That said, "Indian" is too big of a group. How much does this involve cross-caste versus intra-caste hiring?
And also pointing out that people looking at Indian hiring trends from the outside need to be aware that Indian (/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Diaspora/look-alike Sri Lankan) people do not see themselves as a monolith. They are not only as diverse as European peoples, but tack on caste on top of it.
If an Indian is only hiring Indians, but is hiring Indians from all castes, this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
Does that make this behavior okay? Let's run a thought experiment:
If a White man is only hiring White men, but is hiring White men from all ethnic groups (English, French, German, Italian, Polish, etc.), this might be better than a Yalie (graduate of Yale) hiring only other Yalies.
And no, I'm not talking about ethnic group hiring here (primarily), I'm talking about caste-based hiring. Which would make the following a better parallel:
If a White man is only hiring White people, but is hiring from all economic and educational groups (from dirt-poor white folk with a third-grade education to blue-bloods with post-doctoral certifications), this is better than a Yalie hiring only other Yalies. All else held equal.
Edit: I figured out how to change it without losing the idea.
Computer disciplines are different than most others in not requiring a degree to prove competency. I'm in biology, and good luck getting any decent job without a B.S., regardless of how competent you are. For Bio jobs a third-grade education is only a third-grade education, regardless of your self-taught skills.