My Blog List

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

"Jaipur Literature Festival: From Ideas of Republic towards Republic of Ideas !"

========================================== ======
“I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non-violence
are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both 
on as vast a scale as I could.” ---Mahatma Gandhi
==========================================

Bhalchandra Nemade, author who broke with traditions of sacrosanct style of presenting culture, literature and language was speaking in exactly same tone as Mahatma was expressing few decades ago. Born in pre-independence days and having written path-breaking Novel Kosala (Cocoon) in experimental, rebellious days of 1960s, as was the case all over the world; Dr. Nemade has tried to immortalize heritage of our most basic emotions out of daily life i.e. longing towards cherishing virtues of life while at the same time without being detached from vacuum, nothingness and futileness of temporary matters in our affair with material quest. Dr. Nemade said that by breaking up language, text and symbol he has done nothing new but only lived to the great legacy of Tukaram, Buddha and Phule. In fact, while realizing that all rebellious voices have been uttered by these great thinkers, he considers it as just emulating them without slightest impact the legendary characters of history had.


If you consider yourself a literary rebel, then be sure that whole world is shaped and decided by you. This point was emphasized by one session which discussed 'Maps of Love and Hate: Nationalism and Arab Literature'—that not a single identity of the countries in middle east, west Asia has been defined by politicians, statesmen but by authors, novelists, playwrights.  The dissent which I represent has to be inspired from the diverse coalition of all castes, creeds, religions, languages and beliefs. When I write, I have to write for all of them.  I feel very rich having a rich and extended family of kins—organic and social. These views were echoed by Jeet Thayel whose recent novel ‘Narcopolis’ was nominated for Booker Prize. 

There are many types of narratives and different streams of interpretations in our culture and literature. There are norms with which these interpretations has to be documented in literature, expressed in performing arts, broadcasted and disseminate through traditional and modern media.  But subverting those styles, those “biased sacred norms” for mocking at the history, reimagining history and thus reinterpret our present and perspectives towards future in more nuanced / native`s way is my core idea of thematic narration of daily life which I did in Kosala (Cocoon).

“I was the first person in Marathi to use the Khandeshi language for writing a novel by breaking the long standing tradition and admanant one sided belief that creativity can be expressed in only one manner and that is tried but not contested by out of the way experiments. I used diary form to great extent in the novel to open up my unorthodox way of looking towards life. Strength of diary form refuses categorization of communities, cultures, thinking. I wanted to use humour, sarcastic way of mocking at history.”  

From another session where Anjum Hasan, Gayatri Chakravorthi Spivac, Manu Jospeh, Chandrahas Chaudhari discussed what constitutes criticism, reviewing and appreciating books, literature. Criticizing any work is all about writing, thinking and building connections between them. We should always try to understand what writer wants to say. Thirty fourty years ago when the voices of oppressed and downtrodden were started to be echoed in the sub-altern   literature it was largely following tradition of powerful convictions of French deconstructionists.
“You cannot approach subaltern with metaphor. You have to be direct, explicit, provocative and honest in your submission.”

Manu Joseph, writer of a novel ‘Serious Men’, referred cook Rat in a movie ‘Ratatouille’. The protagonist in this movie describes the great experiments Rat cook does while being in Paris. Role of critic or reviewer is not to write what people want to read. One cannot be good critic who wants to play safe. Great artist/writer can come from anywhere no matter what the background is. Christhopher Ricks said that we have to remember where the technique starts and where it ends. We have to rehear and re-imagine the  ways of interpreting literature. Wit is so important a weapon in inspecting the opinions and review, critic gives a sharp way of doing it. We have to develop analytical skills, sensibility of method, how much a personality has invested in understanding the thoughts and arguments in the book. He also said that there is a difference between what critic from academia writes and that what reviewer from media writes about contemporary and historical books. Reviewers educational background may help them to become critic but reviewer`s ability to connect to the thinking, aspirations of readers is better suited to them to become a dependable reviewer. Criticism brings in lot of information about the history of the subject of text, knowledge about the diversity, problem areas, arguments existing, evolving in literature and thus the ability to analyze the complex texts. Reviewers have to do the same thing considering the positive intention of the readers towards the books which they might read after going through the review.

Anjum Hasan referred to Amit Chaoudhari who analyses often the necessity to go beyond virtues of ‘cultural nationalism’; creating inhabitation of our self transcends national, racial, regional boundaries. Local, nuanced and thematic appreciation of the making of the book leads to global because the original virtues are essentially diverse, located in specific locality and always having special ecology.  What writer is doing has direct connections with a theory put by Ronald Barthez  i.e. Death of Author. Sometimes believing the ‘death of an author’ after the book has been published may infuse limitations in our assessment of the work. We have to understand how author has negotiated self with text; what exactly author is doing, rather than what author has said in a text? What about mind behind writing? When asked by someone  that for a common reader who does not know deconstruction by Derrida, Foucault how meaningful and relevant can be book criticism and book review then panel replied that we should be able to give entire picture, spectrum of arguments from contemporary, literary history so as to respect freedom of readers mind to think about it proactively. 


