The COVID-19 pandemic has overshadowed two policy developments poised to reshape India’s research and innovation landscape: the National Research Foundation (NRF) and the draft Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP-2020). While the NRF proposal has existed since late 2019, the recent allocation of Rs 50,000 crore over five years has transformed it from aspiration to imminent reality. STIP-2020, released in December 2020, is only the fifth such national statement since the landmark 1958 Science Policy Resolution (SPR-1958).
SPR-1958, widely attributed to physicist Homi Jehangir Bhabha, framed science as a driver of national development amid resource scarcity. It promised “good conditions of service to scientists and according them an honoured position” and embedded scientists in policy formulation. This vision, consistent with the heavy-industry focus of the Second Five Year Plan, also elevated scientists above bureaucratic constraints. Bhabha’s Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Atomic Energy reported directly to the prime minister, were headquartered in Bombay, and enjoyed autonomy rare in Indian governance. Vikram Sarabhai and Satish Dhawan replicated this model for space research, locating the Department of Space in Bangalore and maintaining leadership roles in premier institutions.
The NRF represents a significant departure from decades of policy that separated research from teaching. Its mission to channel substantial funds into universities, supporting infrastructure, resources, and training across sciences, engineering, humanities, and social sciences, aims to reintegrate research into higher education. This reverses the post-independence decision, championed by S.S. Bhatnagar, Bhabha, and K.S. Krishnan, to concentrate research in standalone institutes, a move intended to protect universities from losing talent and to allocate scarce resources strategically. That choice, however, fostered a culture where universities reproduced existing knowledge while research centres generated new discoveries, leaving a gap between education and innovation.
Data in the NRF report underscore the urgency of reform. India has no universities in the Times Higher Education top 300, and only two in the top 400. Researcher density stands at 15 per lakh population, compared to 111 in China and 825 in Israel. R&D investment has fallen from 0.84% of GDP in 2008 to 0.69% in 2018, far below Israel’s 4.3% or South Korea’s 4.2%. Patent filings in 2019 numbered 46,582, but only 14,906 were by resident Indians, dwarfed by China’s 1.38 million and the US’s 606,956. Publication output has grown, contributing 4.8% to the global total, yet remains a fraction of US or Chinese output.
STIP-2020’s ambition to place India among the top three global knowledge “superpowers” within a decade contrasts sharply with these realities. Fields such as chemistry, computer science, pharmacology, telecom, and molecular biology show strong performance, but systemic weaknesses persist. The NRF’s strategy of embedding research in universities could address the disconnect between policy and practice, fostering environments where PhDs signify genuine knowledge creation rather than mere career advancement.
Autonomy emerges as a critical factor for the NRF’s success. The proposal grants it “autonomy to set its own finances, governance, and statutes,” with an initial block grant of 0.1% of GDP, retaining unspent funds as an endowment. Final authority rests with the NRF president and board, whose decisions require Union cabinet approval. Sustained funding commitments and the calibre of leadership will determine whether this autonomy is substantive or nominal.
The NRF will begin as a registered society, transitioning to an autonomous government body within three years. Founding members come from the Prime Minister’s Science, Technology and Innovation Advisory Council, with board appointments recommended by the Office of the Scientific Advisor and approved by the prime minister. Current council members hail from strategic institutions like ISRO and DRDO, premier research centres, and overseas academia. Notably, one member, Subhash Kak, is known for promoting Hindutva-linked interpretations of ancient texts, raising concerns about ideological influence on board composition.
The eventual makeup of the NRF board and its relationship to the advisory council will be pivotal. These initial decisions will either establish the NRF’s credibility as a transformative force in Indian science or consign it to the fate of past policy statements whose lofty goals failed to materialise.