Zoho’s Sridhar Vembu reveals ‘uncomfortable’ reason why Indians dominate global tech leadership, sparks debate

He pointed out that when companies track a batch of hires over decades, Indians are far more likely to still be around 20 years later. That continuity, he argued, naturally leads to promotions as experience, trust and institutional memory accumulate.

He also spoke about what he called the “immigrant drive,” noting that immigrants across communities often outperform native-born workers. “Combine org loyalty that comes from Indian culture and the immigrant drive common to all immigrants, you have the explanation,” Vembu said.

Addressing the idea that life in India is defined by constant pressure, Vembu suggested the opposite. He argued that India’s extended family system provides a strong social safety net, offering emotional and psychological security. Many Indians, he said, carry that mindset into the workplace, treating organisations like extended families. “For Indians, the slogan executives often abuse ‘We are one family’ is not just lip service,” he wrote, adding that this outlook reinforces long-term commitment.

Check out the post:

His thesis is Indians must perform or perish due to our population and a few rise to the top in Western orgs under that pressure.

I will offer a different explanation: Indian employees are some of the most loyal to their organizations and American corporations get to experience… https://t.co/LROGd4wSSd

— Sridhar Vembu (@svembu) February 3, 2026

Drawing from his experience running a school for over 200 children from economically weaker backgrounds, Vembu noted that while financial hardship can be eased with money, rebuilding broken social structures is far more difficult.

“This is why I strongly resist political ideologies that import that social atomization to India, by trying to destroy our spiritual core,” he concluded.

The post quickly sparked pushback and counter-arguments. Jasveer Singh responded directly, saying, “Respectfully disagree! Original thesis was about system design, pressure vs safety, endurance vs creativity, operators vs founders.” He argued that Vembu’s focus on loyalty and culture didn’t actually challenge his point. “Your argument does not contradict mine. It coexists downstream,” Singh added, claiming that pressure leads to constrained choices, which in turn result in long tenures that are often mistaken for loyalty.

Other commenters weighed in with their own interpretations. A user wrote, “This explanation is more uncomfortable because it shifts credit from “exceptional pressure” to unglamorous loyalty and time. It suggests Indians didn’t outcompete the system; they outlasted it, while others kept optimizing for optionality.”

Another user commented, “Organisational loyalty is frequently driven less by conviction and more by insecurity, born out of the relentless pressure-cooker environment in India.” A third person added, “I like your theory better, but I think Indians stay in an organization longer out of risk-averseness rather than. Loyalty. Now, one could argue that being loyal is itself a risk averse behavior.”