Be that as it may, what is the real truth? Again, in the absence of facts to prove a claim one way or another, my personal opinion is that each have their own virtues and are suited to the role they need to perform. And there are historical reasons for it as well. American techies have a long tradition of creative solution generation, more indepth and sharper insight into problems and are in general more dedicated to a long term approach. The tech industry in the USA have a long legacy and have been in existence for a number of years to attain such virtues. Alas, these virtues are probably beginning to be passe' in the current scenario. The current trend is to keep the crown jewels and give away the trinkets which requires a lot less polishing. So, it is only those who know how to keep the crown jewels in ship-shape who are any longer required in America. And these are the experienced folks who have cut their teeth in the industry and are therefore of the highest calibre. The younger lot, having been drunk on the prosperity curve for a long time, tend to take it a lot easier than the older lot who struggled with a young and new industry in the 20th century. These aspects have probably made the younget aAmerican techies less suitable for the new century.

Indian techies in general are the younger lot, as our industry wasn't around until the Y2K problem gave us all an opportunity to meddle with technology. Therefore, the Indian techie is a lot more well versed with newer technologies, is more hungry than their counterparts in the US and probably more ambitious than them. Indians are also probably better at adapting themselves to changing situations as survival is in our blood. Moreover, we are ready to work at very competitive wages and produce outputs that is equal or better than an American techie who is paid 3-10 times that wage. What more could be music to a business?

Thus, when Mr. Nayar says that American techies don't cut it, there may be some truth to it. However, that should have been qualified with the context in which he must have said it. I am sure Mr. Nayar explained the context but that probably never made it to the front pages. Mr. Nayar should have known better and refrained from making such a statement.