Gayatri Spivac said that criticism can become boring as a teaching subject except when one looks at it out of historical context. “First we have to teach how to perform a reading of a text”, she said. Ranajit Guha, Dipesh Chakravarty have written extensively about sub-altern movement and literature. By invoking Derrida, she said that “Reason” remains the principle weapon behind the strengthening of sub-altern voices. But we have to be sensible for understanding the difference between “reason” and “reasonable”. For fearless critic of writers, we have to expand our reading base. By consistent reading we have to manage to discover unearthing gems from ocean of literary criticism.

Finally Anjum Hasan said that book reviewer should not be a reviewer alone, they should do their other day jobs. By just being book reviewer, one can become monotonous, narrow minded conservative in assessing books through one lens only. We have to be grateful by acknowledging the great legacy of work done in particular theme because we cannot move ahead in reviewing any work without reflecting on the great body of work done previously either supporting or rejecting our point of view. Every work has great historical relationship with previously published equally and more compelling works so listening, reading of those voices is very significant process while reviewing, criticizing upcoming work. It must be remembered that reviewing is not being judgmental. Quick opinion must not be confused with slowly developed argument. Our judgment has to evolve through carefully crafted through arguments. In a way book-reviewing and book-criticism has a long way to go in India.

Its all about engagement with a text, culture and minds. Review is a bit follower of charm of writing but critic may patronize particular tradition of the intellectual history while finalizing the critic of new books. Panel expressed their unhappiness over the fact that book reviewing and book criticism has become hostage to the marketing, advertising, and promotion professionals in India and therefore one can get swayed away by torrent of PR so as to ignore original/harsh reviews.

“Colonization of mind through English language was another issue of discussion of another session where diplomat Pawan Verma, journalist Ravish Kumar, critic Ashok Vajpayee, academic and write Uday Narayan Singh, write Ira Pande were discussing the dialectic between Hindi and English. All of them agreed that Hindi has become colonial ‘English’ for all of the Indians in a way we can’t live without it but still being hegemonised by it.
In session, The Vanishing Present:Post Colonial Critiques Anjum Hasan interviewed Gayatri Chakravorthy Spivok and Amit Chaoudhari. They discussed literature in the era of globalization, ethical impulse s in literature, relevance of aesthetics education, status of education in 21st century and place of literature in university.

Prof. Spivac expressed great anguish that place of literature in university is vanishing slowly. You can’t train youngsters to read literature by emphasizing on the value or benefits of it. We have to sensitize about the process of how literature evolves in our life, how words get expression. We have to engage students in a dialogue about how to train our mind deeply into ethical impulse of literature with our whole soul, body and mind. We have to train our imagination though active imagination to change the ways of how we know.

Amit said that we have to imagine for whom we are writing for, who our foreign audiences are. While reading a text, we have to be aware about what the literary affiliations of the author are and what the literary arguments of author are. We have to understand how author creates oneness with readers? Assessing Literature is a very complex field. Current post-colonial literature suffers with a problem that it has allowed to glorify exotication of everything, language estrangement. There are different feelings about how we should write about different places. There is a special mythology about exoticizing we need to move away from. We have to develop a way to read things which have travelled. Globalization and changing profile of readership is compelling us to look towards literature and readership in a certain prejudiced way. English being engine of globalization, there are massive forces which are impacting provincialising of literature. German and French provinces of literature have their own way in thinking about life. We have to be aware about increasing trend in masses of writers in India who are thinking in English so not able to express themselves the issues from the roots here.
Discussing question that “Is reading literature an ethical practice?” Prof. Spivac said that We read to transform ourselves. We constantly try to learn through languages, books, experience, events, and processes. Literature allows us freedom to act of becoming different person, to feel unique experiences characters in book are having and thinking each jeanre in text is giving. Like Marathi poet Arun Kolhatkar, who used to say that I keep my pencil sharpened at both ends and I believe to write away from King`s English. Same was reflected when Bhalchandra Nemade was talking about his novel Kosla.

All the Ideas of Republic were at the forefront on 26th January for confrontational debate on different stages named ‘Republic of Ideas’ participated by Tarun Tejpal, Patrik French, Ashish Nandy, Richard Sorabji, Urvashi Butalia. Another session on same day was devoted to ‘ Freedom of Speech and Expression’. The row created by previous session justified the perfect positioning of later. Ashish Nandy in his complex argument dealt with idea of equality in Indian context being strengthened by unavoidable evolution of corruption in all castes, classes and creeds leading towards making Indian republic more robust, vibrant and thriving living up to the great struggle of social and political movements our country witnessed for equal opportunities, justice and well-being to all kinds of people. This particular way of presenting argument received conservative political/social response leading towards exit of Prof. Nandy from the festival.

