Science in India - are we really lagging behind?

I have never been a serious student of science and i preferred commerce over science when i was asked to opt for science in IX standard. But, over the years, i realized that more than commerce, it is science which makes a country more self-reliant, self-sustainable and ahead in international structure.

This is second time in row that a scientist has forced me to write on a subject i feel like a lay-man. Dr. Venkatraman Ramakrishnan is a well-known name now, thanks to Nobel Prize. Today, The Hindu has carried a transcript of a web-chat with Dr. Venky. In that, Dr. Venky has painted two pictures of scientific research in India. The first one is very encouraging and optimistic. He says, "he sees very bright young scientists in his field (thats biology) who are publishing very good papers. Eventually these people will create an atmosphere of excellence, and then from that a culture of tackling the hardest problems (rather than a defeatist attitude of "we cann't compete", etc) will emerge."

On the other hand, he is very pessimistic about the kind of teaching of science is going on in schools and colleges. He says that there is too much cramming for exams and have very formal questions.

In my opinion, Dr Venky, like any 'defeatist' Indian plus 'repeatist' American has presented a picture which is lacking a point. Before, presenting that point, i wish to clarify that presenting reality doesn't mean presenting excuses.

So, with that clarification, my first point is that while we compare the scene of scintific research in India with that of US, we tend to forget so many dimensions of it. I always believe that we should never shy away from learning from someone's experience, but in the disguise of learning, one should not try to compare or copy it. If I am right and google provided right information, The USA declared its independence in 1776, that means some 171 years before our people forced British to leave this land. As early as 1860, The USA proceeded on the path of industralisation backed by scientific reasearch. In this context, i want to mention that India established its Department of Science and Technology only in 1971.

Some people may argue that British India too produced some brilliant scientists and it is not that this land started churning out scientists only after country got its freedom. Points taken, but this is equally true that although British produced some brilliant scientists of Indian origin, but they were never allowed to work for this land. They were working for their 'masters' not for their own people.

The budget for the scientific research, GDP of the country and some other socio-economic factors also can not be over looked for the slow growth of this field in my country. But, despite inumerable odds plus resistence from within and outside, if scientist like Dr Chidambaram (who was the operational man behind our nuclear test in 1998), Dr C N R Rao, Dr. Kalam, Dr Jayant Narlikar, Prof G N Ramchandran and numerous other have been able to make their mark, it is no ordinary job. I don't discount the fact that most of them have come back here after spending some time in US or any other western country, but that cann't take away share of Indian brain and determination of Indian speciality in their sucess. One may ask why our scientists are less known in comparision to their western counterpart. Well, in my view, our scientists, due to their inheritance via DNA structure, unlike western counterparts, believe in work and not in media publicity. They are modern day  Sadhu who believe in seva not meva. That is why they are less known names.

Another point which i want to raise is that despite eulogies from many, the so called scientific environment of the USA too has its own share of shortcomings. Dr Venky too admitted in his interview that sustained funding for a project is a problemetic area in US. Another problem he mentioned is that even the so called 'perfect system' is not emune to corruption in promotion system. Although Dr Venky didn't mention the word 'corruption' but when he says, "This (promotion) is a terrible worldwide problem. It is because those deciding on promotions etc do not want to spend the time and energy to make an informed judgement of their own. The worst thing about this is that one can publish a mediocre paper in a high impact journal and get more credit than for an outstanding paper in a less prestigious journal." Considering this, i think of reaction in my country where if one faces this kind of problem, he/she will surely lambast whole Indian system in general and people of here in perticular.

Now, i come back to question i posed through title of this blog 'Science in India - are we really lagging behind?'. In my opinion, this is one's perspective that is actually lagging behind, not my country. Those who complain are 'defeatist' in my view and are escapist by nature. A country becomes great due to courage and contribution of its people in difficult times not just due to its mere size of population. I am of firm opinion that if my land can produce Aryabhatt and Charak in ancient times and Dr Chidambaram like people in modern times, no power on earth can stop my country to become a land of scientists.

Is your country your identity?

Recently, Venkatraman Ramkrishnan, a scientist from USA was awarded Nobel for his splendid work in the field of Chemistry. He shared this award with two other scientists - one, another Americal and the one from Israel.

On receiving this information, our media in India went overboard to display it as pride for our country and its people. The leading newspapers and news channels presented this news as if this country has achieved something exceptional. The response of the people was no different from the media. Some called it as great pride of the Nation and some calling it as a milestone for the science in India.

But, i ask you - was it so? Was it a milestone for the science in India? Ok, let me ask you rather less important question - was this award for an Indian born scientist or to a scientist of USA?

Fed-up with uncalled for spilling of his inbox with congratulatory messages from India, Mr. Venkataraman even went so far as to write a piece for an English daily in India asking to stop that non-sense. For him, as we can infer from his write-up, his Indian origin does not hold any significance in his work, for that he received Nobel. Although he accepted contribution of Baroda University in his education, but he clearly distanced himself from giving any credit to his country of birth in his success.

I think that whatever he wrote and said, had a valid point. After all, if a person, say from Kolkata, comes to Delhi to build his career, should he entirely credit W Bengal in his success, if he achieve any significant success in his life living in Delhi? As far as my personal opinion is concerned, i would give credit to the place or state or country where i have achieved success. For me, it is equal to giving credit to your Karm rather than your inheritance. Afterall, one moves from one place to another only when the former doesn't have any opportunity for growth. So, if a place does not offer opportunity for growth, then why give credit to that place?

I do agree that the place where you were brought up plays a significant part in one's overall personality development, but just because of this factor if one denies credit to Karmabhoomi or place of action, will be equal to step-motherly treatment to the one who hold your hands when you needed the most.

This also raises a more widespread problem in this globalized world where people move from one place to another within a country and one country to another country for career. If a person is moving within a country, nobody will make hue and cry as was made out to be in the case of Venky, but what about those people who have moved out to another country for better opportunities? Should they be identified with country of their origin or country of their action?