India @ 75: Science, Technology and

Innovation Policies for Development

V. V. KRISHNA

India was perhaps the only country among the developing world with a colonial past to have organised
and established national science community much before it attained its independence. Nehruvian sci-
ence and technology (S&T) policy in India’s formative years left a distinct imprint in the post-colonial
and post-independent India. With a huge population of nearly 1.35 billion people, India is not depend-
ent on food on outside countries since the 1960s. Green and White Revolutions have made immense
contribution to develop scientific and technical capacities in agriculture. India’s innovation system,
including higher education, has given her some comparative advantage through ‘human capital’ in
information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, space research and so on. In export promo-
tion and economic competitiveness in technology-based industries, we lag compared with East Asian
‘Dragons’. India’s informal sector poses a formidable challenge with more than 95% of the total labour
force, about 550 million, 90% of which is 8th class dropouts. When we begin to assess our national
innovation system, one feature that stands out to research observers is few islands of excellence and vast
‘hinterlands’ of underdeveloped research potential. There is clearly a gap between theory and practice
of science policy in India. Our gross expenditure on research and development as a proportion of gross
domestic product remained relatively stagnant and, in fact, receded from 0.8% in the 1990s to 0.7% in
2020. In this period, our neighbour, China, left us far behind in S&T for development.

Keywords: Policy for science, science for policy, Indian innovation system, Nehruvian socialism,
Gandhian Sarvodaya, mirages of development

As India turns 75 to complete three quarters of a century, one is tempted

to look back and reflect on one of the important dimensions of science and
society relations (much of the material in this special report is drawn from my

Acknowledgements: I wish to acknowledge my mentors Late Professor Rahman, Stephen C. Hill and
Roy MacLeod. Also, I am grateful to my colleagues, Deepak Kumar, Dhruv Raina, Irfan Habib, Ashok
Jain, Bob Anderson, Late Jean Jacque Salomon, Roland Waast, Dinesh Abrol, Shiv Visvanathan, Dinesh
C. Sharma and several others with whom I have interacted over the years and benefited immensely.

V. V. Krishna (corresponding author), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. E-mails:
[email protected]; [email protected]

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/09717218211047029
 2    V. V. Krishna

forthcoming book Krishna [forthcoming]).1 Coming out of British colonial-

ism, it was indeed a gigantic task for a large country like India to organise and
orchestrate science and technology (S&T) institutions to address social, politi-
cal and development challenges. India was perhaps the only country among
the developing world with a colonial past to have organised and established a
national science community much before it attained independence. India inher-
ited a well-oiled administrative machinery and institutional structure in S&T.
Above all, India was very fortunate to have a cadre of eminent scientists such
as Sir C. V. Raman, Homi Jehangir Bhabha, Dr Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar (S. S.
Bhatnagar), Acharya Sir P. C. Ray, M. Sircar, Sir Mokshagundam. Visvesvaraya
(M. Visvesvaraya), Professor P. C. Mahalanobis, Professor Meghnad N. Saha
(M. N. Saha), Sir J. C. Bose, Ashutosh Mukherjee, Dr Janaki Ammal, Dr Kamala
Sohonie, Professor Asima Chatterjee, among several others, in the 1940s and
1950s. We were also fortunate to have a visionary like Jawaharlal Nehru who
was committed to develop a strong institutional base in science, technology
and higher education for India to enable her to draw respect and recognition in
the comity of nations. As David Arnold (2013, p. 361) observes, ‘Nehru was
one of the principal architects of modern India and, through his enduring com-
mitment to science, a leading figure in the formation of India’s science policy
and practice’. Nehruvian S&T policy in India’s formative years left a distinct
imprint in the post-colonial and post-independent India. We will also briefly
explore the developments in the last few years. In doing so, the purpose is not
to eulogise the making of science and policy, but to interrogate critically the
claims and counterviews that shaped this large country which still reels under
multitude of developmental challenges.

Science and Technology Organisation for Independent India:

From the 1940s to 1950s

The period of the 1930s and 1940s in Indian history assumes considerable signifi-
cance, at least, for three important reasons. The first is the declaration of Purna
Swaraj, that is, complete self-rule (one can even term it as independence) by the
Indian National Congress on 26 January 1930. In fact, the Indian flag was hoisted
by Nehru on 31 December 1929 on the banks of the Ravi River in Lahore in uni-
fied India. Second, as political developments heated up, a small group of Indian
intelligentsias who initiated plans for industrialisation and development of future of
India suddenly got activated to concretise their plans through the formation of the
National Planning Committee (NPC),2 India’s precursor to the Planning Commission
(currently called NITI Aayog) in 1937–1938. Leading Indian scientists such as Sir
M. Visvesvaraya and Professor M. N. Saha who were quite critical of Gandhi’s
Sarvodaya perspectives were at the same time ardent supporters of Nehruvian
socialist thought, ideas and development of India based on the industrialisation
and application of S&T.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    3

As is well known, the 1930s and 1940s radiated two major perspectives on
the development and industrialisation of India. M. N. Saha, M. Visvesvaraya,
Nehru, Gandhi, J. C. Kumarappa and others entered into a long dialogue and
discourse on these themes (Zachariah, 2001). Gandhi and his supporters advo-
cated decentralised development based on Sarvodaya philosophy, prioritising
rural India. On the other hand, there was a contrasting perspective of Nehruvian
‘socialist thought’ and the model of the S&T-led industrialisation process (Bhatt,
1982). Subhas Chandra Bose, who was quite active in the NPC and who suc-
ceeded Nehru as the president of the Indian National Congress in 1938, advocated
planned economic development. While addressing the 51st session of Indian
National Congress at Haripura as a president, Bose advocated planned economic
development on socialist lines.

I have no doubt in my mind that our chief national problems relating to the eradication
of poverty, illiteracy and disease, and to scientific production and distribution, can be
effectively tackled only along socialist lines. The very first thing which our future national
government will have to do would be to set up a commission for drawing up a compre-
hensive plan for reconstruction (as quoted and drawn from Mishra [2014]).

Gandhian Sarvodaya philosophy and social action presents a contrasting view of

industrialisation. According to Kriplani (1961, p. 232), ‘Gandhiji conceived of eco-
nomics not merely in terms of production, distribution, exchange and consumption
of material goods and services, but also of how these processes affected the life
of the individual and the community and their mutual relations’. In many ways,
economics and ethics were seen as two sides of the same coin in the Gandhian
thought. Gandhi and his close associates developed a critique of Western models
of industrialisation and invoked the relevance of charkha (spinning wheel) as a
symbol of ‘appropriate technology’ (AT) and khadi as a symbol of Swadeshi. This
remained the centrepiece of Gandhian economics (Kriplani, 1961), which is kept
alive in developmental discourse. J. C. Kumarappa, a Gandhian economist and a
member of NPC in 1938–1939, did not align with ideas of Bose and Nehru. He
tendered his resignation in the later years.
Subhas C. Bose, Nehru, Visvesvaraya and Saha dominated the deliberations
and planning agenda of NPC in the early 1940s. As India progressed towards the
mid-1940s, three other plans were articulated by different stakeholders and intel-
ligentsias. In contrast to the Nehruvian perspective of NPC, in 1944, there emerged
a Plan for Economic Development of India, popularly known as the Bombay Plan,
which was put forward by industrialists such as Purshottamdas Thakurdas, J. R.
D. Tata, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Lala Shri Ram, Kasturbhai Lalbhai, John Mathai,
A. D. Shroff, Ardeshir Dalal and few others. Even though Gandhian ideas were
debated and discussed for quite some time since the 1920s, S. N. Agarwal of Wardha
put forward a Gandhian Plan in 1944 which focused on small-scale industries
and agriculture. In a surprising move, one of India’s leading thinkers and founder
of Radical Humanist Movement M. N. Roy put forward a People’s Plan in 1945.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 4    V. V. Krishna

As Kumar (2001, p. 250) observes, ‘Gandhi’s politics were convenient, but his
economics were not. Although socialism remained an ideal for many (including
Nehru and Saha), a version of democratic socialism with a mixed economy was
accepted by NPC as the basis for future development’.
The third important reason for which the period of the 1930s and 1940s
is considered significant is the visit of Archibald Vivian Hill (A. V. Hill). He
won the Nobel Prize in 1922 and was professor at the Royal Society. He was
invited by the government in 1943 to advise on the organisation of scientific and
industrial research as part of India’s post-War reconstruction plan. His report on
Scientific Research in India (1944), in fact, found support from Nehru’s regime
and leading scientists such as S. S. Bhatnagar, J. C. Ghosh, P. C. Mahalanobis,
among others. This report became a blueprint for the organisation of S&T and its
institutional growth in the post-Independence period. A. V. Hill’s report and its
recommendations had far-reaching implications for India. Under the leadership of
Nehru as the prime minister, almost all S&T agencies came under one umbrella
ministry. Hill himself argued for centralisation (which he would not prescribe
for Britain), and this suited Bhatnagar, Bhabha and other elite scientists close to
Nehru. Centralisation and concentration of power were to become the hallmark
of the scientific establishment in post-independent India (Kumar 2001, p. 257).
No analysis is complete without exploring the role of Indian Trimurti in science
organisation in the 1950s. Their views and perspectives on science influenced
Indian science policy, beyond the institutions they nurtured. As Raina and Jain
(1997) remind us, this was also the era of ‘big science’ institutions led by some
well-known elite Indian scientists.

Trimurti in Science Organisation

S. S. Bhatnagar and Origins of CSIR

Bhatnagar on completing his doctoral thesis at the University of London with a

well-known British chemistry Professor F. G. Donnan returned to India in the
early 1920s as a faculty at the Banaras Hindu University after spending his post-
doctoral research in Germany. His technological innovation on finding solution
for Attock Oil Company in drilling at Rawalpindi got him national recognition.
Bhatnagar refused any personal monetary benefit and instead placed `150,000
royalties at the disposal of university for research. By the late 1930s, Bhatnagar
earned professional recognition. This was also the time when the government was
looking for a suitable professional for leading the industrial research agency. In
1939, under Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar, Bhatnagar was called on to head the
Board of Scientific and Industrial Research (BSIR) formed on 1 April 1940 for
a period of two years (Krishna, 1994).
The efforts of Mudaliar and Bhatnagar led to the constitution of the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 1942 as an autonomous body under

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    5

the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. 21). Bhatnagar
who had a close and easy relationship with Nehru planned and established a chain of
national laboratories after Independence. By 1943, five national laboratories, namely
the National Chemical Laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory, the National
Metallurgical Laboratory, the Fuel Research Station and the Glass and Ceramics
Research Institute were planned with budgetary provisions. Bhatnagar acquired the
reputation of being an ‘empire-builder’. He built a chain of 11 national laboratories
from 1947 to 1954 and 22 more to follow. Was this done at the cost of the university
system?. It is further reported that A. V. Hill himself was alarmed at this pace of
laboratory expansion in India after 1947 and warned Bhatnagar, ‘lest by getting all
the best people away from the universities you may dry up the source of scientific
talent, or at least training, for the next crop of scientists’.3

