Why is research in India a mess, and why should we care?

The picture is from Atlas.ai

Why Research?

Research is a vital knowledge generator for any society. Creating knowledge is what great societies aspire for. Research plays a pivotal role in propelling humanity forward. Imagine Sir Isaac Newton had no quest to understand gravity and how long it would have taken for us to reach this level of scientific development. A simple fall of Apple enabled a great scientific quest. This is the testament that any simple, non-relevant incident today can turn tides in the future. A simple action can trigger curiosity to a great level. The only question is, does our society or state enable us to incubate that curiosity? Or even against all odds, curiosity persists. Does society allow it to prosper?

When Marie Curie was struggling because of being a woman in a field where women were non-existent and dominated by males, she took it not just as a personal challenge but a challenge for humanity, where half of the world’s population is systematically kept in the dark. The simple principle of rationality guided her to demolish the status quo: “When a man can, why can’t I?”. This quest to find the solution got her Noble not once but twice, a rare achievement. Her academic successes deserve special attention, even from a commoner’s perspective. However, what’s more admirable is her ability to instigate the curiosity in millions and millions of women to seek greater representation in the field where they were considered incompetent. This is what one single woman was able to do. Imagine what a million Marie Curies can do!

The examples of Marie Curie, Nikola Tesla, Srinivasa Ramanujan and many others are there to tell us why, against all odds, things can be done. We live in a postmodern global society where grand narratives are questioned, and people are driven primarily by logic and rationality. Yet, we are experiencing how large sections of society don't care about creating new knowledge, innovation, or something that can change society. Society has an undercurrent that the most promising research is already done, and there is no scope for further improvement. The only question is why people think that way. My experience after talking to many young people is that they feel satisfied with whatever they have now, or their quest is not towards creating something new. People of a certain age tend even to question scientific development; for them, most innovation is bane as it has somehow destroyed the fabric of their society! Although their opinions are not entirely correct or wrong, there is some tension between what people want and what is happening.

Why should we care?

Pale Blue Dot, photograph of Earth taken on February 14, 1990, by the Voyager 1 space probe from an unprecedented distance of approximately 6 billion kilometers. That dot, That's here. That's home. That's us.

Indeed, only one individual cannot do much, but imagine Marie Curie saying this? Imagine saying this to Nikola Tesla, Imagine how Edison would have reacted! Imagine Ramanujan worked as a clerk for the rest of his life. Imagine Heisenberg never created the uncertainty principle. The world would have been entirely different! In a country of one and a half billion people, do you think we donot not have the next Aryabhata, Panini, Patanjali, J.C. Bose, or Ramanujan? and if you think no, I will never agree with this! Yes, we have a plethora of challenges. Half of the country’s population is barely surviving. Millions are without clean water. Millions still suffer from fundamental problems, but just because we cannot utilise the vast human resources, it’s not the failure of an individual but a system of systems failure, and that too created by us. Many would argue, “Oh, it’s all politics and political leaders.” But remember, politicians are reflections of our society! A young boy or girl with brilliant mathematics skills ends up preparing for competitive exams, and that too for years. Why? A third-grade government job can elevate your status more than a publication in a Q1 journal; this is the society we have created. A few days ago, China unveiled its next-generation fighter aircraft; everyone on Twitter started questioning how the Chinese could do it? It’s interesting that India was the first country in Asia to develop a jet fighter (HAL Marut), the iconic fighter from the Border movie! A country that was able to produce a fighter jet in the late 1960s is now struggling to create a proper 4.5 gen aircraft; why?

The answer lies in our narrow, short-sighted approach. Imagine it’s 1962, and the American President is giving a speech and saying that today’s research will reap its benefits 60 years later. How would the people have reacted? Many would have questioned the president’s intentions, asked the president to give that money to the poor, and blocked the roads, etcetera. All the electronics we enjoy today directly result from America’s moon mission; all the power tools, Internet, GPS, data storage, and long-range radars were developed because of one small step of man, which became a great leap for mankind. This is the impact of research. Even the scientists and engineers of the Apollo mission never thought about what they were creating, and here we are. The world is on the cusp of developing quantum computers because of Kennedy’s “We Choose to Go to the Moon” speech.

Is India Serious about Research?

