The Nobel Prize for economics this time has gone to a three-member research team of Dr Abhijit Banerjee, his wife Esther Duflo and colleague Micheal Kremer of Harvard for their work on fighting global poverty. Indian-born, US-based Abhijit Banerjee hails from Kolkata then left for JNU, New Delhi and later went on to Harvard. This should make us introspect as to why Indians only gain recognition when they work on foreign soil. Does this mean that India does not promote or cultivate world class scientific research? Do economic scientists lack the facilities to excel in their work?
While several Indians who worked tirelessly in labs or elsewhere in foreign soil won Nobel prizes in the past decades, the notable mentions from within India in the past over half a century are of Mother Teresa in 1979 and Kailash Satyarthi in 2017 – both for their social work – and none from within for any scientific foray. This is a pity, given India’s recorded greatness in the field of science and knowledge-related fields for centuries. Amartya Sen won honours similar to Banerjee’s who shared the Prize with two others. Had Banerjee or Sen been doing research with Indian establishments, chances are that they would turn mental wrecks due to internal politics, lack of facilities and official-level support. The tendency on the part of the Indian establishment at all levels is to put a spoke into every wheel.
The R &D spend of various nations is itself educative. India spends a low of 0.85 per cent of its GDP on research and development initiatives, while China in our neighbourhood spends 2.1 per cent, Japan 3.1 per cent and the US 2.7 per cent, while tiny South Korea spends as high as 4.2 per cent. There is spectacular deficit when it comes to the response of successive governments in encouraging brain power and significant contributions in other fields of human activity. Kailash Satyarthi gained national attention only after he was selected for the Nobel Prize. Mother Teresa grew on her own, and with church backing. Elected governments looked at their work with cynicism.
This should go to highlight a problem with democracy itself. Leaders elected to run governments do not have a long-term vision or perspective of how India should shape up over the years. They have a limited five-year agenda. Monarchies, rather, looked at their provinces with long-term perspectives. Under them, those who excelled in science, arts, crafts got special encouragement. India must wake up from its complacence.