Homi Bhabha and Origins of TIFR

Homi Jehangir Bhabha was a close family member of the Tata Industries. After his
school education in India, Bhabha landed in Cambridge in 1927. All the big names in
physics and nuclear research were at Cambridge University at that time. Heisenberg,
Schrödinger, Paul Dirac, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie and Lord Rutherford were
engaged in their research at that time. Bhabha had the opportunity of taking lectures
from Paul Dirac and entered research in Physics at the Cavendish Laboratory. He
completed his PhD in nuclear physics in 1933 under Ralph H. Fowler. C. V. Raman
who was heading the Physics Department at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
(IISc), invited Bhabha. By 1943, Bhabha became a full professor at IISc and was
already a big name in nuclear research. Bhabha was motivated and committed to
build frontier science base in India. On 12 March 1944, he wrote a letter to Sir Sorab
Saklatvala, the then chairman of the Sir Dorab Tata Trust, for financial contribution
to build School of Physics and an institute.
On 14 April 1944, the Dorab Tata Trust responded positively which laid the founda-
tion of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) with Homi Bhabha as the
director and D. D. Kosambi and R. P. Thatte as the founding research faculty, which
opened on 1 June 1945 (see the letter quoted in Deshmukh [2010]). The institute was
formally inaugurated by Sir John Colville, the Governor of Bombay, on 19 December
1945. As Anderson (2010, p. 120) points out, one-third of TIFR funding in formative
years came from CSIR, one-third from the Bombay government and one-third from
the House of Tatas. The institute was housed at Kenilworth, a bungalow on Pedder
Road, Bombay (present Mumbai), given by the House of Tatas. Some of the leading
Indian scientists who joined TIFR are Raja Ramanna, B. V. Thosar, S. Ramanathan,
M. S. Narasimhan, M. G. K. Menon, B. M. Udgaonkar, Virendra Singh, Govind
Swarup, Obaid Siddiqi, R. R. Daniel, G. S. Gokhale, Alladi Ramakrishnan, B. V.
Sreekantan, among others (see the letter quoted in Deshmukh [2010]). In building the
institution at TIFR, Homi Bhabha was very particular in attracting meritorious and
brilliant scientists and build research groups around them, giving them full autonomy
and support for research and advancement of knowledge.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 6    V. V. Krishna

M. N. Saha and the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP)

Whereas Homi Bhabha designed and planned TIFR with the aid of his extended
family ties with Tatas, Bhatnagar had to entirely depend on the colonial government,
and particularly on Nehru, for the expansion of CSIR after Independence. Saha,
like Bhatnagar, coming from a relatively poor background, had to struggle a lot on
two fronts: personal and colonial regime since the 1930s. He introduced nuclear
physics in 1940 as part of the university physics curriculum in the University of
Calcutta as a Palit professor. With supports from Nehru, he received a fund from
the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust for the procurement and construction of a cyclotron, a
type of particle accelerator which produces radio isotopes, at the Palit Laboratory in
1941. As the detailed account of Phalkey and Wang (2016) shows, by the time the
Atomic Energy Committee (AEC) was established in 1946, lot of research went into
building the nuclear research group at the Palit Laboratory under Saha in Calcutta
(present Kolkata). The support of Homi Bhabha from Tatas and his proximity to
Nehru enabled to make Bombay (present Mumbai) as the main research centre in
nuclear energy research. Saha contested these decisions, but as things turned out,
his ideas were in a way marginalised. Saha, though continued his professional
contacts with AEC and CSIR, resolved to build his institution Saha Institute of
Nuclear Physics (SINP) from the base already created with the Cyclotron Group at
the Palit Laboratory. In contrast to Homi Bhabha’s TIFR and AEC with relatively
enough budgets to create a base, Saha had to really struggle for money in building
SINP. As Anderson (2010) draws attention, Saha could mobilise hardly `740,000
by 1947. The foundation stone was laid in April 1948 by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee
(Asutosh Mukherjee’s son). Saha in 1938 launched the well-known journal Science
and Culture and edited it till his demise in 1954. This journal contains one of the
best discourses Indian science policies in the 1940s and 1950s.

Unbound Optimism and Public Response: From the 1950s to 1970s

Both Nehru and Gandhi had the common objective of creating employment, removal
of poverty and developing India; and both emphasised the need for developing
traditional and modern industries through the use of S&T. However, their meth-
odologies differed dramatically. Nehru’s vision of modern S&T for development
in the 1940s and, even later after Gandhi’s demise, in the 1950s and 1960s did not
find any real opposition. This era witnessed a great deal of optimism about sci-
ence and development. The manifesto of the Congress Party for the first national
government in 1945 declared:

Science in its instrumental fields of activity, has played an ever increasing part
in influencing and moulding human life and will do so in even greater measure
in the future…. Industrial, agricultural and cultural advance, as well as national
defence depend on it. Scientific research is, therefore, a basic and essential

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    7

activity of the state and should be organised and encouraged on the widest scale.
(Sitaramayya, 1969)

Nehru’s vision of development, in large measure, was based on the confluence between
‘Soviet socialistic planning’ and potential of Western industrial capitalism. This was
reflected in the initial economic planning of ‘mixed economy’ of the country. Nehru
sought to develop a close partnership, an alliance, with the elite Indian scientists in
putting his ideas into action after Independence. Homi Bhabha, S. S. Bhatnagar, P. C.
Mahalanobis, J. C. Ghosh and D. S. Kothari were some of the elite scientists who can
be considered as the inner circle of Nehru. It is inconceivable to explore the growth
of S&T in this initial phase, bypassing the subject of science and politics. As early as
1947, addressing 34th session of the Indian Science Congress, Nehru initiated the alli-
ance with scientists by observing that in India there was a growing realisation of this
fact that the politician and scientist should work in close co-operation. In contrast to
Gandhi’s critical stance over modern S&T, Nehru’s modern, secular image and most of
all his unquestioned support of science made him a ‘messiah’ for the development of
science in India. The scientific community, in general, and the elite could immediately
identify with his vision of science and development for they also found a promoter of
their interests (Ahmad, 1985). Nehru’s unbound optimism of modern S&T for devel-
opment was clearly evident from his various interactions with decision-makers and
scientists. On one such occasion, he declared:

It is science alone that can solve the problem of hunger and poverty, of insanitation
and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources
running over waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people. I do not see any
way out of our vicious circle of poverty except by utilising the new sources of power
which science has placed at our disposal.4

Nehru’s vision of development through S&T was intimately connected with the rapid
expansion of education, skills and human capital, and hence with higher education
institutions. He created the ministry of Scientific Research and Natural Resources
in 1947 to coordinate and promote activities in S&T nation-wide. Indian Institute of
Technologies (IITs) were conceived and established at a time when Nehru’s vision
of building modern India dominated the national development agenda. The Scientific
Policy Resolution (SPR) clearly stated:

The wealth and prosperity of a nation depend on the effective utilization of its human
and material resources through industrialization. The use of human material for
industrialization demands its education in science and training in technical skills.
Industry opens up possibilities of greater fulfillment for the individual. India’s enor-
mous resources of manpower can only become an asset in the modern world when
trained and educated (Source: https://thesciencepolicyforum.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/05/SPR-1958.pdf).

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 8    V. V. Krishna

In fact, the plan to establish specialised engineering institutions took roots around
1945 when the government set up the Sarkar Committee. It is within this policy
framework and Nehru’s vision that the plans for creating specialised engineering
institutes emerged. The government, after Independence in 1947, established five
IITs in Kharagpur, Bombay (now Mumbai), Madras (now Chennai), Kanpur and
Delhi. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology model was perceived as a possible
answer to the lack of high-level engineering training in India and possibly also to
promote an institutional research model in which applied research rather than basic
research was pre-eminent (Chandra, 2009). From S&T policy perspectives, one
can trace various developments in this period in terms of two conceptualisations,
namely policy for science and science for policy (Brooks, 1964).

Policy for Science

This period reflects a phase of ‘policy for sciences’ during which the main empha-
sis was on creating a basic infrastructure for S&T in the country, including the
expansion of the university sector for the supply of required human resources. As
noted, India’s finest five institutes of technology were planned.5 From the 1950s
to the early 1970s, infrastructure in S&T also included substantial efforts to build
what may be termed the techno-industrial capacity—the engineering, consulting,
design and development organisations. There were 42 such organisations by 1970
in the private sector and 8 in the public sector. They were promoted basically to
bring about a coupling between S&T in the processes of capital goods industries,
to absorb imported technology in areas such as power, chemicals and metallurgy,
and to complete turnkey processing plant. Major mission-oriented science agencies
such as Department of Atomic Energy (DAE); CSIR; Indian Council of Medical
Research (ICMR); Indian Agriculture Research Institute, expanded in the 1960s;
Defence, Research and Development Organisation (DRDO); Indian Space Research
Organisation—among other institutions—were established and rapidly expanded
during this phase.6 Homi Bhabha, regarded as the father of India’s atomic energy
programme, and Nehru were instrumental in getting the first official Scientific
Policy Resolution passed in the Indian Parliament in 1958. As Rahman (1983,
p. 1) observed, ‘The SPR was both a testament of faith in science and a vision of
society’. It is an important landmark as it recurrently legitimised the funding and
expansion of the S&T institutional base.
One of the notable features of the science–politics alliance of the Nehru era
was that the growth and type of S&T institutions in different sectors depended on
the elite scientists close to Nehru and their interests. In other words, the policy for
science can be largely explained in terms of informal science policy determined by
the alliance.7 Although Nehru was instrumental in chalking out planned economic
development through Five-Year Plans, and in a way he was one of the founders of
India’s Planning Commission, India’s first Five-Year S&T Plans (1974–1979)
came into being only in 1973.8 It is rather interesting to note that, apart from the
1958 SPR, there were no specific S&T policy statements issued during the Nehru

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    9

regime. The only economic and budgetary signals given were contained in the
Five-Year Plans. Even though Nehru consulted with a wide section of scientific
intelligentsia, the science–politics alliance of the Nehru era led S&T growth into
some ‘specific’ directions. The scientific elite close to Nehru regime, particu-
larly those in the ‘inner circle’, can be said to have wielded enormous power to
command scarce or limited resources—both financial and material. CSIR had
no laboratories worth mentioning in 1947, but by the 1950s S. S. Bhatnagar was
able to establish a network of 15 laboratories. C. V. Raman called it the Nehru–
Bhatnagar Effect.9 This had a parallel in the atomic energy agency with Homi
Bhabha as its head. Bhabha managed to mobilise Nehru into setting up the DAE
headquarters in Bombay where he wanted it. India put lot of policy thrust on
atomic energy rather than coal R&D utilisation in the 1950s and 1960s. Thus, for
about two decades after Independence, the real expansion of S&T infrastructure
took place in CSIR, DAE and defence-related establishments. As some analysts
rightly pointed out in the early 1970s:

It is perhaps not surprising to find that decisions regarding the allocation

of scientific resources, for example, have been taken not on the basis of the
advice tendered to the political leadership by either of these bodies [referring
to Science Advisory Body to the Cabinet and Planning Commission], but as
result of informal and tacit interactions between concerned individuals in the
scientific community, the executive and the polity. Even today decisions about
defence, public health, atomic energy, industrial research and even agricultural
research are apparently being taken almost independent of the formal national
science policy. (Parthasarathi, 1974)

Sectors Marginalised

With hindsight, as the structure of S&T institutional growth reflects, agriculture,

rural technology and medical research were some of the important fields of Indian
S&T which witnessed only marginal prospects until the late 1960s. The close alli-
ance between Nehru and elite scientists in industrial research and atomic energy
had its own consequences for other areas. It is not surprising that the ‘grand old’
agriculture scientist, Benjamin P. Pal (1977, p. 50) lamented10:

… [H]ow much the application of science to agriculture might have advanced

if Nehru had been directly associated with ICAR [Indian Council of Agriculture
Research] in the way in which he was associated with the CSIR and DAE. It
is a pity that when these modern scientific organisations were set up, the older
ICAR was not drastically reorganised on similar lines.