Session of freedom of expression was presented by John Kampfner, Shoma Chaudhury, John Burnside, Basharat Peer and Timothy Ash. This session greatly dealt with how government authorities react to the freedom of expression and how public deal with notion of free expression. To how much degree there is a desire in public to accept or be flexible to take offense. In todays India, we take freedom of expression for granted. Questioning the Article 19 (2) and its provisions which list the exceptions under which our right of freedom of expression can be repealed, is the need of the hour. In the age of “Market of Ideas”, we are debating democratic processes.  While discussing the freedom of expression there are two areas where the contestation about this is most prevalent; in cultural production and in public discourse. In creative culture production industry there must be freedom to experiment with text, art-form and craft unless it provokes communal disharmony and violence. In democratic/public discourse we have to develop senses, culture and environment where we respect the culture to take offenses in constructive ways. Freedom of expression in armchair activism has also created many problems, by taking absolute freedom.

Police are doing surveillance of press activities. Lot of magazines, newspapers remains dependent on advertisements given by central government agencies like DAVP etc. Legal threats, possibility of hacking by state/non-state actors are also possibility. Our laws give sanction to legislative actions if legislature is not satisfied with the coverage of specific issue. All those discussions were tested immediately in the real-time of festival as all types of threats were exercised on Prof.Nandy from boycott to arrest. 

Many colours and shades of Republic and lot of grey areas, surely !!!
==================================

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Our scientific experiment (THE UNENDING WISHLIST !!!)

Authored by Deepak Pental, Posted online: Fri Jan 18 2013, 02:57 hrs by The Indian Express

============================================================

 
Of all the nations that got freedom from the colonial powers in the 20th century, India had the most progressive leadership, not only in political thinking but also in science and technology. Almost everyone admires and appreciates Jawaharlal Nehru’s passion for science and technology, both for the economic well-being of the country and for deepening secular values through the development of a scientific temper. Fortunately, all those who have followed him have more or less been benevolent towards science and technology. However, a passionate approach towards advancing science and technology has been missing among the political class, policy-makers and science-technology practising community. That is why, in spite of a visionary start, we are still struggling to be counted as a big science and technology nation. In general, we are people with a quasi-feudal mentality. Hierarchies are more important to us than passion for knowledge. Rituals and superstitions come more naturally to us than a scientific temper.Although the scientific community will claim to be more progressive than society at large, a quest for exclusivity, a bureaucratic disposition and comfort with mediocrity are hallmarks of India’s science and technology community. There is a deep sense of inferiority to western science, although there is a general lack of desire to follow the good practices of science and technology management in the western countries. 

The Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy 2013, authored by the ministry of science and technology and released at the 100th Indian Science Congress in Kolkata, unfortunately reflects all these propensities. It is a tepid document, full of wishes and desires, but it hardly describes any structural or procedural changes which will achieve the grand goal of integrating science, technology and innovation to create value in an inclusive manner. The declaration lists 12 points to capture India’s aspirations in STI — promoting the spread of scientific temper; enhancing skills; making careers in science, research and innovation attractive; establishing world-class infrastructure and gaining global leadership in select frontier areas; making India among the five top global scientific powers; enhanced private-sector participation in research and development (R&D) and converting it into applications through a PPP model; seeding science and technology based high-risk innovations. All of these aim to create a robust national innovation system.

Haven’t we wished all this before? Various departments of the science and technology ministry, as well as other ministries, continue to run scores of schemes trying to promote all these facets. In fact, there is a tendency to start new programmes and let the existing ones decay. What we need is an honest appraisal of all the schemes and learn from both the failures and the successes. Unfortunately, the cultural deficits of Indian society and the scientific community cannot be easily wished away. The hope lies in making structural changes that will circumvent our cultural deficit and break the vicious cycle of over-bureaucratisation in science and technology and comfort with mediocrity.

Here I will suggest some structural changes in the way we deal with STI issues which may bring better dividends. India’s grand challenge lies neither in science nor in innovation. Great insights in science cannot be seeded or wished for, they just happen, provided there is passion for knowledge in society. In innovation, India has done well. A recent report on India’s STI achievements commends it for frugal innovations. With India’s brightest opting for engineering and management degrees, innovation is bound to happen. What we should worry about more is creating a science-technology interface to develop robust technologies for meeting national needs and for the creation of wealth. This is where organised thinking and a proper policy framework could be most useful.

The most appropriate vehicle for supporting science, and a science and technology interface, is a competitive grants system funded by public money. All strong science and technology countries have excellent competitive grants systems where scientists and technologists individually, and more recently in large consortia, submit R&D projects that are reviewed and funded. Fortunately, in India, all the science departments have competitive grants systems for funding R&D projects. However, there are too many schemes and decision-making is excruciatingly slow. The most important innovation we require is a proposal tracking system that will track the progress of the proposal from submission to peer review to rejection or acceptance to final release of the grant. Currently, these procedures are taking about one to two years. If we care for science and technology, we need to cut short this time to six months. In any case, science departments very urgently require enterprise resource planning to streamline their processes. Innovation should start from the science departments itself.