Ask any young scholar in any major institution in India, and you will find them frustrated. The question is, why? Most scholars lack adequate opportunities. Many of them would be cramming unnecessary jargon to secure some stable job. The majority of them are underpaid. Some are not paid for months and months. Even if you secure funding for the project, you may end up doing more bureaucratic nonsense than doing some serious research. An average researcher in India gets only 7%  of what a researcher gets in Germany! Only 7% and we aspire to become a “Vishwa guru” in research and innovation. When a researcher’s salary is just 7%, gasoline (petrol) in India costs 66% of what it costs in Germany! Isn’t it strange? A researcher will get only 7% of the salary but must spend nearly 70% on the same commodity. India, once the land that generated knowledge, is now struggling to provide basic facilities to its students, researchers, teachers, and scientists. In fact the R&D investment in India, has declined from 0.8% of the GDP in 2008–09 to 0.7% in 2017-18. At times, we could remember our political class proudly projects India as a “Vishwa guru” (world leader) but fails to reach global R&D spending of 1.8% of GDP. Political freebies are sometimes more important than education, research, health and infrastructure. There are many problems, and the solutions are nowhere near. Although initiatives like One Nation One Subscription are welcome, they are too little and too late.

The Launch of Sputnik by the USSR in 1957 created panic in the US; later, the US experienced “the Sputnik moment” From bureaucracy to the military and from the film industry to the automobile industry, all did everything they could do to make America a global leader in Space, within a few years American Astronauts reached on the surface of the moon. I think we have not experienced our Sputnik moment or are too monotonous to care. In both cases, we will eventually face a technology crunch as “Technology delayed is technology denied”.

The India-China Agreement on Tibet, 1954

Chapter 1: The India-China Agreement on Tibet, 1954.

The relations between India and China were Tibet-dependent for ages. When the British ruled India, they managed China through wars and treaties and tried to keep them down in Tibet. After independence, India had no capacity or willingness to continue imperial tendencies. Treaties like the Simla Convention of 1914 guided India's contact with Tibet. China considered these treaties as imperial legacies. Also, the government of India took no concrete steps to implement the 1914 convention from 1914 to 1938. Thus, the legality of the McMahon Line was adversely affected.

When the time of British departure came near, the British understood the blunder they had committed. Yet on 8th April 1947, GOI said:

While the Government of India are glad to recognise and wish to see Tibetan autonomy maintained, they are not prepared to do more than encourage this in a friendly manner and are certaily not disposed to take any initiative which might bring India into conflict with China.

Even though the British knew the blunder and tried to downplay it, Indian leadership in the early years of Independence was uninformed about borders and over-ambitious to achieve Asian solidarity through peace and mutual cooperation. PM Nehru said in parliament in 1950 that:

The McMahon Line, defined by Simla convention of 1914 is our boundary and that boundary-map or no map. We will stand by that boundary and will not allow anybody to cross that boundary.

It is important to note that the McMahon Line was not scientifically drawn! McMahon used a pen with a thick nib without conducting any surveys. While delivering a lecture at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts in 1935, he said, “It is impossible to define a large portion of it, except in general terms.” After India’s independence, the ability of the GOI to assert its claim diluted significantly as the iron hand of the British Empire disappeared. The then Chinese vice foreign minister, George Yeh, told the Indian Ambassador in Nanking, K. P. S. Menon, that they would like to renegotiate and abrogate unequal treaties signed earlier, including those concerning Tibet.

Reading Avtar Singh Bhasin's "Negotiating India's Landmark Agreements".

Since independence, India has signed many agreements, treaties, and accords. However, only a few have had the impact of changing the course of India's foreign policy. A.S. Bhasin's book is one such book that explains why five key agreements changed India's foreign policy.

The Key five agreements are:

1. The India-China Agreement on Tibet, 1954

2. Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, 1971

3. The Simla Agreement, 1972

4. India-Sri Lanka Accord, 1987

5. India-United States Civil Nuclear Agreement, 2008

Before delving into the book's content, we may find treaties, accords, and agreements. What is the difference between a treaty, an accord, and an agreement?

• A treaty is a formal, legally binding written document between two or more sovereign states or international organisations governed by international law. It requires ratification by the parties involved, often through legislative or constitutional processes in their respective countries. Example: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968)

• Agreement is a broader term for any mutual understanding or arrangement between parties, which may or may not be legally binding. It is less formal than a treaty and may or may not require ratification, depending on its terms and the domestic legal systems of the parties involved. Example: Treaty of Rome (1957)

• An accord is a political or diplomatic understanding that is often less formal and may not have the strict legal enforceability of a treaty. It focuses on achieving consensus or cooperation on specific issues without imposing binding legal obligations. Example: The Oslo Accords (1993)

Aspect	Treaty	Agreement	Accord
Legality	Legally binding under international law.	It can be legally binding or non-binding.	Often non-binding but carries political weight.
Formality	Highly formalised.	It can be formal or informal.	Generally less formal.
Ratification	Requires formal ratification.	It may or may not require ratification.	Typically, it does not require ratification.
Scope	Broad or specific; often strategic.	Flexible; can be technical or broad.	Focused on consensus or specific issues.
Example	The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968)	Treaty of Rome (1957)	The Oslo Accords (1993)

We can proceed to the next section, which contains the book's material. The blog will have five sections, each section of which will be for each agreement, accord, and treaty.