The Other Side of Sundar Pichai Story

  Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated India-born Sundar Pichai on being named the new CEO of Google, US.  Jayalalithaa, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu – the state in which he was born and schooled - also praised the Chennai boy on his elevation within the famed corporation. Their messages are understandable as formal gestures from heads of governments. But Indians staying in India may not miss a self-condemnation by the nation that goes silently with their stately greetings.

            Did Sundar Pichai have in him, before he left India, the potential to learn more, to develop and to rise to this height? Or was he automatically gifted with such a quality only on landing in America?   If it is only the business environment in the US which helped the Chennai boy to succeed in a major way – with little credit going to the natural instincts and mettle of the individual – then one of his many US-born white American colleagues in Google could have made the news instead of Sundar.  So it is clear that the Indian has some instinctive extraordinary qualities that chiefly propelled him to his new position.  Many other Indians, as we know, have demonstrated this ahead of him in the US.  Examples: Indra Nooyi in PepsiCo and Satya Nadella in Microsoft, who are already CEO’s.  There are others too.

            It is not just that Indians have done better than white Americans to reach the top of some respected US corporations.  In such success stories scripted by immigrants to the US, Indians have done what Brazilians, Russians and Chinese have generally not done, says columnist Leonid Bershidsky.  He cites a 2004 research study by St. Gallen University, Switzerland, to say that Indian executives are inclined toward participative management and building meaningful relationships with subordinates, and that here they stand out to succeed. You may guess the extraordinary caliber of Indians transforming themselves on way to a grand success through these steps-  first go through an ordinary schooling system and maybe a better higher education in this country, next finish other tougher university courses in the US, then rise to the top in reputed US corporations in a cultural setting new for them. Great.

            It is obvious that Indians have rare qualities to acquire knowledge and skills, and work with and lead others to make success stories in business.   All world knows that when business succeeds highly and widely in a country, its GDP improves and economy flourishes. Naturally, then, its average people can be better fed, better clothed, better educated and better housed – which is what India is aspiring for its people now.   So when India badly needs its Indra Nooyis, Satya Nadellas and Sundar Pichais, why are they working in America?  An Indian may hazily reflect: 'after all, when talented Indians themselves are not available to work in India and help its economy grow, we can’t expect Americans to come to India to do it for us'.  But there is the other side.

            Don’t ever imagine that the gifted Indians – who went to school in India and work to lead in US businesses – love their home country less in their hearts.  They have gone to the US simply because they don’t wish to – and they don’t have to – struggle and suffer in the country of their birth for nobody’s benefit.  Men and women of talent in India know that here they have to run a race with a weight of chains round their ankles – the bad economic policies and a delusional law putting merit behind to the maximum.

If India’s talented youngsters had not gone to the US in droves to study and work their way up, we will not know that Indians could win such great acclaim in that country which many Brazilians, Russians and Chinese living in the US could not do, and which a good number of Americans themselves have not done at times.  So these Indian emigrants have shown that an enormous potential resides in them, that it is readily welcomed and valued abroad but sadly overlooked and undervalued in their home country.  More important, they have made us aware how far our capabilities could go - leading men and women in big business is not easy, certainly not in a different cultural setting overseas.  Let us thank them for that.

Some might ask: why can’t talented men and women of India stay back and work or contribute like Abdul Kalam did?  But those who ask don’t see realities of life.  Abdul Kalam and a few like him who worked (or may still work, but not too well known yet) in India in their fields of special knowledge had or may have some unique personal attributes, but hundreds of others, though equally knowledgeable, will not see similar results in India.  For all their thirst for knowledge and enthusiasm, mostly their only options are to remain in India and face forced decay or to go abroad, absorb knowledge, grow and find fulfillment and recognition. Let us also remember: in a country whose people were once led by Mahatma Gandhi, we now hardly see leaders with any streak of his personal integrity though most of them are otherwise thriving.  If that is so in the political field, why would Indian knowledge-workers alone be like Abdul Kalam? India’s gifted men and women working abroad do not certainly function contrary to ideals of Abdul Kalam, but the story is different with Mahatma Gandhi and political India.

Sundar Pichai is yet another brainy person gone out of undeveloped India to grow himself and help some mighty American business do better – because the Indian environment cannot embrace the likes of him and our economy languishes far below the level it should aim and can reach.  As a self-defeating state policy, we don’t encourage, reward and benefit from some extraordinary merits of our men and women, but we applaud all talent moving out of our shores and flying high on other lands.

India should wake up.

* * * * *

Copyright © R. Veera Raghavan 2015