The second important structural change is comprehensive funding of R&D projects, at least to the universities and public institutions. With the increased funding for R&D promised in the 12th plan, there is no reason to keep the concept of comprehensive funding out of the reckoning. This will bust the ill-conceived design of keeping universities starved of research funding.

Once the project is sanctioned, investigators should be given the freedom to use funding earmarked for consumables and procuring services without bureaucratic hassles in their own institutes. The vice-chancellors and directors of our universities and institutes must trust the scientific community to use the project funds properly.

Every effort should be made to expand and strengthen institutions that serve the cause of both teaching and research rather than to open exclusive research institutions around personalities. The culture of research institutes, in any case, is antithetical to creativity in the long run as scientists and technologists in such institutes do not teach and therefore do not contribute towards inspiring the next generation.

While some attempts are being made to attract young scientists and technologists who have drifted abroad for post-doctoral research back to the country, it is critical that a new generation of human resource is created by sending students for doctoral work in leading science and technology institutes across the world. The new IITs, central universities and Indian Institutes of Science and Education Research should be populated with such researchers and teachers, but our comfort with mediocrity is so high that we do not seem to care to look at a model through which East Asia, China and, more recently, Latin America have benefited tremendously.

All these structural changes can be carried to meet India’s science and technology aspirations, but implementing them will require strong convictions and the ability to cut through the current policy haze. Otherwise, wishes will mostly remain just wishes. 
===================================

Sunday, January 13, 2013

100 Years of Indian Science Congress




 
First Indian Science Congress, 1914
First Indian Science Congress, 1914

1. Keep open house discussions on big science projects/themes: If at all the Congress is to be the place to make policy announcements, then make it also the place where its rationale is discussed. Almost every policy today is inseparable from technicalities – energy, healthcare, education, defense, communication, etc. Choose big subjects, get the most relevant and renowned people in the field to present the most updated data and discussion. For instance, take one space mission or a new technical area (say, the cryogenic stages of GSLV which have gone through ups and downs or, why ISRO needs cross fertilization with the industry), get the people working on it to discuss the challenges and scope of these programs. Similarly, it could be about nuclear power (After protests in all corners of the country, the least nuclear scientists can do is have town hall meetings on these subjects), shale gas exploration or new solar energy strategy. 

2. Feed science/tech into evidence-based policy making: Science is supposed to advice public policy. But is that advice based on evidence today? Perhaps sometimes, but not always. Let me cite an example. The Toronto-based epidemiologist, Prabhat Jha has been long running this research called Million Death Study and using data from the first 250,000 deaths, his team has showed that 1 million people are dying in India from smoking related diseases. It forced the govt to step up the gas on using warning labels on tobacco products. It also showed 100,000 people were dying from AIDS, nearly a quarter of the number that UN was advocating. Resources have been (or are being) reallocated as HIV treatment is expensive. Similarly, snakebite deaths amount to 50,000, the total number for worldwide cases according to the WHO, forcing government and primary health care centres to focus on stocking venom and other necessary medicines.

3. Open up govt data with immediate effect: There’s a worldwide trend to make govt data available online in open formats and licenses that allow people to use it freely. India too made its beginning. But even a few months after the beta launch of the India data portal, it looks almost devoid of any useful data. While a long list of suggestions from users is already up there, it’d be worth anybody’s while if all ministries and public institutions worked in a coordinated manner to make their data available. Opportunities are particularly big for entrepreneurs in healthcare, energy, urban planning, and other natural resources. As Vijay Chandru, founder-chairman of bio-informatics company Strand Life Sciences says, it is the “Y2K moment” for companies in India.

4. No separate Academy for young scientists and engineers: The PM last year said a proposal has been mooted for a separate Academy for the young. To my mind, that would create wider divides. Instead, give 40 percent seats in the existing Academies to scientists/engineers under 40. Besides removing some deadwood, it’d infuse energy in the remaining members who also need to change with time, especially now when nobody retires; people move from one role to another.

5. If ISC cannot reinvent or reform itself, it should shut shop, just end: It serves no academic or practical purpose. And like all legacies, is hijacked by governmental science.

On Jan 3, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then a member of the Interim Government and was to become the PM eight months later, had said:  “Governments normally are very slow and the only thing that moves them is some immediate outcry which affects their future indirectly. Therefore, I should discourage among the scientists a reliance always on what Government may or may not do.” Was Nehru prescient or intuitive?
When I asked Balaram whether he is optimistic about the fate of scientific enterprise in India or pessimistic, his response was neutral: “Matters take care of themselves over time, that’s how it happens in biology…”

Science in India: Reflections on the Anniversary of a Congress: Editorial by P. Balaram in Current Science (http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/11/1255.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Left, Right, Centre: Whirlwind on STI Policy 2013 (Media Coverage)



This 2005/2007 Report strongly urges US to look to STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) for tackling global challenges, within and outside its boundary...when India will learn from these kind of reports?


