Last week we saw how only a small and irrelevant portion of our national research spending was being directed through our institutes of higher education. We also saw, in the light of documents released by the Department of Science and Technology, how much of this spending was directed towards defence and nuclear research.

This issue of preferential allocation investigated, we were left with one important question: What had led to this deep and wide gulf between teaching and research?

In the course of the consulting project mentioned in Part 1 of this series we asked several academicians about this problem. Initially, I must admit, we explored this issue merely to give closure to our research. We did not want to leave what was a recurring issue in our discussions with academicians open and unanswered. So each time we spoke to somebody we asked them why this was so? Why were our universities so out of the loop when it came to doing research and supporting the national R&D strategy?

But before I elaborate on the historical reasons for this ‘research-teaching‘ gulf and concentrate on the journal article that helped us most it is important to understand, albeit as quickly as possible, the significance of this question. Why was this an issue at all? How did bifurcating teaching and research change anything? How did this diminish the quality and quantity of our research output as a nation?

This part of the article took several rewrites. At first I told a story highlighting the faults in the current system: incomplete educational experience, poor retention of good quality students from graduate to post-graduate levels, faulty incentive systems to do research and a tremendous resistance to change. But then it occurred to me that the average reader who reads this article is going to be aware of most of these problems. And besides it would be too substantial a digression from the topic of the series. So I then adopted the approach below: one where I try to detail what we found to be the positive impacts of close proximity of teaching and research activities. But that then had a certain lack of context. So finally what we have is a mix of both.

Walking the talk

Reading about electron microscopes is one thing. Seeing a functional one in real life is a completely different experience. And this is true for any technology and science. Real learning, the academic experience that rises beyond text-book and committing to memory, occurs when the student is able to touch and feel concepts and devices. Research facilities give this essential added dimension to a university. If you are a metallurgist, as the author is, you should be able to see furnaces and materials testing equipment to get a real feel for the science. But stand alone teaching institutions cannot provide this. To use a highly over-used consulting jargon, an Indian engineering or science college’s core competence is not in research or in writing papers or in filing patents. It is in turning out graduates. The more the better.

It is not uncommon to see engineering students march away during their vacations to government run laboratories if they are really keen to do projects and internships. Imagine the impact on our classroom courses if we can provide the same facilities inhouse.

Keeping the brains in school

Talk to any graduate of an IIT, IIM, NIT or any other prominent institution about the post-graduate program. This might ruffle a few feathers but it is no secret that most post-graduate programs are considered severely inferior cousins to the more glamorous mainstream graduation programs. An ex-professor at one of the better engineering colleges said this in an interview: "There maybe a few genuinely interested students in the Master’s programs but most of them are there to gain access into the placement system. The bars are much much higher at the graduate level and many Master’s students are there to bypass that restriction."

This is pitiful. But the author can vouch for this having seen post-graduate students from programs ranging from Welding Technology to Thermal Engineering line up for Infosys, Wipro and TCS.

On the other hand solid research activities within our Universities help to retain talented individuals. At least a handful of the graduate students might find it worthwhile to continue within our University system and pursue further education. Today they are forced to either apply abroad or, alternately, apply to one of the government-run facilities through a rather sarkari process.

To he who deserves

Research needs an incentive system that is different from that of a typical public institution. Innovators will not thrive in a system of pay-scales and seniority-based promotions. It is no secret that budgetary allocation for research is based on many many factors besides the quality and impact of the work being conducted.

Our consulting team quickly came to some conclusions about the university structure that would give greatest output-per-rupee spent and do this in the shortest possible time. We recommended a ‘Centers of Excellence’ model where the client’s University would focus on certain key areas of research and recruit the talent to get it off the ground as soon as possible. We threw the idea around with academics. The responses reflect the prevalent mentality:

‘You mean you will pay different people different salaries?’

‘How can you give more prominence to certain areas of research?’

‘Will people be forced to perform in order to keep their jobs?’

‘You mean the researchers will have to both teach and do research?’

‘It is best to keep pay-scales. Otherwise there will be politics and jealousy.’

This is an issue of more than just research administration. Even our universities need to change. Western universities routinely offer professors corporate salaries to lure them. Jagdish Bagawathi was recently offered a package of several hundred thousand dollars to move to the University of XYZ. This is change to a meritorious compensation system needs a sea change in outlook on the part of the government and the nation as a whole. This means being open to evaluating performance and having the freedom to award excellence. Both anathema to public institutions.

The Bhabha-Nehru-Saha Saga

So finally we come to the crux of our story. The article we hinted at, ‘India’s Lopsided Science’ appeared in the “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists” in May 1991. The author, Dhirendra Sharma, was an eminent teacher and scientist. Sharma sketched out a bleak history of how, post-Independence, due to a lack of vision, or perhaps due to one too myopic, we lost a historic opportunity to leverage on an existing culture of research in our universities. And the man he holds responsible for this dramatic turnaround in policy? : Homi Bhabha. Bhabha is a giant in the history of Indian R&D. But not a gentle one. The nation may have honoured him by naming institutions after him but Dhirendra Sharma is not subtle with his rebuke.