Historically speaking, another consequence of the science–politics nexus of

the Nehru era is the relative stagnation in the proportion of R&D funds for the

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 10    V. V. Krishna

university sector. Though higher education in universities witnessed considerable

expansion from 25 to 105 universities during 1947 and 1975, the locus of R&D
somehow was restricted to the mission-oriented science agencies. As a rough
estimate, the university component of the total R&D expenditure remained less
than 6% per annum from the 1960s to 1990s. One reason for the domination of
mission-oriented science agencies (such as DAE and CSIR) was that the elite
scientists who were close to the political establishment were from these agencies,
and the tradition continues even today. The academic community did not play a
major part in S&T policy decision-making processes. The university sector had
to depend on science agencies for doctoral and post-doctoral scholarships for
a long time. The universities in India were in a large measure seen as teaching
institutions since the science agencies such as CSIR, DAE and others accounted
for most of the research funding. As Edward Shils (1969), expert on Indian higher
education, pointed out, ‘Universities were rendered as mere teaching institutions
without any worthwhile research base’. Philip Altbach (2012), Andre Betaille
(2010) and others have recurrently reflected on the marginalisation of research
base in the Indian university sector.
Optimism

Implicit in the policy for science was the view that once infrastructure in R&D
is created, personnel trained and a set of institutions and universities established,
most problems of S&T for development would be accomplished. A great deal of
optimism was reflected by Nehru and elite scientists over science and development
in the policy discourse of this phase. Further, creating a base in science was seen
as crucial for absorbing and eventually replacing the foreign technology, as well as
generating new capacities in technological innovation for the industrial develop-
ment of the country. While the ethos of governance reflected a ‘top-down’ model of
operation, the policy-for-science perspective adopted by the political–bureaucratic
regime in S&T pushed forward the policy instruments of import substitution and
self-reliance in S&T development most vigorously during this phase. Although
Gandhian values and his Sarvodaya model had considerable influence in the 1940s,
the departure of Gandhi in 1948 did not have a major influence on the developmental
policies during this phase and till about 1973.

Science for Policy

Having laid some basic infrastructure in S&T, science-for-policy perspective reflects

series of S&T developments which begun to feed into political expectations. The sci-
ence agencies DAE, CSIR, ICMR, ICAR, DRDO and ISRO witnessed considerable
growth and continued to legitimise policy expectations. By the early 1980s, India
entered the nuclear and space ‘clubs’ of the world. Homi Bhabha in Atomic Energy
and Vikram Sarabhai in the Department of Space laid strong research and develop-
ment foundations by the 1980s. ISRO launched its first satellite called Aryabhatta
on 19 April 1975 in collaboration with the Soviet Union. On 18 July 1980, ISRO

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    11

launched second Indian satellite called Rohini successfully in the relevant orbit
by an India-made launch vehicle. In the field of nuclear energy and its progress,
India detonated her code-named Smiling Buddha, the first nuclear explosion on
18 May 1974. The period between the 1970s and 1980s witnessed more than
fourfold increase in defence and nuclear research budget which later in the 1990s
enabled the country experiment with second nuclear explosion called Phokran II in
May 1998. The Department of Electronics and the Electronics Commission were
created in early 1970 and 1971, respectively, to expand and promote national-level
electronics and computing technology. These departments, in fact, can be said to be
spin off origins from TIFR and DAE. A National Centre for Software Development
and Computing Techniques (NCSDCT) was spin off from TIFR and transferred to
the Department of Electronics later.
In agriculture, India experienced relative success in the Green Revolution in food
grain production and the ‘White Revolution’ in milk cooperatives and develop-
ment of the dairy industry. From a short phase of food dependency and imports of
wheat from the United States and other countries, India became self-reliant in food
production due to success in the Green Revolution. This was led by agriculture
scientists such as M. S. Swaminathan, B. P. Pal and others in collaboration with
Norman Borlaug who leveraged agricultural research and technology increase
agriculture productivity in India. The ‘While Revolution’, which mainly involved
cooperativities of milk farmers on all India basis, particularly began in Gujrat. The
White Revolution involved increase in milk production through three policy and
programme strategies known as Operation Flood I, II and III between 1970 and
1996 (FICCI, 2020). These strategies led to a rapid rise in the formation of more
than 75,000 village cooperatives in the 1990s and increased to a whopping 190,000
by 2019.11 By the 1990s, India became the world’s largest milk producer. Dr Kurien
and his associates at the Anand Milk Union Limited (the main institution which
catalysed the milk cooperatives) resisted several ‘internal’ and ‘external’ moves
to abort the Indian milk food industry. With the co-operation of the government,
particularly Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Kurien established the National
Dairy Development Board to further strengthen the industrial, trade and research
base in the milk sector. Most importantly, India became self-sufficient in food grains,
milk and other agro-industrial sectors—an important national task for a population
of India’s size (Baviskar & Attwood, 1995; Kurien, 2005, 2007).
Catalysed by the Indian Patent Act of 1971, which protected patents for only
seven years, CSIR laboratories were able to successfully develop processes that
helped Indian pharma companies exploit drug patents in commercialising some
important essential drugs. Indian pharma firms in collaboration with CSIR’s
five drug research labs attained very high technological capability in reverse
engineering in putting generic drugs into the market. Over 70% of South Asian
population depend on essential generic drugs sourced from India in 2020. Roots
of this pharma capability can be traced to the impact of the 1971 Patent Act and
R&D capabilities of CSIR labs in drugs and chemicals. Further, in food technol-
ogy, the CSIR process on baby food, developed in the mid-1950s, replaced the

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 12    V. V. Krishna

multinational Glaxo by 90% by the 1960s. This process led to the growth of a
successful cooperative milk industry in the state of Gujarat known as Amul which
produces baby milk food under the same name. In the 1960s, the CSIR labora-
tory, Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute, Durgapur, designed and
developed an indigenous tractor (Swaraj manufactured by Punjab Tractors Ltd) to
meet the then growing demands of the Green Revolution (Chaudhury, 1985; Jain
& Mathur, 1990; Mande, 2020).

Optimism Shattered

Optimistic assumptions about science to development underlying the perspective

of policy for science began to erode from the early 1970s. The oil crisis in 1973,
coupled with the rise of alternative and AT movements, raised questions about S&T
for development. An important development during this phase is the emergence of
a critical stream of thinking and writings which pointed towards the failure of S&T
efforts over three decades. The main issues were the increasing disparities between
the urban rich and rural poor as a result of S&T-based developments including the
Green Revolution.12 There evolved a consensus over the failure of ‘trickle -down’
theories, which justified the optimistic assumptions of the Nehruvian ‘model’ of
the S&T-based development approach. In fact, alternatives to the Nehruvian eco-
nomic framework that came into policy focus from the late 1960s. The ‘wave’ of
AT which began in the mid-1970s gained momentum during the rule of the Janata
Party Government.13 This was also the period when the Gandhian perspectives
on development gained some currency and provided legitimacy to decentralised
development and institutionalised several inclusive innovation institutions. Barefoot
College, Tilonia; Jaipur Foot; Honeybee Network, Ahmedabad; Arvind Eye Care,
Madurai; and several incremental innovations engineered by Dr Kurien at Amul are
some examples.14 Even before the Gandhian Institute at Varanasi institutionalised
the AT Unit, Appropriate Technology Cell was created in the Ministry of Industrial
Development in 1971. In 1974, Application of Science and Technology to Rural
Areas (ASTRA) was established at IISc Bangalore by A. K. N. Reddy. Centre of
Science for Villages was founded by Devendra Kumar in 1976. It was created to
play an intermediary role in connecting national laboratories with the needs and
demands of rural areas which badly required technical inputs for various problems.
The major impact of this movement was the issue of alternatives and the choice
of technology in the process of development. Jain (2002) explores S&T networks
operating in society in terms of ‘elite’ and ‘subaltern’ streams. The disenchantment
over the role of modern S&T in society was clearly evident from the emergence
of the People’s Science Movements (PSM) and Alternative Science Movements
(ASM). In a way, the rise of these movements was indeed a counter-hegemonic
reaction to the hegemony of instrumental modern science (Krishna, 1997). Coupled
with this were the environment and ecology groups which occupied centre stage
of politics and decision-making by the early 1980s, signalling the importance of
civic culture (Guha, 1988).15 The PSM groups and their programmes of action are

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    13

concerned with the areas of science popularisation, literacy, educational innovations,

environment, the indigenous base of modern technology and rural technologies.
Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad, the leading agency of PSM with a full-time
membership of some 50,000 science activists, came into prominence in the 1970s
and 1980s. On the other hand, the concerns of ASM groups varied from the intel-
lectual positions to environment and ecology, forest policies, indigenous knowledge
systems and management of big dams. The ASM grew out of simultaneous efforts
by various actors who initiated an intellectual critique of modern, Western science
parallel to the emergence of grass-root groups interested in ecology and groups that
promoted indigenous systems of knowledge and practices. Ashis Nandy and his
colleagues at the Centre for the Developing Societies in Delhi; Claude Alavares
in Goa; Patriotic and People Oriented Science and Technology (PPST), Madras16;
ecology-based groups such as ‘Chipko’ in Northern India; Narmada Bachao Andolan
(Save the Narmada Movement) in central India17; and the Chipko Movement, led
by Sunderlal Bahuguna and Chandi Prasad Bhatt are some of the prominent intel-
lectuals whose activities were part of ASM.

Tragedy in the Midst of Technology Policy

The 1980s continued to throw up several challenges. This was the decade when
Indian S&T was entangled in a double-bind situation. On the one hand, the issue
of basic needs posed a challenge and led to a critical evaluation of the policies
followed by the government. The Bhopal Gas tragedy, which claimed more than
5,000 human lives because of a poisonous gas leak from a Union Carbide factory
in Bhopal, exposed the dangerous consequences of not paying attention to R&D
risk assessment. This was particularly crucial when India was transferring mas-
sive foreign technology during the preceding three decades. ‘One-dimensional’
technocratic obsession with S&T policy came under heavy criticism from Ashis
Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Shiv Viswanathan, Claude Alvares and others. They went
on to publish their manifesto on Science, Hegemony and Violence in 1988 (The
United Nations University).
On the other hand, the rise and importance of new technologies (micro-
electronics, information technologies, biotechnologies and so on) and their institu-
tionalisation posed a new challenge with regard to their absorption, development and
diffusion. In a way, it is not surprising that the 1983 Technology Policy Statement
stressed the need for technology assessment studies, and the importance of these new
technologies and strengthening their indigenous base. The 1984 Computer Policy,
Electronics Policy and the setting up of Centre for the Development Telematics
(C-DOT) was in response to the call of Technology Policy Statement. C-DOT
led to digitising India’s telecom revolution in later years, but in the short term
helped India expand from 2 million to 20 million telephone lines (Pitroda, 2011).
Moving on from telecommunications, the 1980s also witnessed the creation of the
Centre for Development of Advance Computing in 1988 which built India’s first

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 14    V. V. Krishna

supercomputer PARAM with 1 GF, paving the way for succeeding generation of
super computers (Pitroda & Pitke, 2011). Little known is the fact that Indian software
story began with the establishment of National Centre for Software Development
and Computing Techniques (NCSDCT) in 1974 in TIFR, rechristened as National
Centre for Software Technology in 1985 (Ramani, 2011; Sarma & Krishna, 2010;
Sharma, 2009). These efforts in new technologies led to the first email system to
be operated in India by the early 1980s, and the prototype of the multi-city Railway
Passenger Reservation System was planned and demonstrated by NCSDCT. Later,
the Computer Maintenance Corporation of India built advance systems based on
these initial plans. One notable feature that we can see in India’s S&T policy in
the 1980s and early 1990s was the technology denial regime from USA in super
computing, space technologies and some critical components in high technology.
In both sectors India responded with indigenous high technological contributions.
Another field of S&T that received a big boost during the mid-1980s was bio-
technology when the government set up the Department of Biotechnology (DBT),
with an annual budget of `180 million. India’s front ranking Centre for Cellular
& Molecular Biology was also formally established in 1982 which pioneered the
techniques of DNA finger printing in India—later on, led to the creation of the
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics laboratory in Hyderabad. The period
from the mid-1980s to 1990 was one of the considerable political instabilities with
frequent government changes.18 The one-dimensional phase of technology policy
thrived during Rajiv Gandhi at the helm of affairs, with technocrat Sam Pitroda
giving technical solutions to social problems. If civil society raised a problem, the
government was ready with a technical solution. In response to various criticisms
over basic needs and the challenges faced by underprivileged sections of people, the
government initiated various flagship programmes under Technology Missions in
immunisation, oilseeds, drinking water, literacy and telecommunications under the
charge of Sam Pitroda in 1987. It is not surprising that Dinesh C Sharma noted that
‘if Nehru was the political patron of Indian science, Rajiv was the political patron of
Indian technology. In the Nehru era science developed through politician-scientist
alliances, in the Rajiv era technology developed through politician-technocrat alli-
ances’ (Sharma, 2009).