India today unveiled a new science policy that lays greater thrust on innovation, establishing research institutes and encourage women scientists with an aim to position itself among the top five scientific powers in the world by 2020.
The Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy, 2013 also speaks of modifying the intellectual property regime to provide for marching rights for social good when supported by public funds and co-sharing of patents generated in the public private partnership mode.
Unveiling the STI policy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it aspires to position India among the top five global scientific powers by 2020.
"It is an ambitious goal," he said, adding the policy also aims at producing and nurturing talent in science, to stimulate research in universities, to develop young leaders in the field of science and to reward performance.
It also seeks to create a policy environment for greater private sector participation in research and innovation and to forge international alliances and collaborations to meet the national agenda, he said.
The policy also talks of raising gross expenditure in R&D to two per cent of GDP from the current one per cent in this decade by encouraging enhanced private sector contribution.
"The policy is truly aspirational and seeks to accelerate the pace of discovery and delivery of science-led solutions for faster, sustainable and inclusive growth," Science and Technology Minister S Jaipal Reddy said.
He dubbed the policy as a "rare and resounding expression of collective will and wisdom of the Indian scientific community that is at once a product of and a clarion call of the scientific community".
The document is a revision of the 2003 policy which sought to bring science and technology together and emphasised on the need for higher investment into R&D to address national problems.
The (STI) policy also seeks to trigger an ecosystem for innovative abilities to flourish by leveraging partnerships among diverse stakeholders and by encouraging and facilitating enterprises to invest in innovations.
The aim of the policy is to accelerate the pace of discovery, diffusion and delivery of science-led solutions for serving the aspirational goals of India for faster, sustainable and inclusive growth.
The key features of the STI Policy 2013 include making careers in science, research and innovation attractive, establishing world-class infrastructure for R&D for gaining global leadership in some select frontier areas of science.
The policy also includes linking contributions of science, research and innovation system with the inclusive economic growth agenda and combining priorities of excellence and relevance.
It also stresses on creating an environment for enhanced private sector participation in R&D, enabling conversion of R&D outputs into societal and commercial applications by replicating successful models as well as establishing of new public-private partnership structures.
India first unveiled its Scientific Policy Resolution in 1958 which resolved to "foster, promote and sustain" the cultivation of science and scientific research in all its aspects.
The Technology Policy Statement of 1983 focused on the need to attain technological competence and self reliance.
Officials said in today's world, innovation was no longer a mere appendage to S&T but has assumed centre stage in its own right in the development of countries around the world.

Inculcate rational thinking among people: PM to scientists
In a first, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today chaired a panel discussion of eminent scientists where he asked them to collectively ensure that science-led innovation would pave the way for the rise of India.
Initiating the discussion on 'Science for Shaping the Future of India', he also asked scientists to take up the task of inculcating rational thinking among the ordinary people.
"The scientific community will also need to introspect whether our society is geared to making full use of the offerings of science," he told the panel comprising Principal Scientific Adviser R Chidambaram, eminent agriculture scientist M S Swaminathan and Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington.
Observing that every generation of scientists in every country has fought existing prejudices and convictions, Singh said, "Inculcating rational thinking among the ordinary people is a task that scientists, from their vantage point, should take upon themselves as a sacred mission."
He said the accretion of knowledge had accelerated in recent times throwing up exciting possibilities.
"This has also opened up the question of whether our existing scientific paradigms are adequate to meet the challenges of future or whether we need new paradigms."
Singh said scientists need to be visionaries and offer tomorrow's solution to tomorrow's challenges.
"How do we manage the resource needs of the projected population of the world in 2035? How do we meet the needs of food and nutrition, energy and environment, water and sanitation and affordable healthcare? These are among the big questions that the scientists should apply themselves to," Singh said.
Participating in the discussion, Swaminathan said there was a growing degree of divergence between public perception and science.
He citied the recent controversies over genetically-modified organisms and the agitation over safety aspects of nuclear power, particularly in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident.
"It is very important to bridge the growing gap of perception between science and the society," he said.
Swaminathan referred to a committee on public understanding of science of the Royal Society of London that encourages scientists to take up public outreach activities about their research.
Beddington cautioned that the future, unlike the past, would pose enormous problems for fuel and water security, agriculture production as farmers would not be able to rely solely on weather patterns.
"We have to be thinking about meeting these challenges," he said.
Chidambaram made a strong pitch for participation of Indian scientists in mega-science projects and called for greater investments in establishing research facilities.
He also wanted a stronger interface between the academic institutions and the industry.
Chidambaram, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, also reiterated the need for nuclear power to meet the growing energy needs of the country.
Science and Technology Minister S Jaipal Reddy wanted the scientists to develop solutions to the problems faced by the poor of the country.
He said innovation should focus on cheap and practical solutions which were appropriate for India's needs.