Post-independence India found itself at a disadvantage vis-à-vis industrialised nations when it came to science and technology. War-time research had by-passed India completely and Nehru saw the need to push for rapid progress. And the government decided that atomic science took priority. Homi Bhabha was chosen to head the Atomic Energy Commission in 1948.

Till his death in 1966 Bhabha ran it like a personal fiefdom.

Bhabha quickly garnered the favour of Prime Minister Nehru. The voice he replaced was that of Meghnad Saha, a prominent scientist himself and Nehru’s scientific mentor before Bhabha usurped that position. Meghnad did not take to AEC or Bhabha well. Dhirendra Sharma writes:

‘Saha opposed the idea of separating fundamental research from the mainstream of science teaching in the universities, and he was against the creation of an independent atomic energy agency. When the AEC was eventually formed, he refused to be associated with the nuclear establishment. But Nehru, as prime minister, did not heed the counsel of his old scientific mentor, and Saha was forced to take an independent stand on national science planning. By 1954, his was the lone voice of dissent. Indian science policy had become a captive of the state.’

And while Saha fumed, Bhabha quickly secured his position and control. Sharma says about Bhabha:

‘With his new mandate, Bhabha aggressively concentrated all big science research under his domain, the Department of Atomic Energy. Indian universities were denied funding for such research and were unable to purchase equipment or attract young scientists from abroad. Only Bhabha’s department was authorized to initiate, explore, plan, and execute nuclear studies and research. The situation remains essentially unchanged today.’

Bhabha, Sharma continues, was inspired by technologically advanced nations and chose big-budget projects that made the nation increasingly dependent on external assistance. He even quotes a rather chilling comment by Bertrand Russell on Bhabha’s insularity and belliegerence. Russell talks about his efforts to establish the Pugwash Conference:

"I had hoped that I might be supported in it by the Indian scientists and Government. At the beginning of Nehru’s visit to London in February, 1955, my hope of it soared. Nehru himself had seemed most sympathetic. I lunched with him and talked with him at various meetings and receptions. He had been exceedingly friendly. But when I met Dr. Bhabha, India’s leading official scientist, towards the end of Nehru’s visit, I received a cold douche. He had profound doubts about any such manifesto, let alone any such conference as I had in mind for the future [Pugwash]. It became evident that I should receive no encouragement from Indian official scientific quarters."

Even when committees were formed to review Bhabha’s policies dissent was rarely tolerated. Opponents were dealt with mercilessly. A trend, Dhirendra Sharma believes, Babha bequeathed to subsequent administrators and is a common occurrence to his day. The first conference that raised question marks about Bhabha’s policy and its implementation was convened in 1970, a full four years after Bhabha’s death.

Sharma goes on to talk about other committee reports and findings and how the critical ones have been routinely ignored. There is much to read and think about throughout the remainder of the article. Some of the statistics and anecdotes are noteworthy. The fact that in spite of  a fifth of all research funding going into Atomic Energy, only 2% of total electric power comes from the said source. Or the story about Indira Gandhi’s insistence on building the reactor at Narora for political reasons.

Another interesting comment in the paper is about a ‘Science City’ project declared by the government back when the article was written by Sharma. Sharma calls it a futile exercise. Readers may correct me here but I doubt any such project ever reached completion.

There is much more to quote from and discuss about the article by Dhirendra Sharma. However the reader must be warned while reading his comments that Sharma is a staunch opponent of the Atomic Program and the Bulletin itself is a vehicle for peaceful use of atomic technology.

Yet the article raises important questions especially when India is increasingly hyping itself on being a player in the knowledge economy. Now that we have opened our economy, and have begun privatizing even our airports having seen the folly of government contro, are we ready to rethink our research policies? Can we bring back cutting edge research and thinking to our universities?

This means demolishing several edifices in our science and technology system that date back to Nehru and Bhabha. This will not be easy but the payoffs for the country are tremendous. Perhaps finally we will be able to unleash the potential in our brightest scientists and technologists. The nation needs much more research in more than just defense and atomic energy. With better facilities and greater access to research funding our graduates could begin finding solutions to several of our pressing problems of better crops, more modern cities, better amenities et al and consequently healthier, happier people.

But till then, till someone is ready to question our inefficiencies, the intrepid scientist is left with two options: GRE and a full scholarship or, shudder, Scientist Grade-3 (7000-8000-450-600-21000). Or some such thing.

[Sidin Sunny Vadukut is an avid blogger and proud author of a book which is currently undergoing a severe quality control program. He wishes to make it clear that he does not internalize too much. He once walked eleven kilometers in pouring rain because of a flash bus strike and the next day ate eighteen idlis with surprisingly little coconut chutney. You can read more of his work at http://sidin.blogspot.com]

{mosimage}

({mhauthor})

Also by

• Consultation Freeze - September 4th, 2006
• Need for Speed - August 28th, 2006
• Meals on wheels - August 14th, 2006
• Whither tomorrow - August 7th, 2006
• Bombay Dreams - August 7th, 2006

Share This