The Role of Science and Technology Towards Solving India’s Problems Since Independence | UPSC Mains Essay Preparation PDF Download

The Role of Science and Technology towards solving India’s Problems since independence

structure

(1) Opening    —    Has the development in S&T solved India’s problems?

(2) Body    —    The background

    —    The expectations and results.

    —    Achievements.

    —    Failure.

(3) Closing    —    Output substandard

    —    Does not have strong base of basic research

    —    Lacuna in our planning process for science

    —    How could we plan for science without planning for the language that the scientists use?

India’s success in various fields of science and technology since Independence cannot be questioned. But the question, “Has the development in S&T solved India’s problems?” remains yet to be answered. Freedom brought into the forefront the urge for progress and self-reliance. Planning was done to achieve success with the support of $&T within a reasonable period of time. Huge investments were made with a view to bring the boon of technology to the masses. India has achieved international repute in certain areas of science. While progress S&T has put India on par with the developed nations in some areas, there are many other areas where we are still lagging behind. Major problems relating to the basic needs of the people still remain unsolved. Before proceeding to discuss why it has been so, let us look back to know the position of science in India.

A glorious past is clearly evident if we notice the progress the country has made in mathematics, astronomy, medicine and metallurgy. It was India which contributed “Zero” to the concept of numbers. C.V. Raman received the most coveted honour, the Nobel Price, for his Raman Effect and several scientists have been elected to the fellowship of the Royal Society. The fact that India remained the only colonial country with a notable tradition of science even before independence cannot be denied. With regard to technology, India had little to boast of. There was virtually no linkage between Science and Technology. The Tatas, no doubt, were firmly established in the steel industry business but even they did not have a scientific base of their own. So, when India got its freedom, our planners aimed at a plan which would bring the benefits of science to Industry. They had understood that our hard-won freedom could not be maintained if we did not become technologically independent. As a first step, our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the scientific temper. It was generally accepted that the need to support $&T and inculcate scientific temper in our people had to be given priority if the country should develop and find a place among developed nations. Science has achieved support at the macro level all through the planning periods. The financial allocation made during every plan period supports this statement. Government’s commitment to science was expressed through the Scientific Policy resolution, 1958.

With the ardent support of Jawaharlal Nehru, scientists like Homi Bhabha, Husain Zaheer, Vikram Sarabhai, P.C. Mahalanobis, Meghnad Saha and B.C. Guha enjoyed ample freedom to do research in the fields they desired. All their research and achievements made no impact on the layman whose problems remained unsolved. P.M.S. Blackett, a noted physicist and British Nobel Laureate, felt that India should leave basic research to the more developed and affluent countries and should engage itself in the technology which would be appropriate for its conditions. The country’s planners did take a good view of science, but failed to achieve the desired objective since the difference between Science and Technology was not properly defined. While motivation of science has something to do with one’s curiosity built in the genes, ‘motivation for technology lies in the material need and the desire to better oneself economically, socially and politically’. Since this difference failed to make an impact, science was confused with technology and expectations from science began to soar. It was expected that science should be related to one material need or the other. So, the period between 1965 and 1970 can be considered as a period when science was related to practical objectives signalling a total deviation from its original land appropriate base in curiosity. The main emphasis was on the practical aspect i.e., technology. There were five scientific organisations—The Department of Atomic Energy, Defence Research development Organisation, Indian Council of Medical Research, The Council of Scientific and Industrial research and the Indian Council of Agricultural research. All these organisations were involved in basic scientific research till 1970. Subsequently the Government initiated a Department of Electronics (1970), Department of Science and Technology (1976), Department of Environment (1980), Department of Ocean Development (1981), Department of Non-conventional energy (1982) and department of Biotechnology (1986). But none of the above is involved in basic research. They are all user-oriented excepting the Department of Science and Technology to a certain extent.

All the Plans emphasised user-oriented objectives in order to satisfy the masses who expect science to bring about improvement in their lives. The thrust being on end-use, basic research has taken a back seat. But in 1973-74, separate Plan documents for science were introduced. Since then science has been an important integral component of our Plans V to VIII. In the VIIth Plan stress was laid, for the first time, on integrating science with other activities.

From being a country which could make no finished product to one which could make all consumer goods, India has come a long way. Items ranging from those which are used every day to those which require sophisticated technology are now manufactured within the country. In 1947, no finished product was exported but today around 150 different categories of finished products are being exported. India’s capabilities in the field of computer software are comparable to those anywhere else in the world. Indian firms winning even major contracts in the international market is evidence enough to power India’s progress.

Considering the variety and magnitude of problems facing the country, the achievements still remain insignificant. Reasons for this situation can be attributed to the following:

Science has very often been looked up to as a panacea for all ills of the society. Hence the blame is on science for problems remaining unsolved. It has not been recognized that the basic needs of the common man like food, housing and clothes cannot be solved through pure science. It must also be stated that some scientists are satisfied with playing second fiddle to bureaucrats. The problems of the poor are yet to be solved because of the failure to create a scientific community and also because scientists toe the line of bureaucracy.

The tendency to be satisfied with mediocrity instead of aiming at excellence has led to the quality of the personnel engaged in scientific and technological research and the output becoming sub-standard.

Without a strong base of basic research, a speedier technological development which will compete with the advanced technology of the developed nations will remain a dream. We have failed to understand the changing face of science, its application, implication and requirements. We have not recognised that historical imperatives ‘operate as much in science as in any sphere of human endeavour’. Perhaps we realised this only in respect of nuclear energy and space science, which explains the success achieved in these two fields. We did not do the same in the field of electronics, computer and material science. That is why we were 25 years late in biology and a decade late in biotechnology.

What is required is a clear understanding of the difference between science on the one hand and technology and development work on the other. While formulating and implementing science plans, it should be remembered that only financial allocation, best staff policy and adequate infrastructure can ensure excellence in science. A technology policy on the other hand should have specified objectives to take care of the future requirements of the people. We have failed to realise that the quantum of investment, the manner and nature of assessment, the requirements in terms of infrastructure and staff for a particular purpose will vary according to the type of scientific and technological activity, scientific research, developmental work which could meet the immediate requirements of the people and technological development which would take care of the future needs of the community.

Another lacuna in our planning process for science is lack of system for assessing and evaluating the development from time to time under the auspices of the Planning commission. It is necessary to check whether the financial allocation has been properly utilised. There should be some machinery for the purpose and this should make the assessment on a continuing basis so that financial allocations can be adjusted as and when the occasion demands.

Another important aspect is the understanding of the linkage between education and science. We are yet to determine the kind of educational pattern which will suit our conditions.

Our approach has been piecemeal and lacks depth. Implementing a science plan as any other will not suffice. We have not done justice to the development of scientific temper, even though it is enshrined in our Constitution as one of the duties of a citizen. Encouragement given to scientific research activities has not been sufficient to liberate the masses from their superstitious beliefs.

Last but not the least is the problem of language. English has become the language of the world and science. Unless the learning of English is democratised, optimal use of the gene pool of our country will not materialise. “How could we plan for science without planning for the language that the scientists use?