Not every attempt, however serious it may be, can result in a success. But that cannot be a reason not to make the attempt or to help someone in making that attempt. Not that the science and technology establishment in the government did not realise this earlier, but it is only now that it has decided to take the risks and back those who need help in taking these risks. The decision to establish a ‘Risky Idea Fund’ and promote a mechanism like ‘Small Idea Small Money’ are healthy and refreshing initiatives outlined in the new science policy — Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy — unveiled by the government last week.
Policy documents are never short on pious declarations or new ideas. It is their translation into action that is generally lacking. Still the STI policy is promising because it takes a new leap of faith. Apart from the near-complete emphasis on promoting innovation — especially innovation that will lead to making life easier for the disadvantaged and disabled — the policy realises new ground realities and indicates that the government is ready to grapple with them.
Treating research and development activity in the private sector at par with public institutions as far as availing of public funds is concerned is again an idea that shows a change in mindset. And here the intent is not to fund big companies and organisations but the little start-ups or individuals who require small seed money to try to translate their innovative ideas into successful business. The fabled stories of garage-stores growing into awe-inspiring MNCs might still be some distance away from being replicated, but at least the government would not be faulted for not trying.
By announcing its intent, the government has completed the easier part. The more difficult part would be to fulfil the promises made in the policy document. As some scientists point out, a change in mindset need not wait for a policy to be unveiled. The painstakingly compiled database of grassroots innovations at the National Innovation Foundation or the database of traditional knowledge, both efforts of government agencies themselves, have thousands of ideas that have the potential of commercial success, if only some support is provided. An overwhelming number of them are innovations which are also socially “inclusive”, a stated objective of the policy. The waiting game should be over.
(Amitabh is a Senior Assistant Editor based in Delhi) 


Releasing the "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013" at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that it was intended to "position India among the top five global scientific powers by the year 2020."
India has a new science policy. Releasing the “Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013” at the centenary session of the Indian Science Congress in Kolkata last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh declared that it was intended to “position India among the top five global scientific powers by the year 2020.” It bears recalling that in 1958 both Houses of Parliament adopted a “Scientific Policy Resolution” which, in elegant prose, underscored the importance of science and technology for a developing nation. The government would, the resolution said, “foster, promote, and sustain, by all appropriate means, the cultivation of science and scientific research in all its aspects — pure, applied, and educational.” Subsequent science policies announced by later governments have essentially tweaked the 1958 resolution. Indira Gandhi’s 1983 policy emphasised self-reliance while the 2003 policy announced by Atal Bihari Vajpayee sought to meet the challenges posed by globalisation.
There has been a growing sense of India falling behind in the race to use its scientific capabilities and of China powering ahead. “We produce more science than before, but several more ambitious countries like China and South Korea have outpaced us,” lamented the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister in a 2010 report titled “India as a global leader in science.” China’s investment in research and development has been shooting up at 20 per cent annually over the past 10 years. As a result, that country is currently spending about 1.7 per cent of its GDP on R&D and, in absolute terms, is being outspent only by the U.S. India’s R&D spending, on the other hand, has yet to rise above one per cent of its GDP. As in the 2003 policy, the new science policy too wants to boost the country’s research spending to two per cent of GDP with greater private sector R&D investment. With greater R&D inputs, the country’s share of global trade in high technology products is to be doubled from the current level of around eight per cent. Having a new policy makes sense only if it spurs change; otherwise it is just an exercise in mouthing platitudes. Well-focused government initiatives are needed in a number of areas, rather than just some piecemeal measures, to flesh out the laudable objectives laid out in the science policy. The domestic market must, for instance, be leveraged, such as through appropriate government procurement policies, to allow indigenous technology to flourish and compete internationally. That’s something China has done with remarkable success. Will the Indian government be able to match its words with action?

D) New Science, Technology & Innovation Policy: from Peoples Democracy

PRIME Minister Dr Manmohan Singh last week unveiled a new Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (henceforth STI for short) at the centenary-year Indian Science Congress in Kolkata. The STI Policy is conceived as the next important step up the ladder of S&T based development, suited to the demands and requirements of the early decades of the 21st century. STI seeks to build upon the three earlier major S&T policies namely the Scientific Policy Resolution adopted by parliament in 1958, an umbrella statement proclaiming India’s intention to promote and harness science for the nation’s development and modernisation, the Technology Policy Statement (1983) focusing on development of S&T self-reliance, and the S&T Policy of 2003 announced by the NDA government which stressed the need to integrate S&T research with socio-economic priorities and to create an innovation system.

STI argues that innovation is the key to national advancement in the present era but has not been accorded due importance as an instrument of policy, a lacuna which STI specifically addresses. With India having declared 2010-2020 as the Decade of Innovation, and having established a National Innovation Council, STI seeks to provide the necessary policy framework to position STI as “central to national development” and puts forward a new perspective towards this end, namely that whereas science, technology and innovation could always be promoted separately, only the integrated approach of STI will provide the desired multiplication effect to meet national challenges and inclusive growth, and enable harnessing of the country’s resources, strengths and capabilities.

