30MAR

India IT grows 140,000 as US firms cut

3 min read

08:00UTC

NASSCOM reported India's IT sector grew net by 140,000 to 5.9 million in fiscal 2026, with the growth concentrated in in-house offshore offices run by the same US firms cutting at home.

← Back to Trump wants Iran's oil; 3,500 Marines land Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

India's IT sector grew to 5.9 million as US firms moved cut roles into their own offshore offices.

NASSCOM, India's IT industry body, reported the sector grew by about 140,000 workers to 5.9 million in fiscal 2026, even as the top five outsourcers cut a combined 6,981 jobs ¹. The growth sits in GCCs (Global Capability Centres, in-house offshore offices), run by firms including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple and Walmart, the same companies executing US cuts.

NASSCOM's net figure makes the magnitude concrete for the first time, building on its earlier finding that GCC expansion sits outside US disclosure regimes . The same firms appear on both sides of the ledger: in the US-cut data and in the NASSCOM GCC-growth data. A role cut in Texas and recreated in Bengaluru shows up in US WARN filings as a loss and in no US instrument as a transfer.

This is a third measurement gap stacked on the others. Declared layoffs miss hires never made; JOLTS (the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) misses the same; neither tracks hires made offshore. Entry-level Indian IT hiring fell 20-25% even as the sector grew, so the channel rewards mid-career transfers and closes the graduate door at both ends, in Texas and in Bengaluru alike.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Big US companies like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple, and Walmart have been cutting jobs in the US while opening larger offices in India. These Indian offices are not run by outsourcing firms like Tata or Infosys; the US companies run them directly, using their own employees. India's IT sector grew by 140,000 jobs to 5.9 million in the year to March 2026. At first glance that sounds positive. But the growth happened at in-house US company offices, while traditional Indian IT firms that previously provided outsourced services cut nearly 7,000 jobs. Graduate hiring fell 20-25% even as the total workforce grew. Indian graduates entering the IT sector normally found jobs at outsourcers. Those outsourcer roles are shrinking, and the new GCC roles require experienced specialists rather than new entrants. None of these transfers appear in US job-loss statistics, because the moves happen between branches of the same company.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

GCCs trigger no US WARN Act filing because the transfer is between affiliates of the same company, not a mass layoff at a single US site. They do not enter Stanford's JOLTS analysis because JOLTS measures domestic job openings and separations. WARN Act, JOLTS, and BLS payroll surveys each fail to capture the channel for separate structural reasons.

Entry-level hiring fell 20-25% even as the sector grew because GCCs require mid-career specialists, not graduates. India's IT sector previously absorbed roughly 300,000 graduates a year through mass fresher hiring at outsourcers. That model is being replaced by one that absorbs only workers with five-plus years of enterprise experience.

Escalation

NASSCOM's FY2026 data makes the GCC channel concrete with a named magnitude. The next escalation point is whether US congressional staff or the Bureau of Labor Statistics develop a GCC-tracking methodology that makes the channel visible in domestic statistics.

What could happen next?

Consequence
India's 20-25% drop in entry-level IT hiring despite net sector growth closes the graduate employment pipeline that has absorbed 300,000 Indian engineering graduates annually for two decades.
Medium term · Assessed
Risk
GCC transfers are invisible to every existing US AI displacement metric (WARN Act, JOLTS, BLS payroll), meaning official US job-loss counts structurally understate the offshore transfer component.
Short term · Assessed
Opportunity
NASSCOM's decision to publish GCC growth data separately from traditional outsourcer data creates a statistical foundation for a bilateral US-India transfer disclosure framework.
Long term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources

Primary parallel: The 1990s IT outsourcing wave saw IBM Global Services, EDS, and Accenture build captive delivery centres in India, gradually replacing the direct-employment offshore model with full outsourcing. JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Apple are now reversing that pattern: bringing work back in-house via GCCs rather than leaving it with Infosys or TCS. The structural inversion means the same companies that built the outsourcing industry are now disintermediating it.

Counter-parallel: The manufacturing offshoring wave to China in 2001-2010 produced net employment statistics that showed job gains in Chinese factories while US manufacturing employment fell. The aggregate statistics were accurate but politically catastrophic: the US lost 3.7 million manufacturing jobs in the decade, while aggregate trade data showed growing bilateral commerce. The GCC data risks producing the same statistical normalisation of a politically significant transfer.