The 1990s: The World is Flat

Impressed by his field trip to Bangalore software hub and interactions with Nandan
Nilekani at Infosys, Thomas Friedman, on reaching home back in the United
States whispered to his wife that ‘The World is Flat’.19 A ray of hope that Friedman
witnessed happening down in South India actually got ignited with the liberal
economic reforms of Manmohan Singh as the finance minister of India in 1991.
The main thrust of new economic reforms was the introduction of New Industrial
Policy which focused on exports, larger role for the private sector as the engine
of growth, freer operation of markets and global niche in world markets. It was

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    15

a major departure from the earlier protectionist policies and an ‘inward-looking’,

import-substitution regime. Notwithstanding criticisms from different quarters,
the new economic reforms brought the industry-market-based S&T policy culture
into the centre stage of economic and commerce policy regime. Liberal economic
reforms based on market principles influenced both mission-oriented public science
agencies and private industry players. R. A. Mashelkar, the head of CSIR, through
a ‘Vision Document’ spelled out several of these new measures to generate 30% of
its budget from outside CSIR sources. He also set a target to generate 50% of its
budget and 100% of its operational budget from non-governmental sources through
industry partnerships and by selling its technologies (CSIR, 2001; Mashelkar, 1995).
This change was not confined to CSIR but spread to other science agencies. With
hindsight, even though Indian economic liberalisation did not transform the Indian
economy compared to East Asian miracle or China, there are some bright spots in
few sectors of economy with innovation-led growth and technological capabili-
ties. Sectors and technology developments, for which strong foundation was laid
through new technology policies, deserve some space.

Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals

As early as 1991, as one of the leading biologists has observed, ‘for a govern-
ment outfit, DBT has been extraordinarily active, vibrant and forward looking’
(Padmanabhan, 1991, pp. 510–513). DBT’s budget witnessed almost tenfold
increase from `180 million in 1986 to 1863 million in 2001. Within a decade,
DBT expanded with about a half-dozen laboratories and currently houses some
16 laboratories. Major achievements of DBT are its contribution to the creation of
postgraduate and doctoral programmes in biotechnology in about 35 universities,
the creation of new Chairs, scholarships and, above all, the expansion or creation
of 6 new national laboratories in molecular biology and biotechnology research
which have developed world-class facilities over 15 years.20 The 1990s witnessed
establishment and strengthening of biotechnology laboratories and basic research
groups in CSIR, ICMR and ICAR. R&D and innovation capacities also witnessed
a steady growth as biotechnology patents more than doubled from 172 in 1995
to 395 patents in 2002. India attracted global attention in 2000 when a group of
national laboratories, including the private biotech firms such as Serum Institute,
Shanta Biotech and Bharat Biotech, developed three vaccines for Hepatitis B at
a fraction of US$ 0.5 per dose compared to the imported vaccine of US$ 16 per
dose (Kumar et al., 2004). As Ramani and Guennif (2014, p. 196) pointed out, ‘the
challenge for the Indian pharmaceutical firms was to expand their knowledge base,
which was firmly embedded in organic and synthetic chemistry, to integrate the life
sciences based and associated techniques’. Research on vaccines and biopharma-
ceuticals initiated in DBT labs led to the spin-off effect in private pharmaceutical
firms for investing in R&D in biotechnology. This paved a way for the emergence
of the biopharma sector in India. In the early 1990s, Biotechnology Consortium of
India Limited (BCIL) was set up by DBT with an investment of `5,000 million in

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 16    V. V. Krishna

collaboration with about a half-dozen financial, venture capital and private firms. There
were some 320 companies and 240 institutions linked to the biotech sector by 2010.
A notable development has been the creation of ‘bio-valley’ in Hyderabad which has
dozen leading biopharma firms and research labs. BCIL and DBT collaboration proved
to be an important milestone for India emerging as an important player in biotechnol-
ogy commercialisation.
Closely associated with the biotechnology sector is India’s pharmaceutical sector.
This sector was transformed after the landmark Indian Patents Act, 1970 which protected
patents between 5 and 7 yearly only. The Act enabled Indian firms and institutions to
perform reverse engineering on expired patents in India and bring generic drugs into the
market. By 1995, there were 13 Indian companies among the top 20 firms which con-
trolled 85% of the market (Krishna, 2007). Two studies by Langow (1998) and Lalitha
(2002) demonstrate that technological capabilities by Indian firms witnessed steady
improvements between 1978 and 2000. For instance, Cefuroxime consumed 10 years
to produce generic drug after reverse engineering, but by 2000, this period was reduced
to 3 years in the case of Ciprofloxacin. India has mastered the art of frugal innovation
in pharmaceuticals. For instance, drugs such as psoriasis and cholesterol reduction cost
a small fraction of what it costs in the United States (Prahalad & Mashelkar, 2010).21
Jayaraman (2005) study on India’s top 20 pharma firms showed that their revenues
increased by 134% from US$ 483 million to US$ 652 million during 2003 and 2005.
Much of this success can be traced to the R&D efforts of five drug and chemical labo-
ratories of CSIR which in varying ways contributed to the technological capabilities of
Indian pharma companies during the era of 1970s to 1990s. Indian generic companies,
notably Cipla, made AIDS drugs affordable in Africa and elsewhere for a fraction of the
cost in developed countries. Recent report from Arvind Sahay, Professor of Marketing
and International Business at IIM Ahmedabad reveals that in 1969, Indian pharma firms
had just 5% share of the Indian market and by 2020 it replaced the global pharma to the
extent of 85%. India contributes over 20% by value to the global generics market. The
pharma industry in India is worth US$ 37 billion with exports accounting US$ 18 bil-
lion. As Sahay concludes, ‘Pharma can do for India what software was able to do in the
1990s and 2000s. India became the back office. Let this be the moment that triggers the
acceleration of the movement to becoming the Pharmacy to the World’ (Sahay, 2020).

IT Software

The second industry sector that has emerged in the 1990s is Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) software. Government role has been substantial
as more than 50 software technology parks operate accessing various tax benefits.22
In a country where about 50% of the population is illiterate and an equal number live
in poverty, the IT policies are directed at harnessing the IT revolution and at the same
time keeping social justice and equity in the forefront of the policy agenda. There are
more than 950 million mobile subscribers in 2014 in India and more than 200 million
internet users. The most dynamic aspect of Indian economy in the last decade has
been the emergence of hotspots for global R&D, global innovation, and market for

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    17

information-based ICT products and high technology manufactures. India has been a
major destination of foreign direct investment in R&D and an attractive knowledge-
based location for transnational corporations such as IBM, Intel, Microsoft and General
Electric. In 2014, there over 1,000 multinational firms that have established R&D centres
or laboratories in various cities of India. Between 2000 and 2013, these centres increased
at an annual rate of 13.8%, giving employment to 244,000 professionals in 2014. These
centres mainly operate in ICT, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and
automobiles. During 2002 and 2013, Bangalore, Pune, Chennai, Kolkata, Delhi NCR
and Hyderabad’s high technology cities were among the major destinations for foreign
R&D centres (Krishna, 2016a). Indian IT and services industry contributed about 7% of
GDP in 2014 and generated revenues to the tune of US$ 110 billion (Krishna, 2016a).

Auto Sector

The auto sector assumed some importance in this phase of Indian S&T policy. India’s
three major auto firms, namely Tata Motors and Mahindra and Mahindra (M&M)
launched indigenous new models of sedans, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and trucks.23
M&M developed vehicles such as Scorpio, Bolero, Xylo, XUV 700, XUV 300 and
Alturas G4. On the other hand, Tata Motors launched passenger cars such as Indica,
Nano, Tiago, Altroz and Tigor. In SUVs, they launched Safari, Harrier and Nexon in
the last few years. Both M&M and Tatas have invested in R&D and design laboratories
and developed indigenous engine models for their cars. Both these firms in recent years
have also launched electric vehicles. The third major auto firm Ashok Leyland is the
second largest Indian vehicle maker. All these firms have developed R&D labs and
have evolved technological capabilities in collaboration with Indian academic institu-
tions, particularly IITs (Krishnan, 2011). Indian automobile production increased from
5.3 million units in 2001-2002 to 20.3 million units in 2011-2012. Nearly 19% were
cars and the rest were two- and three-wheeler vehicles. In 2012, the Indian automotive
industry provided direct employment to more than 320,000 people and contributed 5%
of India’s GDP. As Rajnish Tiwari and Katharina (2017) from a detailed study of the
Indian auto sector conclude,

The growing domestic automobile market, export opportunities and the increased
emphasis of OEMs on high-quality, innovative solutions have created a context for
component suppliers to ramp up their innovation capabilities…has developed unique
frugal innovation pathways that manage to circumvent the various shortcomings
of India’s innovation ecosystem, by building on some key strengths of that very
ecosystem.

Space and Frontier Research

The sector which has put India on the global S&T map is the aerospace industry CSIR’s
national aerospace laboratories are involved in several defence strategic projects

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 18    V. V. Krishna

including the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas. India developed high technological
capabilities in launching satellites on commercial basis and its space missions to
reach Moon and Mars witnessed government support and progress in this phase
(Bagla & Menon, 2008). A somewhat big lead in launching satellite began around
the early 1990s with the development of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)
with the maiden flight in 1993. This was for launching remote-sensing satellite in
the Sun-synchronous orbit. PSLV was considered as work horse which completed
more than 50 launches of satellites for both India and foreign countries by 2012.
The other important vehicle developed by ISRO is the Geosynchronous Satellite
Launch Vehicle (GSLV). India was able to develop cryogenic technology for the
launch of satellites in the geosynchronous orbit. During 2000 and 2010, out of total
13 launches of satellites, 10 were successful through the GSLV platform. Around
2010, India developed GSLV Mark III.24 The technology denial regime which led
to the indigenisation of space technologies bore fruits through these developments.
India’s strength in advances of S&T attracted global attention. India entered
into collaboration with the European Union and became partner in some key tech-
nology and big science projects in the decade preceding 2014. Apart from these
collaborative ventures in emerging technologies, India entered into collaboration
with the USA and other leading countries.25

1. India is a member of the European Union International Thermonuclear

Experimental Reactor (ITER) nuclear fusion energy project. ITER is an
international Tokamak research and engineering project designed to prove
the scientific and technological feasibility of a full-scale fusion power reac-
tor. It is an experimental step between today’s studies of plasma physics and
future electricity-producing fusion power plants.
2. India and the European Union participate in the proposed Facility-for-
Antiproton-and-Ion-Research project aimed at understanding the tiniest
particles in the universe. Indian participation in this project has been in the
form of experiments and accelerator components, where Indian scientists are
drawing from their vast expertise in this area in collaboration with European
scientists.
3. India is also a member of the satellite-based navigation system, the Galileo
Project (European version of USA’s global positioning system). India’s
National Knowledge Network is linked up to its European counterpart
GÉANT, and it is also part of the Trans-Eurasia Information Network.
4. The Indo-US nuclear deal, initiated in Dr Manmohan Singh’s regime between
and the USA, is a big milestone in the science diplomacy. First, it removed
the nuclear apartheid regime and tentacles of various roadblocks. Second,
it opened the door for India to enter into nuclear agreements to promote the
civil nuclear energy programme with other major countries. Third, it opened
up a new high technology commerce route in drawing uranium and nuclear
technology from countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Russia, Japan
and South Africa.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    19

5. India and Japan during 2006 announced the formation of a global and stra-
tegic partnership. The most significant milestone in STI in the last decade
has been Japanese official development assistance in conceptualising and
executing the well-known, prestigious Delhi Metro Project. This resulted
in India having one of the largest metro networks in the world by 2012.