No one will have any major complaints with any of this. The role of innovation in the contemporary technology intensive, dynamic and globalised economy is well-known, and the need for foregrounding innovation and integrating it with other developmental policy is also widely accepted. The significance of the STI policy for India will not, however, lie in the novelty of the idea, but in how the desired outcomes are proposed to be achieved. And here the STI Policy document (www.dst.gov.in/sti-policy-eng.pdf) falls woefully short. In the absence of an analytical account of past achievements and current gaps, strengths and weaknesses, and implementation strategies and mechanisms, we are left with a policy that is high on rhetoric and intentions but weak in terms of ground realities and addressing implementation and monitoring issues. Regrettably therefore, as has so often been the case in India with so many policies, and particularly so in S&T, chances are that once again there will be a wide gap between targets and performance.          

NO REVIEW OR ANALYSIS
The most serious weakness of the STI Policy is that it does not present at least a synoptic assessment or review of the achievements and shortfalls with respect to the three previous S&T Policies, and the reasons for the same. This is not finding fault for the sake of it, but points to a major flaw: if one does not know why certain goals were or were not achieved earlier, how are goals for the future to be set and strategies delineated in a manner so as to overcome weaknesses and build on strengths? Several new policy documents especially in recent decades have followed a trend of quite intensive self-critical analysis even if the new policies enunciated may not fully address the problems identified. But STI has not even ventured that far.

In the case of S&T Policy in India, many scholarly studies over the years have highlighted structural weaknesses in mostly State run research institutions, the university system and in industry which have stood in the way of quality research and innovation, or even the necessary enhancement of capabilities and the building of an environment that would encourage and support them. Shortage and low motivation of human resources in basic research expected to be conducted in a few academic and specialist research institutions, exacerbated by long-term dwindling of funding and support, is by now well recognised, as is the impact that low performance in basic research will have on applied science, technology and innovation. Separation of research streams and corresponding support systems into industrial research in national laboratories and basic or some applied research in universities and select centres of S&T excellence is also known to have contributed to this problem, while research in universities including the prestigious IITs has dwindled substantially to the extent they are largely confined to teaching.

STI sets targets to improve the caliber of Indian science publications and of papers published by Indian scientists, tacitly acknowledging their current low levels but putting a spin on this by saying performance has risen in the recent past and will be raised under STI. India’s share in global science publications may well have risen from 1.8 per cent in 2001 to 3.5 per cent in 2011 but, as STI admits, only 2.5 per cent of Indian publications figure in the top 1 per cent of impact-making journals in the world. The target of doubling the former and quadrupling the latter share may be laudable, but the bigger question is, will this truly signify a qualitative improvement in Indian science and a major shift? While the STI document enumerates the usual platitudes about fostering excellence and relevance in Indian science research, and encouraging collaborative research and participation in international “big science” projects, there is no indication of how future practices will differ from current ones.

Unfortunately what the STI document does not mention, analyse or confront is that large segments of the scientific research and university system in India today verge on the moribund. Exhortations and carrot-and-stick reward systems, as evidenced by rising numbers of papers published or patents filed, will only go so far. Most commentators would agree that, unless there are fundamental changes in both what is done and how it is done, rising numbers might only mean that the system is being gamed better, and that higher quantities of research output might not translate into higher quality of S&T research in India. A culture of innovation is a far cry, and would call for completely different institutional structures and autonomy, organisational systems and behaviour, scale and manner of research funding, and human resource development and management, than either what is prevalent or what the STI document suggests. To understand and correct the malaise of today, and open up to new horizons tomorrow, it will be necessary to examine structural problems facing Indian science, research institutions, universities and industry. STI has only kicked this can of worms down the road.

MISTAKEN RELIANCE ON PRIVATE SECTOR      
Perhaps due to the lack of an introspective and analytical appraisal, there is a tendency in STI to prescribe ab initio solutions, and also considerable confusion as to goals and what kinds of policies are required for them.

The most glaring of such disconnects is regarding funding. Accepting that India’s expenditure of 1per cent of its GDP on R&D, much lower than other developing countries and less than 2.5 per cent of global R&D expenditure, is highly inadequate, STI proposes to increase this to 2 per cent which STI itself admits is a very old dream! It seems destined to remain one! Because STI recommends that this increase in R&D expenditure come from the private sector! This would be laughable were it not so filled with dangerous consequences.

Again, many studies have shown that the track record of the Indian private sector in R&D and research expenditure has been very poor with a very few notable exceptions. All manner of government incentives, including 135 per cent tax relief, have not nudged corporates to invest in research. Reasons are not far to seek. Even large Indian corporations find it easier to enter into collaborations, or import or buy technologies, or even to take over foreign firms, all of which liberalisation has made simpler, than to be innovative and develop new products and technologies. Even the much acclaimed IT sector can boast of very few software products even while it performs vast quantities of back-office tasks for international corporations or coding for globally branded software developers. Indian corporations are content to be quite low down in the international division of labour even in manufacturing, leave alone in technology development and science research. Indian industry needs major re-orientation to develop self-reliant capabilities and master technologies, to leapfrog stages of technology development through scientific research, and to reach for global competitiveness by drawing on the strengths of the domestic market which must be expanded radically by reducing poverty and boosting mass purchasing power as China has done. But all this will call for a different vision of development, of Indian industry, and of political economy.