The six-month India-to-US cost differential for an equivalent mid-career software engineer role runs at approximately 3:1, making GCC transfers economically self-funding within 12 to 18 months of set-up costs.

JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Apple, and Walmart all appear in both the US cuts data and NASSCOM's GCC growth figures, confirming the same capital is being redeployed rather than saved.

Consensus view: NASSCOM's own research team and the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) identify the GCC expansion as a structural bifurcation within India's IT sector: the in-house captive model is growing while the traditional outsourcing model (TCS, Infosys, Wipro) contracts.

Net growth conceals divergent outcomes for Indian workers: GCC roles pay 30-40% more than outsourcer equivalents but require mid-career skills, closing the entry-level door that previously absorbed 300,000 graduates a year.

Counter-view: Bruegel economist Reinhilde Veugelers and trade researchers at the Centre for European Policy Studies argue the GCC expansion does not represent a genuine transfer of employment: the roles created in Indian GCCs require different and higher skill levels than the roles being eliminated in the US, so the same individuals who lose US positions are not the ones gaining Indian GCC roles.

The net employment number obscures a skills mismatch that both jurisdictions will have to resolve.

Key tension: Whether the GCC channel represents a global labour reallocation that serves aggregate economic efficiency, or a measurement-invisible transfer that benefits multinationals and mid-career Indian engineers while harming US workers and Indian graduates simultaneously.

Sources:ONS (Office for National Statistics)

Mentions:NASSCOM →Global Capability Centre →JPMorgan Chase →Goldman Sachs →Apple →Walmart →Bruegel →Wipro →India →Infosys →Texas →Accenture →China →Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey →

First Reported In

Update #11 · Markets now reward the cut, punish the freeze

ONS (Office for National Statistics)· 1 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

India's GCCs absorb the offshored work

NASSCOM's May FY2026 data makes the offshore GCC magnitude concrete, building on the earlier finding that GCC expansion sits outside US disclosure regimes.

Occurred 15 May 2026

Read story →

This Event

India IT grows 140,000 as US firms cut

The offshore Global Capability Centre channel is a measurement gap no US labour instrument can see, recording cuts as losses and never as transfers.

Different Perspectives

Gulf shipping and insurance markets

With Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb both hostile at once, war-risk underwriters face their first dual-chokepoint pricing problem; the rerouting hedge that absorbed one closure is gone for Israeli-linked hulls. Any deal that reopens Hormuz without a Houthi stand-down clause delivers only partial shipping relief.

Russia and China

Russia and China met IAEA chief Grossi jointly in Geneva on 5 June to coordinate an advance blocking position against Washington's censure resolution, the first documented instance of proactive pre-session obstruction rather than reactive post-vote dissent. Beijing's move came four days after OFAC designated Shanghai Qianye Energy under Iran energy sanctions.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia was left out of the emergency $4.01 billion Patriot waiver Qatar received on 2 May as its own PAC-3 stocks ran near-empty from intercepting Iranian salvoes over Aramco facilities. Riyadh is on a standard 18-month FMS queue behind a production line booked through 2030, with no equivalent priority to Qatar's Al Udeid basing role.

Houthis (Ansar Allah)

The Houthis declared a complete ban on Israeli Red Sea navigation on 8 June and struck Jaffa, their first attack on Israeli territory since April, seven days after the Tasnim authorisation to activate other fronts including Bab el-Mandeb. The declaration put both chokepoints under hostile authority simultaneously.

Iran

Iran agreed the 9 June mutual halt after the Mahshahr exchange and coordinated with Russia and China to block Washington's IAEA censure resolution, using the Board as a second front while the bilateral pause held on the military one. Tehran's acceptance of the Lebanon carve-out contradicts the linkage position it stated on 1 June.

Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF

Israel struck the Karun Petrochemical plant at Mahshahr on 8 June over Trump's explicit objection, then agreed a halt with Iran the following day scoped on Israeli terms with Lebanon carved out. Netanyahu's posture is that the IDF will not accept Iranian missile factories as off-limits regardless of US diplomatic timelines.