Post 2014: Mirages of Development

By the middle of 2014 in May, the government led by Narendra Modi of Bharatiya
Janata Party replaced the then ruling Congress Party led by Dr Manmohan Singh.
A number of changes have since taken place in the economic, political, industrial,
educational and other sectors which have a bearing on science, technology and
innovation (STI) activities. From the S&T policy culture perspective, the phase of
the Modi government is dominated by political-bureaucratic culture in science with
the powerful persona of Modi and his Prime Minister Office assuming complete
dominance. The whole governance of STI agenda reflects a top-down model, ren-
dering the market, academic and civil society policy cultures only residual space
to operate in the whole system. This is indeed a dramatic turnaround, compared
to previous regimes. Further, the other noticeable shift in the contemporary S&T
policy culture is the specific importance given to Indian science of the ancient
period, traditional concepts and some elements of Vedic knowledge. For instance,
while speaking at the 104th session of Indian Science Congress on 4 January 2015,
Modi said,

We in India are the inheritors of a thriving tradition of Indian science and tech-
nology since ancient times’ mathematics and medicine, metallurgy and mining,
calculus and textiles, architecture and astronomy. The contribution of Indian
civilization to human knowledge and advancement has been rich and varied.
(The Economic Times, 2015)

This was about linking our past scientific traditions to the present ones. However,
a noticeable change in the social tone of S&T policy culture pointed towards glo-
rification of ancient India expressed on various occasions by important people in
the government and academia.26
Voices on innovation and development were much louder than any of the previ-
ous governments. As widely circulated in Indian and international print media,27
optimists believe that the new government is likely to link up STI agenda with
the socio-economic development spectrum. Science, Technology and Innovation
Policy 2013 was endorsed. Following the tradition, the prime minister inaugurated
the Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA) in January 2015. He reiterated
government’s commitment and support to S&T research and higher education.
He stressed, ‘There is a mood of optimism for change in the country, the energy
to pursue it and the confidence to achieve it. But the dreams we all share for India

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 20    V. V. Krishna

will depend as much on S&T as it will on policy and resources.’28 This optimistic
STI policy discourse resonated quite well in the international print media as well.
As reported by the Time Magazine on 18 May 2015, Modi declared, ‘My
philosophy, the philosophy of my party and the philosophy of my government is
what I call Sabka saath, sabka vikas’ (that is to take everybody together and move
towards inclusive growth).29 During later years, the phrase Sabka vishwas (every
one’s trust) was added. Modi went on to reiterate, ‘So far as the government is
concerned, there is only one holy book, which is the Constitution of India. My
government will not tolerate or accept any discrimination based on caste, creed
and religion’.30 On the economic front, The Economist on 24 May 2014 indicated
a great sense of economic optimism for India with a cover page title ‘Strongman.
How Modi can unleash India’.31 The Economist went on to observe that

annual growth was heading towards 10%. India had the ingredients that had
made East Asian countries richer: a growing population and rates of saving and
investment of over 30% of GDP that would finance factories and roads, lifting
the economy’s potential. Unlike most East Asian counties, India has never had
a strong state, but instead, optimists argued, it had brilliant entrepreneurs who
could wheel and deal the country to prosperity.32

In 2015, at ISCA, the prime minister identified a number of sectors and projects
where the government is likely to focus its policy attention. Government’s commit-
ment to S&T for development was evidently loud in the policy discourse. Modi said,

The arms of science, technology and innovation must reach the poorest, the remot-
est and the most vulnerable person. This is an enterprise of national importance
in which each of us — government, industry, national laboratories, universities
and research institutions — have to work together. Too often, a discussion on
science and technology is reduced to a question of budgets. It is important and
I am confident that it will continue to grow.33

By 2016–2017, the government identified a number of national flagship programmes

and missions,34 which entail S&T, R&D and technological inputs and resources,
including financial and human skills. During the last seven years, some important
policy statements were also issued by the government, including the recent Science,
Technology and Innovation Policy 2021 draft which is in the public domain for
public responses.
The most significant development that has recently come about in 2021 is the
setting up of the National Research Foundation with an allocation of `50 billion
for five years. Nature in its editorial on 9 February 2021 rightly called a ‘landmark
science agency and the most significant development in India’s research-funding
policy in at least a decade.’35 It will distribute `100 billion or about US$ 1.35 bil-
lion every year for research and development with a focus on universities and col-
leges which will enhance India’s research intensity in the university sector.36 This

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    21

development certainly comes at a time when there has been a relative stagnation
and even decline in the gross expenditure on research and development (GERD)
against GDP. India spent 0.69% of GDP in GERD in 2020 compared to 0.84%
about a decade earlier. This being the bright spot, the government allocation of
research funds for more than half a dozen flagship programmes, such as Digital
India, Make in India, Smart Cities and Clean India, is reported to be quite dismal
in the last five years. Even though the absolute national GERD doubled over the
last decade and a half, it stagnated both during the former and current political
regimes at around 0.65%–0.70% of GDP.
The Digital India programme which has taken roots during the previous regime
witnessed considerable success as 1,230 million Indians possess digital identities in
the form of Aadhaar cards, while there are over 1,210 million mobile phones and
560 million internet connections. There have been some finance-related innova-
tions in this programme.37 The networks created begun to show some impact on
development (Dahdah & Mishra, 2020). India entered in collaboration with big
firms such as Google and Microsoft for digitising government services.38 Other
flagship programmes are reported to have not made any noteworthy progress in the
last few years. Make in India programme was initiated with a vision of increasing
manufacturing sector’s growth rate of around 12% per annum, create 100 million
jobs and ensure the sector’s contribution to GDP to 25% by 2022.39 As reports
indicate, several targets were only partially accomplished or most unlikely to do
so. Much of the public criticism is on lack of employment opportunities for young,
educated classes. India’s unemployment rate increased to about 12% by 2020.40 In
the case of Smart Cities programme, the government of India declared in 2015 to
make 100 smart cities by 2020.41 There are numerous reports in the media criticising
the concept and targets of Smart Cities. For instance, the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Urban Development has reported that hardly 1.8% of funds allocated
for the Smart Cities Mission have been used by April 2018.42 One would be hard
pressed to define, with relevant indicators, the completion of even a single smart
city in country in 2021.
The Clean India programme had the main objective to eliminate open defeca-
tion completely by 2 October 2019 (150th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi) and
improve solid waste management. The government progress seems to be partially
successful as 110 million toilets were constructed from 2014 to 2019.43 The World
Bank supported survey concluded that in February 2019 10% of people in India
remain without access to toilets. Another survey in four northern states found that
between 2014 and 2018, the non-access to toilets has come down from 70% of the
population to 44%.44 Much of the problem in toilet-building programme remained
with making water availability in rural toilets and linking them up with sewage and
sanitary techniques. Closely related to the Clean India mission was the National
Mission for Clean Ganga which runs 2,525 km through several states of India;
the mission is also known as Namami Gange. The main objectives of this mis-
sion were to ‘ensure effective abatement of pollution and rejuvenation of the river
Ganga’.45 As is well known, cleaning of the Ganges River was indeed a gigantic

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 22    V. V. Krishna

task attempted and failed by several governments before the present regime.
The major science and technical factors attributed to the failure of the mission
are river flow data and its interpretation, environmental impact assessment,
sludge control, and technical know-how for sewage treatment plants and its
technological capabilities.46 The biggest jolt to the way in which governance
and management of the Clean Ganga Mission operate was exposed during the
COVID-19 Second Wave surge during April–May 2021.47 From science point
of view, whilst wastewater-based epidemiology is well known among scientists
and engineers, the field seems to be completely undeveloped or unknown in
the management of the Clean Ganga Mission.48 The Centre for Science and
Environment, New Delhi, in 2018 observed, ‘Even after 4 years and an allot-
ment of `22,000 crore… flagship programme is far from being a success’.49
Liberalisation of agriculture in 2019 with the enactment of three farm laws
in the Parliament posed an excessively big challenge for the government in
2020. Recommendations of the National Commission on Farmers chaired by
Dr M. S. Swaminathan remained unimplemented for more than a decade since
2005. The present regime has implemented some recommendations, but the
farmers are seeking full implementation of recommendations and asking to
repeal three farm laws passed by the government. The optimism unleashed by
the STI agenda in 2014–2015 with a promise of ‘big bang’ reforms somehow
lost momentum by the beginning of 2021. The public disappointment became
quite apparent as several flagship programmes did not bring about any visible
technological innovation or progress in boosting Indian economy, particularly
on the employment front. A sense of despair and frustration that has come about
since the end of 2019 due to COVID-19 lockdowns and national mobility restric-
tions further accentuated the gloom. The relative failure on the management
of COVID-19 and the public distress became a topic of debate in the Indian
and international media.
India was able to put together her scientific and technological capabilities
in developing two indigenous vaccines and manufacturing two COVID-19
vaccines in a record period of time.50 However, health-related criticism was
directed on the hospital infrastructure, delivery of essential medical supplies
and drugs, particularly in the rural areas. The way in which primary public
healthcare systems operate and function in India was thoroughly exposed during
the pandemic for not meeting basic health needs. The media, which lauded the
Modi government earlier in 2014, criticised the government for its handling
of COVID-19 crisis in India.51 Lancet, the British medical journal which made
critical remarks on the USA for its handling COVID-19, also made similar
critical remarks on ‘India’s complacency over COVID-19’.52 As Ambassador
Satish Chandra, the Vice Chair of Vivekananda International Foundation, a
pro-government think tank in New Delhi, observed, ‘As the nation reels under
the impact of the monstrous second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic Prime
Minister Modi has been the focus of much criticism, some justified and some
unjustified, for the failure to avert it and to mitigate its adverse impact’.53

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    23

Concluding Remarks

In 1947, India’s life expectancy at birth was around 35–37 years which increased to
69 years in 2020. Under 5 mortality rate was 260 per thousand in 1950, and it came
down to 35.53 in 2020. Even though the gulf between rich and poor increased over
the years according to Piketty (2020), more than 150 million people were lifted out
of poverty during two decades till the onset of COVID-19 crisis. This is where we
find the impact of S&T touching the lives of people. With a huge population of nearly
1.35 billion people, India is not dependent on food on outside countries since the
1960s. Notwithstanding criticisms, Green and White Revolutions and our agricul-
ture science community have made immense contribution to develop scientific and
technical capacities in agriculture. This is no mean achievement by any standards.
However, as M. S. Swaminathan constantly reminds us, India is yet to accomplish
the Second Green Revolution and sustainable basis of agricultural systems. Besides,
as agriculture productivity improves and labour gets displaced, there is the challenge
of finding employment in the industrial sector. Though we lag several developing
countries in attaining human development indicators and lot more deserves to be
achieved (Drese & Sen, 2013),54 there is indeed some positive impact from S&T
institutions in the post-Independence period.
India’s public research and innovation system including higher education has given
her some comparative advantage in ‘human capital’ in areas such as information
technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and several other sectors of
economy. The IIT brand image became globally noticeable through its alumni impact
in the Silicon Valley since the 1990s. There are more than 11,000 IITians who played
an important role in the Silicon Valley. This has certainly radiated Indian Software
industry (Saxenian, 2005, 2006). India’s mission-oriented science agencies in space
and atomic energy have earned international recognition, particularly in satellite
launches to place India among the few top nations in the world. The same cannot be
said about export promotion and economic competitiveness in ‘high’ technology and
‘advanced’ technology-based industries, with some exceptions such as software and
biopharma. Government protective policies coupled with the long gestation period
of import-substitution policies did not contribute to new technological innovation in
several industries, particularly ‘new technologies’, to aid the technological competi-
tiveness of Indian R&D. As Rosenberg (1990, pp. 149–150) comment on reviewing
various models of industrialisation refers to Indian situation. This holds good for the
present times as well.

