Highlights:
India has sharply rebuked vice president JD Vance for describing foreign workers as “foreign indentured servants”, calling the phrase “deeply offensive” and accusing it of carrying painful colonial-era connotations.
The strong response from New Delhi comes amid a widening dispute over skilled foreign workers in the United States, following the Trump administration’s suspension of eight technology companies from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) programme.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs defended Indian professionals working in America, arguing that Vance’s language overlooks their education, expertise and contributions to the US economy.
“We believe that such descriptions are unwarranted and ignore the fact that Indian professionals in the United States are highly educated and skilled contributors to its economy and innovation ecosystem,” the ministry said on Friday (9).
It added that generations of immigrants had helped shape America’s growth and prosperity through their labour, enterprise and innovation.
“Resorting to terminology that carries painful historical and colonial legacy connotations is deeply offensive,” the ministry said.
Vance’s ‘indentured servants’ remark sparks backlash
Vance used the controversial phrase on Thursday (8) while announcing the suspension of Microsoft from the PERM programme, accusing the technology giant of laying off American workers while continuing to benefit from foreign-worker immigration pathways.
“You cannot lay off American workers and then replace them with foreign indentured servants,” Vance said.
He claimed Microsoft had laid off 6,000 American workers while benefiting from 6,300 H-1B visas and nearly 3,000 green cards. He argued that the figures showed the company was replacing American workers with foreign labour.
However, the figures cited by Vance do not, by themselves, establish that every visa or green card recipient replaced a laid-off American employee.
The Labour Department also announced the suspension of Cognizant, Infosys, Tata, Wipro, HCL, Capgemini and Adobe from the PERM programme.
India hits back, invokes colonial legacy
India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) delivered a sharp rebuke to Vance, “We believe that such descriptions are unwarranted and ignore the fact that Indian professionals in the United States are highly educated and skilled contributors to its economy and innovation ecosystem,” the ministry said.
It also pointed to America’s own history of immigration, saying generations of immigrants had contributed to the country’s growth through their labour, enterprise and innovation.
“Resorting to terminology that carries painful historical and colonial legacy connotations is deeply offensive,” the MEA added.
India also criticised the wider implications of Washington’s decision to suspend eight technology companies from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) programme, warning that the move does not serve the shared interests of the two countries.
The ministry stressed that talent mobility benefits both economies, giving Indian professionals opportunities while helping American companies access skilled workers who contribute to innovation, research, productivity, competitiveness and job creation.
“This is therefore an area of tremendous mutual benefit for the two countries and our expectation is that all stakeholders in this process can appreciate this fact,” the government said.
India clarifies what the suspension means
The MEA also drew a distinction between PERM and the H-1B visa programme, emphasising that the suspension of PERM applications does not automatically invalidate existing H-1B visas or change the status of their holders and dependents.
However, eligible employees at the affected companies could face disruption to their employer-sponsored green-card process.
India’s response therefore went beyond objecting to Vance’s choice of words. It defended the economic value of skilled migration and signalled concern that restrictions on talent mobility could undermine cooperation between the two countries.
As Washington intensifies scrutiny of foreign-worker programmes, India’s response signals that the treatment and portrayal of its skilled workforce have become a diplomatic issue as well as an economic one.