Saying that the additional R&D investment required will be generated through the private sector is tantamount to STI declaring that the State will not raise its R&D expenditure. The government of the day may be enamoured of the private sector and PPP may be the flavour of the month. But history tells us that no country, no matter how devoted to the capitalist path, has developed without massive State investment in R&D. If India has to depend on private sector funding of R&D to catapult the country into the 5th rank in global science as the STI document proclaims, the nation is in for sharp disappointment and S&T in India will continue to languish.

CONFLICTING GOALS
AND POLICIES
The policy document repeatedly emphasises that both economic growth and social good will be pursued through STI, and even speaks of the need to address the “pressing problems of energy and environment, food and nutrition, water and sanitation, habitat, affordable health care and skill building and unemployment”. Indeed, perhaps carried away with its own rhetoric, the policy document goes so far as to claim that “science, technology and innovation for the people is the new paradigm of the Indian STI enterprise.”   

There are two sets of problems here, firstly whether one can or should at all expect “big science” and especially private sector funded R&D to directly deliver social good, and secondly the role of science, technology and innovation in tackling social sector problems. STI appears to be riding two horses at once in terms of goals, global competitiveness and the developmental deficit within India, without recognising and addressing the quite different approaches and instrumentalities required for each.

Given the reluctance of Indian corporates to invest in R&D even in their own evident long-term self-interest, it is clearly unrealistic to expect private sector funded R&D to tackle problems of societal development. And even if they did, to believe that creation of economic wealth through STI will also result in generation of social good is only another form of the trickle-down theory.  Also, to hold that a generalised strengthening or revitalisation of Indian science oriented to climbing higher up the global innovation chain and economic order will somehow also result in improved technologies for societal development is a misunderstanding of how science works and how innovation takes place.

Indeed it is incorrect to put the burden of solution to societal problems on the shoulders of science and technology when, in fact, these issues fall squarely under the ambit of State social policy. Half the population of India suffers on all these counts not because of shortage of investment in R&D, or because of lack of S&T based solutions. If that were so, why does India lag behind other South Asian or even many Sub-Saharan countries on all these counts? S&T can undoubtedly make a significant contribution to these issues but only within a larger framework of social policy and distributive justice. The STI document correctly points to “the gaps between the STI system and the socio-economic sectors,” but to bridge these gaps will require far more than “developing a symbiotic relationship with economic and other policies.” It will need transforming these policies and a total overhaul of how innovation is supported and done in both governmental and non-governmental research institutions and universities, and how developmental delivery systems are restructured within a reoriented policy frame.  This requires a separate dialogue and the STI document does not even begin to discuss the complex issues involved.

START OF A
DIALOGUE       
It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the STI document contains several good ideas. Its central point about the need to emphasise innovation, and therefore the need to revamp Indian S&T so as to develop a creative culture and research eco-system, is a good one. The goals of raising the quality of Indian S&T, enhancing global competitiveness and generating innovative means to help tackle the gigantic developmental deficit of half the population, are laudable. Identifying select frontier areas of science to which extra attention could be paid, seeding high-risk S&T based innovations, enhanced Indian participation in global science projects, are all worth pursuing. But the STI policy does not come together as a whole, and the pathway to achieving the goals is unclear.  

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of STI which promises a “new paradigm” is that it follows the traditional paradigm of top-down policy formulation by a few wise men with everybody expected to pay biblical respect to each pronouncement. In fact, this very feature underscores much that is wrong with the S&T establishment in the country today, a paternalistic top-heavy bureaucratic structure in which creative thinking and contributions from peers are undervalued, dismissed or simply not encouraged. Any simple how-to book would tell you that this is precisely how innovation does NOT take place.

A beginning of new ways of working in Indian S&T could have been made with this policy by formulating it through a wide-ranging consultative process involving all stakeholders and taking on board the genuine concerns and the thoughtful suggestions that are sure to emerge. The STI document rightly points to the need for incentives in research and academic institutions to stimulate innovation, but in the past this has always been taken to mean more money. Better pay and benefits are undoubtedly welcome but a conducive and encouraging atmosphere, respect of peers, freedom to explore, and guidance rather than dictates of seniors are major constituents of a research and innovation eco-system.

If the government is serious about the STI policy and about bringing about such a transformation in Indian S&T, the present document should not be taken as cast in stone, but as an initiation of a longer dialogue on S&T policy in India and as itself marking a departure from the old ways of doing tings. Through widespread consultations, with stakeholders beyond the scientific community if developmental concerns are indeed to be taken on board, this document could go through many iterations leading to a new policy.
 


---------------------------------------------------------