India represents what appears to be a case of low pay-offs from a relatively well-developed
and extensive scientific and technological infrastructure. Specifically, it is widely accepted
that by comparison with her agriculture research, which enabled India to approach self-
sufficiency in food grain production in the late 1970s and early 1980s, industrial research in
India has been distinctly disappointing. I believe that this has a lot to do with the extremely
tenuous links between the various public and private institutions that are involved in the
process.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 24    V. V. Krishna

In the last few years, the 4th Industrial Revolution and its associated technologies
have come to play a significant part both in industry- and service-oriented eco-
nomic spheres. There is a formidable challenge both in strengthening the insti-
tutional base to take advantage of these new technologies and at the same time
regulating them in sectors where labour force is not severely hit. Major problems
of STI policies in the last couple of decades has been on five issues or fronts.
There is nothing wrong in the content, assessment of problems or goals glaringly
proclaimed. All the successive STI policies were finalised after a lot of official
and public deliberations. Our hindsight clearly demonstrates the gap between
‘making and implementation’ or between theory and practice of science policy
in India. India’s GERD as proportion of GDP remained relatively stagnant and,
in fact, receded from 0.8 in the 1990s to 0.7 in 2020. The gulf between theory
and practice can be understood from the fact that successive governments since
2000 have reiterated their financial commitment to spend 2% of GDP for GERD,
but it was never implemented. There is a big gap between what governments said
they will do and what they actually did in the past.
India and China in the early 1990s were at similar levels of R&D investment
at around 0.7% of GDP. Interestingly, India’s science output based on the Institute
for Scientific Information database indicated nearly 10,000 papers per year in
1992 compared to less than 6,000 by China (Gaillard et al., 1997, p. 44). In 2020,
China overtook India by three times in science output measured by the Science
Citation Index database. How did this happen? During these years, Chinese R&D/
GDP scaled up from 0.7% to 2.2%. The decade-long goal of scaling up education
budget from 3% to 6% of GDP is still a big dream for India. In the HEI sector,
even though 65%-70% of total national science output is accounted by univer-
sities, they are allocated about 5%-6% of GERD, which however is cornered
by some 30 universities. What has come to be known as the Humboldtian goal
remains to be accomplished. Two decades of relative stagnation in the national
R&D and S&T investments, particularly in universities, have drastically aborted
their ability to compete at the international level in the World Class University
rankings. Whereas China been able to place about a half-dozen universities in
the top 100, none of Indian universities figure in this bracket of rankings. Only
two universities figure in the bracket of 300-400. The recent initiative in the
setting up of the National Research Foundation is yet to be fully implemented:

The Constitution puts in aspirations for science, but no government over the
years in the country has put in 2.4 per cent of the GDP into their budget for
R&D. Until India tries to put in the same amount of money as China and other
countries are doing, it’s simply not going to be competitive. (Ramakrishnan
2020)

Second, India is yet to establish a full-fledged dynamic national innovation system.

Different actors and agencies in the S&T system operate in relative isolation to
each other with only minimal or sub-critical interaction and networking. President

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    25

of India in 2010 declared (2010-2020) as the Decade of Innovation, but we have

not heard any special schemes or activities after this official pronouncement. In
fact, the term innovation came into official STI policy statements only in 2013.
After allocating more than 55% of GERD budget to three strategic sectors of space,
defence and atomic energy, the remaining 45% of the budget is dispersed to civil-
ian R&D sectors including universities. There is little disagreement among experts
that lack of adequate R&D funds has prevented both the input and diffusion end of
the R&D spectrum. For instance, about a half-dozen innovation policy measures
administered through Technology Development Programs, Technology Missions,
National Innovation Foundation, Small Business Innovation Research, among oth-
ers, from Department of Science and Technology or Department of Biotechnology
operate with ‘shoestring’ budgets compared to other emerging countries. Further, the
whole spectrum of incubation and start-up ventures in the academic and university
sector also operate at a very sub-critical level of funding. The research and innova-
tion ecosystems, except for the software sector, are underdeveloped. This being the
recurring scenario in the last two decades, the situation has begun to improve in
the last five years. The business enterprise or private sector has witnessed only a
marginal increase from 25% GERD in 2004 to about 36% 2020. R&D tax offsets
and saving schemes which operate to promote R&D in the private sector have no
penal underpinning to penalise firms which draw tax incentives for R&D but mostly
do quality control or calibrations.
Third, small- and medium-sized enterprises, which are an integral part of
60% of India’s rural population, yet to receive the attention they deserve from
the formal S&T and R&D institutions and relevant policy regimes. The current
phase of globalisation demands a new ‘rural innovation system’ which places the
knowledge institutions (i.e., all educational and S&T institutions) at centre stage
of rural industrialisation at the district and village levels. Cheap labour and natural
resource endowments are unlikely to give us comparative advantage in future. It
is only through value addition by means of innovation and technological change
that we are likely to sustain the challenges of liberalisation and globalisation. India
needs a new paradigm shift of regional and rural innovation systems, wherein
universities, colleges and ITIs could play an important role. The social reality of
India’s informal sector poses a formidable challenge with more than 95% of the
total labour force, about 550 million, with the sub-critical level of skills. Ninety
per cent of this population is young, but they are 8th class dropouts. How vulner-
able this segment of Indian society was is clearly evident from lockdown mobility
of migrant labour walking from metropolis regions to their respective villages.
Their economic situation will also determine how India shapes up economically
in the coming decades. Given the technological and skill challenges, time has
come for reinventing the Gandhian ‘model’ of decentralised technology to unleash
the potential of this sector through the agency of grassroots, frugal innovation
and inclusive innovation actors (Bhaduri, 2016; Gupta, 2013). Most successful
models such as Barefoot College, Honeybee Network and SEWA, among others,
deserve scaling up to all India level. Gandhian economic ideas and philosophy

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 26    V. V. Krishna

seem as much relevant today, in its reformed perspective, as it was in the 1950s
(Krishna 2017a, 2017b; Prahalad & Mashelkar, 2010).
Fourth, as Price (1965) reminds us, the science and government relationship
in an advisory system and consultative mechanisms is based on checks and bal-
ances and at the same time maintaining certain degree of relative freedom and
autonomy. This is so important for the scientific elite to stand up and express their
objective opinion on various issues and decisions taken by successive govern-
ments on S&T policies, setting priorities, budget allocations and so on. Scientific
leaders rise to elite positions in the government science agencies because of their
contribution within the science community. Our experience suggests that once
they rise to elite positions and join government, their status as elite is no more
legitimised by their contribution to the advancement of knowledge but by their
proximity and nexus to the corridors of power and political authority. This has
serious implications for social responsibility of scientists and science–society
relations. This is not a recent development, but the democratic space for elite
as well as citizen science has certainly shrunken. Critical discourse, particularly
counter-viewpoints, dissent, debates and closure through consensus are essential
ingredients at the very heart of making STI policies. Disappointing to note that we
are losing this democratic space. As Nobel Laureate Ramkrishnan (2020) points
out, ‘I personally believe that science flourishes where there is a real freedom of
thought, opinion and minimal ideological interference. Although the autonomy
of science remains an open question’.55 It is high time that that top scientific
elites should be exempted from civil service rules which bind and curtail their
freedom of speech and scientific autonomy. Different types of problems we have
seen in the case of elite science academies. As leading Indian scientists such as
S. Bhagavantam, P. Balram and Gautam Desiraju pointed out at different times,
these academies maintain neutral and muted stance over serious science and
society problems.
Our fifth issue led us to introspect research culture, excellence and autonomy
in research laboratories and universities. As reported in media, journals and by
various commentators, there is a sense of despair, some sort of fear and lack of
commitment in our research institutions. Problems of social exclusion in some
leading universities begun to disrupt academic cultures (Subramanian, 2015).
These are very serious problems which deserve attention both by our scientific
elite in the government and the ministers in education and science departments
before it is too late to repair. The degree of political interference seems to have
increased over the years in these institutions which will prove counterproductive
to creativity and advancement of knowledge. We need to look back into some of
our excellent institutions such as TIFR, BARC and space research labs to understand
how talents and excellence are maintained. True to his philosophy of building excel-
lence in research groups around outstanding scientists, Homi Bhabha executed his
vision of building talents at TIFR. Similar benchmarks seem to prevail in some of
our space research labs and defence labs.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    27

Interestingly, Dr A. P. J. Abdul Kalam drew attention to ‘cultural of excellence’

to produce high-quality innovation. His notion of culture invariably included
autonomy and creativity in carrying out research with a commitment. No other
criteria other than the merit and contribution to knowledge mattered in these excel-
lent institutions. When we examine the Indian research landscape from a macro-
sociological lens, one feature that stands out to research observers is few islands of
excellence and vast ‘hinterlands’ of research with mediocrity. India demonstrates a
case of underutilisation of her scientific potential and even a relative failure to scale
up and expand excellent institutions and laboratories. No society can progress with
these stumbling blocks. China with centralised administrative control has given
considerable autonomy to universities and Chinese Academy of Science laboratories
in the last 15 years. The ‘Thousand Talents Program’ has immensely benefited that
country in cultivating talents through brain gain and brain circulation. Promoting
collegial culture, international collaboration and congenial research climate within
research groups and universities led China to emerging as a leading science nation
in 2020 (Yi et al., 2021).
At 75, when a country introspects and looks back, it certainly needs some bench-
marks. What better than China with a similar population size, as both had their
beginning as agrarian economies in the 1940s. As we enter the third decade of the
21st century, the rise of China at the global level should not be construed merely as
an economic powerhouse but is intimately intertwined with its rise as a hegemonic
power. China’s GDP grew at an average of around 9% in the three decades after
1979 reforms, whereas the world’s GDP grew at around 2.5%-3%. Comparative
figures for the Indian growth rate for the same period average between 4.5% and
5.5%.56 China’s GDP has more than quadrupled over a period of 15 years, touching
about 15 trillion US$, next after USA, compared to less than 3 trillion US$ of India
in 2020. Chinese economy is about five times Indian economy by various counts.
India stands at US$ 2,000 per capita compared to China’s US$10,000. Its foreign
currency reserves are more than 3 trillion US$ compared to 1.3 trillion US$ of Japan
and mere 500 billion US$ of India in 2020. In fact, China’s economic hegemony
and military clout and its overtones, in the last few years, have been possible due
to S&T capacities it has developed. How did this happen? STI policies played a
very significant role in strengthening the Chinese national innovation system that
enabled the rise of China. It is currently the second highest investor in the global
R&D, after the USA, and it has emerged as the world’s leading knowledge producer.
Sadly, there is no more a discourse of ‘India catching up’ as the rise of China left
us far behind. It is here that India can draw a lesson or two in the art of theory and
practice of science policy.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/
or publication of this article.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 28    V. V. Krishna

FUNDING

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

NOTES

1. This long report is not meant for the comprehensive coverage of all developments in science policies
or science and society relations.
2. The first attempt to develop a national plan for India came up in 1938. In that year, the Congress
President Subhash Chandra Bose had set up a National Planning Committee with Jawaharlal Nehru
as its president. However, the reports of the committee could not be prepared and only for the first
time, in 1948-1949, some papers came out.
3. Hill to Bhatnagar, 11 May 1951, Hill papers, Cambridge AVHL II (as cited by Kumar [2001], footnote
89).
4. These quotes of Nehru have been in circulation for quite some time now in S&T study writings. For
the first part of this quote, see Science Reporter (1964), 1(7– 8), July–August. The second part is from
Nehru (1958).
5. When India’s first Scientific Manpower Committee was set up in 1947, another important committee
set up during the end of the colonial regime—the Sarkar Committee—had submitted its report in
1946. This Committee recommended the setting up of no less than four higher technical institutions.
The origins for the creation of five Indian Institutes of Technology can be traced to these events.
6. Already dozens of scientific enterprises such as the Geological Survey of India were created during
the colonial period; see Anderson (2010).
7. S. S. Bhatnagar in CSIR, Homi Bhabha in atomic energy, J. C. Ghosh and P. C. Mahalanobis in the
Planning Commission and D. S. Khothari in the defence-related organisation were some of the elite
who were close to Nehru.
8. In fact, immediately after Independence, an Advisory Committee for Co-ordinating Scientific Work
(ACCSW) was set up in 1948 with Nehru as the chairperson and S. S. Bhatnagar as the secretary. The
Department of Scientific Research was set up in 1948. ACCSW lasted until 1956 when the Scientific
Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC) replaced it. SACC, through Homi Bhabha and Nehru,
was instrumental in the 1958 Scientific Policy Resolution. SACC was reviewed by the Education
Commission during 1964–1966, and later, in 1968, it was replaced by a broad-based Committee on
Science and Technology (COST) under the chairmanship of Dr B. D. Nagchowdhury. This lasted
until 1970 when the National Committee on Science and Technology (NCST) was set up under the
chairmanship of C. Subramanian. NCST was entrusted with India’s first S&T plan. Even though
several of these advisory bodies were created by drawing scientists from various organisations and
agencies, only a few elite scientists wielded power who were close to the political leadership both
during Nehru’s era and Mrs Gandhi’s era until the early 1980s.
9. C. V. Raman was present at the inauguration of CSIR’s Central Food Technological Laboratory in
1950 at Mysore. It is said that Raman described the rapid expansion of CSIR laboratories under S. S.
Bhatnagar as the ‘Nehru–Bhatnagar Effect’.
10. B. P. Pal was no ordinary scientist. He served as a director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute
in Delhi and as the first director general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. He was an
elected fellow of the Royal Society. He did his doctoral work at Cambridge University.
11. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1169800/india-number-of-diary-cooperative-societies-by-region/
12. Despite its successes, the Green Revolution came under severe criticism during the 1970s for ecological
and socioeconomic reasons. The major criticism was that the high yields could only be obtained under
certain ideal conditions of irrigation, fertilisers and monocultures. The main prerequisite was a rich
soil.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    29

13. For the first time since India’s Independence, a party other than the Congress Party came into power
for about two years between 1977 and 1979. The Janata Party had several Gandhians who emphasised
small technologies and rural- based development programmes. However, it could not sustain power
for a long time.
14. Some of these involve not only technological but organisational/systemic innovations. For more such
examples, see Munshi (2018).
15. The Chipko movement led by Sunderlal Bahuguna and Chandi Prasad Bhatt which was very successful
in mobilising people against the felling of trees in the Garhwal region is an example. Later, this
movement led by Bahuguna was also successful in stalling the Tehri Dam Project on ecological
grounds. The Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Medha Patkar and Baba Amte in criticising the World-
Bank-funded dams is another example of civic culture, relevant to S&T policy issues, coming to the
centre stage of politics.
16. See https://vidyaashram.org/patriotic-people-oriented-science-and-technology-ppst/
17. See https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/medha-patkar-and-baba-amte-
narmada-bachao-andolan/
18. In five years, two elections were held, and three governments changed.
19. In 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail for India, going West. He had the Nina, the Pinta and the
Santa Maria. He never did find India, but he called the people he met ‘Indians’ and came home and
reported to his king and queen: ‘The world is round’. I set off for India 512 years later. I knew just
which direction I was going. I went East. I had Lufthansa business class, and I came home and reported
only to my wife and only in a whisper: ‘The world is flat’. See Friedman (2005).
20. Currently postgraduate programmes in biotechnology are offered by 51 universities in India.
21. See https://hbr.org/2010/07/innovations-holy-grail
22. The credit for designing STIP goes to N. Vittal who played an important part in the development of
India’s software sector in the 1990s. He served in atomic energy, electronics departments and chaired
the Telecom Commission.
23. Tata Motors in the 1990s emerged as the first auto firm to have developed and launched vehicles
including engines based on indigenous technology. It entered the passenger vehicle market in 1991
with the launch of the Tata Sierra, a multi utility vehicle. Soon after it launched Tata Estate in 1992 (a
station wagon) and the Tata Sumo in 1994. The famous Indian indigenous car, Indica was launched
in 1998. It is the first indigenous passenger car. The firm that has mastered indigenous vehicles,
particularly Jeeps is Mahindra and Mahindra company. Wiley jeep in India since late 1940s is quite
famous and they have the history of defence supplies of this vehicle. Mahindra produces a number of
auto vehicles, including MUVs, LCVs and three-wheelers. It has produced over 20 models of cars,
including larger, multi-utility vehicles like the Scorpio and the Bolero. Mahindra launched its popular
and widely advertised vehicle SUV, XUV500, code-named as W201 in September 2011.
24. See https://www.isro.gov.in/ and https://www.isro.gov.in/about-isro/antrix-corporation-limited. Also
see https://www.isro.gov.in/list-of-spacecrafts. See also Pallava Bagla and Subhadra Menon (2008)
for detailed developments on the Moon and Mars missions which began specifically since the 1990s.
25. The information and details of projects drawn from Krishna (2016b).
26. Hindu nationalists have for long promoted and propagated the belief and a viewpoint that many
discoveries of modern science and technology were known to ancient India. However, all of a sudden
on 25 October 2014 when the prime minister addressed a gathering of doctors and other professionals
in Mumbai, he endorsed the Hindu nationalist viewpoint. He said,

We can feel proud of what our country achieved in medical science at one point of time. We all
read about Karna in the Mahabharata. If we think a little more, we realise that the Mahabharata
says Karna was not born from his mother’s womb. This means that genetic science was present
at that time. That is why Karna could be born outside his mother’s womb.

The prime minster went to further observe that,

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 30    V. V. Krishna

We worship Lord Ganesha. There must have been some plastic surgeon at that time who got an
elephant’s head on the body of a human being and began the practice of plastic surgery. There must be
many areas in which our ancestors made big contributions. Some of these are well recognised. If we
talk about space science, our ancestors had, at some point, displayed great strengths in space science.
What people like Aryabhata had said centuries ago is being recognised by science today. What I mean
to say is that we are a country which had these capabilities. We need to regain these. (see https://www.
theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-science-existed-ancient-times)
The change in the social tone of S&T policy culture was reflected in the Indian Science Congress
sessions which are held annually in India. Speaking at the 106th session, Dr G. Nageshwar Rao,
the Vice Chancellor of Andhra University, in a paper presented said, ‘We had 100 Kauravas from
one mother because of stem cell and test tube technology’. Dr Harsh Vardhan, the current minister
of Science and Technology, claimed that scientist Stephen Hawking once said that the Hindu Vedas
had a theory which trumped Einstein’s theory of relativity. The minister made this remark while
addressing the inaugural session at the 105th Indian Science Congress in March 2018. In January
2018, Shri Satyapal Singh, the minister of State for Human Resource Development commented that
‘I have a list of around 10 to 15 great scientists of the world who have said there is no evidence to
prove that the theory of evolution is correct’. He stated that school curriculums need to change to
reflect this. He added, ‘since man is seen on earth, he has always been a man. Nobody, including
our ancestors, in written or oral, said they ever saw an ape turning into a human being’. See https://
caravanmagazine.in/science/false-scientific-claims-modi-first-term.

27. See the Time Magazine dated 18 May 2015 which showcased Modi on the front page with a caption
‘Why Modi Matters’ and ‘How Narendra Modi wants to change India’; see https://time.com/magazine/
us/3849941/may-18th-2015-vol-185-no-18-u-s/. See also The Economist dated 24 May 2015. https://
www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/24/modis-mission
28. See https://www.narendramodi.in/text-of-pm-shri-narendra-modis-address-at-the-102nd-indian-science-
congress-2924
29. See https://time.com/magazine/us/3849941/may-18th-2015-vol-185-no-18-u-s/
30. ibid
31. See https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2014-05-24
32. See the report from Mumbai on Reviving India’s Economy, Modi’s mission | The Economist. https://
www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/24/modis-mission
33. See Text of PM Shri Narendra Modi’s address at the 102nd Indian Science Congress (3 January 2015).
https://www.narendramodi.in/text-of-pm-shri-narendra-modis-address-at-the-102nd-indian-science-
congress-2924
34. Flagship programmes include Digital India, Skill India, Smart Cities and Urban Development and Clean
India. Policies include the Startup India Action Plan (2016), Technology Vision 2035 (2016) and National
Education Policy 2020.
35. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00327-1
36. However, some science journalists have expressed doubts about the funding allocated to National
Research Foundation as the Parliamentary Committee on S&T indicates that it will be funded from
existing budgetary allocations in some science departments (Sharma, 2021).
37. Projects such as Aadhaar, Smart Cities Mission, BHIM UPI, RuPay, GSTIn, GeM (Government
e-Marketplace), DigiLocker come under the aegis of the Digital India programme. See https://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/a-refreshed-digital-india-programme-will-
play-critical-role-in-the-pursuit-of-5-trillion economy/articleshow/70067053.cms?from=mdr See also
https://www.dqindia.com/5-years-of-digital-india-how-far-have-we-come/
38. ‘Google Inc. collaborated with the Indian Railways to set up free Wi-Fi services at 100 major railway
stations in India. Google worked in tandem with RailTel, an Indian PSU, which deals with optic-fibre
networks along railway tracks in India which will be used to provide these Wi-Fi services.
Microsoft Inc. has worked with the Government of India on the Digital India Initiative, with
their most recent contribution being the ‘Digital Governance Tech Tour’. This is a national programme

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    31

that helps deliver critical AI and intelligent cloud computing skills to government officials in charge of
IT across the nation’. https://www.dqindia.com/5-years-of-digital-india-how-far-have-we-come/
39. https://www.makeinindia.com/about; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-make-in-india-has-
failed/article30601269.ece; https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/unemployment-rate-
shoots-up-to-12-month-high-of-119-in-may/story/440736.html
40. https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/unemployment-rate-shoots-up-to-12-month-
high-of-119-in-may/story/440736.html
41. https://www.india.gov.in/spotlight/smart-cities-mission-step-towards-smart-india
42. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/here-s-how-bjp-s-flagship-smart-cities-
mission-echoes-failures-of-upa-govt-118040300112_1.html
43. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/05/asia/india-modi-open-defecation-free-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
44. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/05/asia/india-modi-open-defecation-free-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
45. https://nmcg.nic.in/index.aspx
46. https://theprint.in/opinion/five-reasons-that-are-stopping-ganga-from-becoming-clean/532024/; https://
www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/pollution/namami-gange-5-reasons-why-ganga-will-not-be-clean-
by-2020-61891
47. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/kanpur-ghazipur-bodies-banks-of-ganga-up-
prayagraj-1804160-2021-05-18; https://theprint.in/opinion/newsmaker-of-the-week/its-2021-but-
floating-bodies-in-up-and-bihar-have-sent-us-back-to-1918/658697/
48. https://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2021.75
49. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/pollution/namami-gange-5-reasons-why-ganga-will-not-be-
clean-by-2020-61891
50. Bharat Biotech has developed indigenous vaccine in collaboration with Indian Council of Medical
Research which is being administered to millions in India along with Astra-Zeneca vaccine manufactured
by Serum Institute. On 21 August 2021, a Reuters report indicates that DBT and Zydus Cadila have come
with DNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and approved by the Indian drug authority (https://www.reuters.
com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/india-approves-zydus-cadilas-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-
use-2021-08-20/). See also Mande (2020).
51. https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/india-wasted-early-successes-in-managing-
covid19-pm-modi-actions-inexcusable-vaccination-drive-botched-lancet-1800465-2021-05-09
52. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00993-4/fulltext (for observations
on India) and see also https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00318-4/
fulltext (for observations on the USA).
53. https://www.vifindia.org/article/2021/may/11/modi-government-an-evaluation%20%20
54. Drese and Amartya Sen in their book at length argue how India falls behind even South Asian countries.
The situation does not seem to have improved any better since this book and even worsened during the
pandemic situation.
55. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/science-flourishes-where-there-is-freedom-of-
thought-says-nobel-laureate-venki-ramakrishnan/articleshow/73279136.cms?from=mdr
56. Thus, while growth averaged 4.4% a year during the 1970s and 1980s, it accelerated to 5.5% between
the 1990s and the early 2000s, and further to 7.1% in the past one decade. https://www.weforum.
org/agenda/2018/04/india-s-remarkably-robust-and-resilient-growth-story

