Even then, only some of the better students would receive it, not all. However, the promises were soon forgotten, funds dwindled and it was soon announced that the cut-off would be one point higher. There was once a rule that all IISER and NISER students would automatically qualify for INSPIRE if they maintained CGPAs above 6. The flagship Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (INSPIRE) scholarship, which is hardly credited on time and only covers scholars’ mess fees, is another cause for concern.
Students engaged in research, even at the IITs, have complained about being stuck between rising fees and diminishing returns from scholarships, grants, etc. Poor funding for research in the basic sciences and in higher education is directly affecting scholars around the country. This wasn’t an option but a conscious choice given the constraints within which research in India happens. The government allocates about Rs 1.2 lakh crore a year for all scientific research – about 88% of NASA’s annual budget. The Indian Space Research Organisation achieved this feat on a shoestring budget (relative to other interplanetary missions of comparable scope).
India became the first country to successfully pull off a Mars-orbiter mission in its first attempt. Mangalyaan makes for an illustrative example. From civil engineering to fundamental science, India has been pushing the boundaries of knowledge for many centuries but the Narendra Modi government, happy to bank on scientific and technological accomplishments, is yet to fund researchers with the commensurate seriousness. The Government of India allocates only 0.6-0.7% of its GDP towards R&D.
However, India’s scientific community – not just the scientists at the top but also technicians, lab assistants, graduate and postgraduate students – teeters today on the brink of a crash because of what it has had to endure due to such expediency. Sadly, we all know what the answer is, as well as the excuse: political expediency. If one is a bad investment, shouldn’t the other be, too? The statue also doesn’t provide instant gratification to society, in much the same way fundamental research allegedly fails to. But even if it received as many visitors as the Great Wall of China does in a day (with 85% adults and 15% children), then it will be over three centuries before its capital costs are recouped. Its only apparent contribution seems to be towards tourism. In the same vein, let’s consider whether the 182-m-tall statue is a good investment. ‘Direct and instantly recognisable’ has become state authorities’ reason of choice to justify the withdrawal of research funds.Īlso read: Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time The result: they are branded bad investments. Studying the properties of semiconductors, the fluorescence of a dye molecule or calculating black-hole phase transitions in 13.5 dimensions don’t make for groundbreaking contributions that the public will instantly appreciate. Lawmakers often argue against funding scientific research by dismissing subjects that don’t yield instant gratification. Researchers have almost constantly been asked “What have you given back to society?”
Seen another way, it might as well be 182 m away from more pressing issues that could have better used the Rs 2,989 crore used to build it.įor example, budget cuts have kept the Indian education system in stasis even as the state harbours bigger expectations of the national research output. The Statue of Unity recently unveiled in Gujarat is 182 m tall.
0 kommentar(er)
