When a Bill and an Algorithm Collide: Reflections on the HIRE Bill and the Future of Indian IT

I read the BusinessLine piece — HIRE Bill shakes up IT players — with that particular mixture of professional curiosity and private unease that comes when a structural shock meets an industry I’ve spent my life in HIRE Bill shakes up IT players. The article is careful to note the bill’s low probability of passage; yet it’s the signal — not just the law — that should give us pause. I’ve also followed the industry conversation on LinkedIn from people like Pareekh Jain who are already reframing strategy in light of politics and AI Pareekh Jain LinkedIn post and Pareekh Jain LinkedIn post (Moneycontrol link).

This confluence of politics and technology feels, to me, like a pivot point. It’s not merely one more regulatory risk or one more hype cycle for AI. It is an existential fork for a model that has been remarkably successful — and, in many ways, very brittle.

The core of the disruption

• Protectionism as possibility: The HIRE Bill proposes tariffs on work sent offshore. Whether it becomes law or not, the very public idea of taxing or penalizing cross-border knowledge work signals growing protectionist sentiment in major markets. For companies that earn 50–60% of revenues from North America, that is not noise — it is strategic weather to which they must respond HIRE Bill shakes up IT players.

• AI as accelerant: The second, and to me more permanent, force is AI. It is steadily automating the repetitive, template-driven tasks that powered the industry’s low-cost, high-volume model. The old economic engine — large cohorts of low-paid juniors executing standardized work — is being eroded both from the top (pricing pressure) and from the bottom (fewer entry-level tasks).

• Margin compression and competitive parity: If AI flattens labor-cost advantages, the industry loses its historic pricing differential. At the same time, new entrants — from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia and even smaller product-first startups — can weaponize the same models to compete on cost or capability. The combination of political pressure and technological levelling is a squeeze.

What this means in practical terms

I try to look beyond alarmism. Fear rarely produces durable strategy. But realism should. A few blunt observations:

• The Indian IT business that grew by selling low-cost execution will have to sell something else: judgment, integrated solutions, IP, and domain depth.
• Headcount-based leverage (billable hours × junior rates) will not scale the way it used to. Revenue models will need to shift toward outcome-based, productized services, and platform plays.
• Exposure concentration to a single geography becomes a strategic liability. The US will remain indispensable, but dependence at current levels is a risk.

These are not just corporate issues. They are human ones: retraining, redeploying, and rethinking career arcs for millions of people.

Where companies can — and must — invest (a reflective checklist)

• Upskilling and role evolution: The future roles worth paying for are less about keystroke throughput and more about model orchestration, prompt engineering, systems integration, security, compliance, and industry domain expertise. That requires sustained investment in learning pathways, meaningful mid-career transitions, and incentives to keep top technical talent.

• Productize and differentiate: Convert repeatable services into IP or platforms. Products are less easy to tariff than a pure service flow, and products can capture value even when headcount economics change.

• Geographic diversification: Europe, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America matter not just as markets but as talent pools and places to co-create. The transition will be slow and uneven, but hedging concentration is pragmatic.

• Value-based commercial models: Move from time-and-materials to outcome- or value-sharing contracts wherever possible. When customers buy outcomes that matter to their business, price elasticity changes.

• Policy and narrative work: Engage with customers, governments, and civil society. Explain how cross-border teams enable resilience, competition, and innovation — and the real costs of forced reshoring.

I list these not as a prescriptive playbook but as the contours of a strategy conversation every CEO, CHRO and board member should be having.

The human story — which often gets lost

I find myself returning to the people who will live through this transition. Junior roles will shrink in number and change in character. That is painful and politically sensitive. We will need educational ecosystems — firms, governments, universities — that make the transition less brutal. If the industry simply prescribes headcount reductions without social support, we will deepen inequality and erode the social license that enabled the sector’s rise.

There is also a moral dimension: as we automate, what kinds of work do we choose to keep human? Where does human judgment matter most? My belief is that the very tasks tied to empathy, complex trade-offs, ethical judgment, and ambiguous boundary-management are those that remain most human — and most valuable.

A philosophical note on change

I’ve watched industries transform before. Some shifts are abrupt; others are tectonic and slow. Technology reminds me that adaptation is seldom a single strategy — it is a culture: a willingness to relearn, to tolerate temporary discomfort, and to reallocate resources to the future rather than defend the past.

There’s a paradox here. The same AI that threatens old jobs also creates new levers of value: novel products, richer analytics, and entirely new categories of services. The question is not whether the industry changes — it already is — but whether it changes with dignity for the people who built it.

Final thought

The HIRE Bill is a political flashpoint; AI is the enduring force. Together, they force a reappraisal of business models that depended on labor-cost differentials. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do think the right response blends strategy with stewardship: invest in capability, diversify risk, and take responsibility for the human transition that follows.

If I had to sum up my mood it would be a cautious conviction: change is painful, but also an opportunity to create more resilient, higher-value companies and careers — if we choose to meet it with imagination and responsibility.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh