have not stopped business with Russia, with the U.S. importing $17.5 billion worth of goods like palladium, uranium, and fertilizers from Russia in 2024. India’s Ministry of Commerce issued a detailed press release rebutting the move, pointing to the blatant double standards and emphasizing that India’s oil imports are driven by market factors to ensure energy security for its 1.4 billion people.

This is not just economic policy—it’s a slur in tariff form. Another version of the old refrain: “You bloody Indian.” A reminder that rules-based order often means “rules for you, exceptions for us.”

Conclusion: Tech Without Justice Is Just Another Empire

The West’s technological success has been built significantly on Indian intellectual capital—developers coding applications, engineers testing systems, researchers training AI models. Yet when discussions turn to acknowledgment, collaboration as equals, or fair representation, the conversation often becomes evasive. This isn’t about harboring grievances or playing victim; it’s about demanding historical honesty and contemporary fairness.

India stands as the sole ancient civilization that remains vibrantly alive—not preserved in archaeological sites or museum displays, but actively shaping the future through cutting-edge technology, space exploration, digital innovation, and democratic governance. This living legacy commands respect not merely when it serves others’ interests, but especially when it challenges comfortable assumptions. Because if there’s anything more formidable than artificial intelligence, it’s dignity rooted in millennia of contribution and continuity.