References

Ahmad, A. (1985). Politics of science policy making in India. Science and Public Policy, 12(3), 234–240.
Altbach, P. G. (2012). A half-century of Indian higher education. SAGE Publications.
Anderson, R. S. (2010). Nucleus and nation: International networks, scientists, and power in India.
University of Chicago Press.
Arnold, D. (2013). Nehruvian science and postcolonial India. Isis, 104(2), 360–370.
Bagla, P., & Menon, S. (2008). Destination Moon: India’s quest for the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
HarperCollins.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 32    V. V. Krishna

Baviskar, B. S., & Attwood, D. W. (1995). Finding the middle path: The political economy of cooperation
in rural India. Westview Press.
Béteille, A. (2009, March 7). Science and tradition: A sociological perspective. Economic and Political
Weekly, 33(10), 529–532.
Bhatt, V. V. (1982). Development problem, strategy and technology choice: Sarvodaya and socialist
Approaches in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 31(1), 85–99.
Bhaduri, S. (2016, May 23). Frugal innovation by ‘the Small and the Marginal’: An alternative discourse
on innovation and development [Inaugural lecture, Prince Clause Chair in development and equity].
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Brooks, H. (1964). The scientific advisor. In R. Gilpin & C. Wright (Eds.), Scientists and national
policymaking. Columbia University Press.
Chandra, N. (2009). Academia-industry interface: Modes of knowledge production and transfer at the
Indian Institute of Technology [PhD dissertation]. Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal
Nehru University.
Chaudhury, S. (1985). Collaborative innovation: The case of Swaraj tractor. Vikalpa, 10(1), 95–98.
CSIR. (2001). CSIR 2001—Vision and strategy. CSIR.
Dahdah, A. M., & Mishra, R. K. (2020). Smart cards for all: Digitalisation of universal health coverage
in India. Science, Technology and Society, 25(3), 426–443.
Deshmukh, C. (2010). Homi Jehangir Bhabha. National Book Trust. Retrieved December 20, 2020,
from http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/homibhabha.pdf
Drese, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. Princeton University Press.
FICCI. (2020, July). FICCI paper on development of dairy sector in India. FICCI Food Processing
Division. https://ficci.in/spdocument/23304/Development-Dairy-Sector.pdf
Friedman, T. L. (2005, April 3). It’s a flat world, after all. The New York Times. Retrieved September
21, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/its-a-flat-world-after-all.html
Gaofeng, Yi., Krishna, V. V., Zhang, X., & Jiang, Y. (2021). Chinese universities in the national
innovation system: Academic entrepreneurship and ecosystem. Routledge/Chapmal & Hall.
Guha, R. (1988). The alternative science movement: An interim assessment. Lokyan Bulletin, CSDS,
7–25.
Gupta, A. (2013). Grassroots innovation for inclusive development: Need for a paradigm shift -
introduction. Vikalpa, 38(3), 103–107.
Jain, A. (2002). Networks of science and technology in India: The elite and the subaltern streams. AI
and Society, 16, 4–20.
Kriplani, J. B. (1961). Gandhian thought. Gandhi Smarkak Nidhi.
Krishna, V. V. (1994). S.S. Bhatnagar on science, technology and development, 1938–54. Wiley Eastern Ltd.
Krishna, V. V. (1997). Science, technology and counter hegemony — Some reflections on the
contemporary science movements in India. In T. Shinn, J. Spaapen & V. V. Krishna (Eds.), Science
and technology in a developing world: Sociology of the sciences yearbook 1995 (pp. 375–411).
Kluwer Academic Press.
Krishna, V. V. (2007). Dynamics in the sectoral system of innovation: Indian experience in software,
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. In T. Turpin & V. V. Krishna (Eds.), Science, technology
policy and the diffusion of knowledge: Understanding the dynamics of innovation systems in the
Asia Pacific. Edward Elgar.
Krishna, V. V. (2016a). RIO country report 2015: India. JRC Science for Policy Report, European
Commission.
Krishna, V. V. (2016b). Policy brief: India science and technology cooperation with EU and other
select countries [Report]. The European Union Indigo Projects and Centre for Social Innovation.
Krishna, V. V. (2017a). Inclusive innovation in India: Historical roots. Asian Journal of Innovation
and Policy, 6(1), 170–191.
Krishna, V. V. (2017b). Inclusive innovation in India: Contemporary landscape. Asian Journal of
Innovation and Policy, 6(1), 1–22.
Krishna, V. V. (forthcoming). Indian science community: Historical and sociological studies.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 India @ 75: Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development    33

Krishnan, R. T. (2011). Innovation in the Indian automotive industry: Role of academic and public
research institutions. In A. Sunami and P. Intarakumnerd (Eds.), A comparative study on the role
of university and PRI as external resources for firms’ innovation ERIA Research Project Report
2010–10 (pp. 57–109). ERIA.
Kumar, D. (2001). Reconstructing India: Disunity in the science and technology for development
discourse, 1900–1947. Osiris, 15(1), 241–258.
Kumar, N. K., Quach, U., Thorsteindottir, H., Somashekhar, H., Daar A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2004,
December). Indian biotechnology: Rapidly evolving and industry led. Nature Biotechnology,
22 (Supplement), DC31–36.
Kurien, V. (2005). I too had a dream. Roli Books (as told to Gouri Salvi).
Kurien, V. (2007). India’s milk revolution: Investing in rural producer organizations. In N. Deepa & E.
Glinskaya (Eds.), Ending poverty in South Asia: Ideas that work (pp. 37–67). The World Bank.
Lalitha, N. (2002). Indian pharmaceutical industry in WTO regime: A SWOT analysis. Economic and
Political Weekly, 32(34), 111–120.
Lanjouw, J. O. (1998). The introduction of product patents in India: ‘Heartless exploitation of the
poor and suffering’? [Growth Center discussion paper, Yale University, and NBER working
paper no. 6366].
Mande, S. (2020, September 25). The key role of CSIR in the battle against Covid. The Hindustan
Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-key-role-of-csir-in-the-battle-against-covid-
opinion/story-bVo8zdbzynhPz6THZ8AFYI.html
Mashelkar, R. A. (1995). India’s emergence as a global R&D platform: The new challenges and
opportunities. Current Science, 68(12), 1170–1177.
Mishra, G. (2014, November 16). Nehru and planning in India. Mainstream, 52(47). http://www.
mainstreamweekly.net/article5320.html
Munshi, P. (2018). Making breakthrough innovation happen: Making 11 Indians pulled off the impossible.
HarperCollins.
Nehru, J. (1958, September 7). The tragic paradox of our age. The New York Times. Retrieved September
21, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/1958/09/07/archives/nehru-on-the-tragic-paradox-of-
our-age-in-a-personal-statement-the.html
Padmanabhan, G. (1991). Government funding and support for the DBT. Current Science, 60(9–10),
510–513.
Pal, B. P. (1977). Science and agriculture. In B. R. Nanda (Ed.), Science and technology (pp.43–54).
Vikas Publishing.
Parthasarathi, A. (1974). Appearance and reality in two decades of science policy. In A. Rahman & K.
D. Sharma (Eds.), Science policy studies. Somaiya Publications.
Phaleky, J., & Wang, Z. (2016). Planning for science and technology in China and India. British Journal
of History of Science, 1(1), 83–116.
Pitroda, S. (2011). Telecom revolution and beyond. In R. K. Shyamasundar & M. A. Pai (Eds.), Homi
Bhabha and the computer revolution, Oxford University Press.
Pitroda, S., & Pitke, M. V. (2011). Homi Bhabha’s role in fostering electronics development C-DoT and
C-DAC. In R. K. Shyamasundar & M. A. Pai (Eds.), Homi Bhabha and the computer revolution.
Oxford University Press
Prahalad, C. K., & Mashelkar, R. A. (2010, July–August). Innovations holy grail. The Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved September 12, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2010/07/innovations-holy-grail
Price, K. D. (1965). The scientific estate. Belknap Press
Rahman, A. (1983). Science policy in India. NISTADS.
Raina, D., & Jain, A. (1997). Big science and university in India. In J. Krige & D. Pestre (Eds.), Science
in the twentieth century (pp. 859–878). Routledge.
Ramakrishnan, V. (2020, February 4). Nobel a byproduct, India’s aim ought to be developing first-rate
science culture. Firstpost. Retrieved September 12, 2021, from https://www.firstpost.com/tech/
science/nobel-a-byproduct-indias-aim-ought-to-be-developing-first-rate-science-culture-venki-
ramakrishnan-8000311.html

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34

 34    V. V. Krishna

Ramani, S. (2011). R&D in software technology at the national centre for software technology 1960–
2001. In R. K. Shyamasundar & M. A. Pai (Eds.), Homi Bhabha and the computer revolution.
Oxford University Press.
Ramani, V. S., & Guennif, S. (2014). The secret behind India’s success in pharmaceuticals. In S. V.
Ramani (Ed.), Innovation in India combining economic growth with inclusive development.
Cambridge University Press.
Rehman, M. (2014, October 28). Indian prime minister claims genetic science existed in ancient times.
The Guardian. Retrieved September 21, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/
oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-science-existed-ancient-times
Rosenberg, N. (1990). Science and technology policy for the Asian NICs: Lessons from economic
history. In R. E. Evenson & G. Ranis (Eds.), Science and technology lessons for development
policy (pp.149–150). Intermediate Technology Publications.
Sandhya, G. D., Jain, A., & Mathur, P. (1990). S&T planning, policy directions and CSIR. Economic
and Political Weekly, 25(51), 2800–2805.
Sahay, A. (2020, May 7). India can become the pharmacy of the world. The Hindu Business Line.
Retrieved September 21, 2021, from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/india-can-
become-the-pharmacy-of-the-world/article31516558.ece
Sarma, M., & Krishna, V. V. (2010). State and the software: Public policies in the shaping of Indian
software sector. The Service Industries Journal, 30(1), 25–42.
Saxenian, A. L. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional
upgrading in India and China’. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2), 35–61.
Saxenian, A. L. (2006). The new argonauts: Regional advantage in global economy. Harvard University
Press.
Sharma, D. C. (2009). The long revolution: The birth and growth of India’s IT industry. HarperCollins.
Sharma, D. C. (2021, March 12). Scientific research needs focused funding. The Tribune. Retrieved
September 12, 2021, from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/scientific-research-
needs-focused-funding-223999
Shils, E. (1969). The academic profession. Minerva, 7(3), 345–372.
Sitaramayya, P. (1969). History of the Indian National Congress (Vol. 2). S. Chand and Co.
Subramanian, A. (2015). Making merit: The Indian Institutes of Technology and the social life of caste.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 57(2), 291–322.
The Economic Times. (2015, January 4). At Indian Science Congress, no gems from PM Modi, but
colleague cannot resist. Retrieved September 21, 2021, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.
com/news/politics-and-nation/at-indian-science-congress-no-gems-from-pm-modi-but-colleague-
cannot-resist/articleshow/45747688.cms
Tiwari, R., & Kalogerakis, K. (2017). Innovation pathways and trajectories in India’s auto component
industry [Working Paper, No. 98]. Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for
Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
Zacahariah, B. (2001). Use of scientific argument: The case of ‘Development’ in India, c 1920–1950.
Economic and Political Weekly, 36(39), 3689–3702.

Science, Technology & Society (2021): 1–34