'37'

THE SCIENTIFIC POLICY RESOLUTION – A LANDMARK IN INDIAN SCIENCE

Prof. A. Vasantha*

    Fifty years ago Independent India resolved to transform itself into a modern progressive nation with the help of science and technology. Its political leaders’ faith in science and the role which technology could play in national resurgence found expression in India’s scientific policy resolution (SPR) published on March 13, 1958 which was placed before both Houses of Parliament. Ours was possibly the first country to adopt such a resolution. The Preamble of the resolution dwells on the values and significance of scientific progress. It sees forth briefly but clearly the relationship of science to national goals and its commitment to scientific approach and methods. Its aims wre "to promote, foster, cultivate and sustain science and scientific research" in all its aspects: accord recognition to the work of scientists and "to secure for the people of the country all the benefits that can accrue from the acquisition and application of scientific knowledge". The drafting of this resolution is attributed mainly to Homi Jehangir Bhaba and Jawaharlal nehru.

    The SPR owes its genesis to the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC) established in 1966 under the chairmanship of the late H.J. Bhabha. It was replaced in 1968 by the Committee on Science and Technology (COST). It had a short life of three years and was replaced by the National Committee on Science and Technology (NCST) in November 1971. These committees were apex level bodies to advise the government on the formulation and implementation of its policies on science and technology, bringing about coordination and communication between various organs of government and science and technology institutions and to ensure the full utilisation of scientific and technological resources to meet the needs of national development.

    Besides the advisory body, the government also sought the advice of scientists, technologists, and educationists through various conferences. The first national conference was organized in 1958, the second in 1963 and the third in 1970. The aim of these conferences was two-fold: to bring together on a common platform, all concerned with promotion of S&T efforts, cutting across hierarchy and to enable the Government to direct and interact with S&T personnel, to discuss problems connected with policy matters, structures, programs and issues.

    The third conference regretted that the implementation of the policy had been "highly ineffective" and had remained largely on paper. Science had failed to play an important role in promoting national goals and scientists and technologists were hardly aware of their role as agents of change in development. The conference held the unanimous view that a policy for S&T and for industrial development should be not only mutually compatible but also positively reinforcing.

    As a result, came the realization that the planning for S&T should be integrated with the overall socio-economic development of the country if S&T has to make an impact on the economy of the nation. For this reason the NCST was placed under the Deputy Chairman of he Planning Commission and assigned the responsibility of drafting a comprehensive S&T plan. After three years of intensive labour involving more than two thousand scientists, technologists, industrialists and educators, it came out with an S&T plan for 1974-1979. After the SPR this was the major Government document, which listed out in concrete terms the objectives of science policy. The entire national thrust was divided into 27 sectors. This document was presented in two volumes. The first volume contained a statement of policy issues and the second dealt with concrete programs. It was a formidable task indeed. The S&T was no doubt integrated with socio-economic programmes but the links were more physical than organic.

    After the completion of the Fist Plan the NCST began degenerating for various reasons. In 1977 the NCST was dissolved when a new government came to power and it reconstituted the NCST. It appointed its own chairman who envisaged a different role for it; he wanted it to be an advisory body rather than a formulator of national ST plan. On the return of the old government to power in 1980 once again the exercise in planning for S&T began but it was a hurried affair. The second S&T plan came out in 1980 under the direction of he Planning Commission and was incorporated in he Sixth Five Year Plan. Some of the unique features of this plan wee the inclusion of subjects like scientific temper, S&T for weaker sections, women, youth, rural development and science administration. The subsequent attempts to plan for S&T lost their old verve and enthusiasm and have now become a routine exercise.

    The SPR has helped the nation to build up an S&T base. When the country gained Independence in 1947 its S&T capability was at its lowest. The last 50 years have seen the country ranking third in the world as far as S&T personnel are concerned. There has been a prolific growth in the number of S&T institutions. The country’s achievements in atomic energy, space and other sophisticated areas are well known. In spite of such achievements, a pertinent question is still raised as to why we still rank among the less developed countries.

    To answer the question, a few broad reasons may be given. Firstly our immediate concern after Independence as large-scale industrialization. Five decades back, as we hardly had nay major industry except a few like steel and textiles, it was considered essential to import both technology and capital to catch-up with the advanced nations. In this process, we failed to develop a strong indigenous technological base. Secondly, while we have succeeded well in building up our capacity and S&T of quality we have not been so fortunate in improving the quality of life of our people. Our S&T has been catering mainly to what may be called the technological requirement of the organized sector or high-technology oriented systems like defence, aviation and railways. On the other hand, the basic needs of the masses like education, health, housing, transport and communication have hardly been touched. While S&T is marching ahead in sophisticated areas, he poverty of the masses, problems of illiteracy and unemployment are dragging the country backward.

    Thirdly, when our SPR was enunciated it was conceived in broad terms ignoring technology within the concept of science policy. The changes in the concept of science policy and problems associated with development such as depletion of natural resources and pollution, have brought in the need for more science-related policy directed towards natural resources. From 1970 onwards, governments have come out with policies for minerals, water, ocean etc. and also a comprehensive technology policy.

    Fourthly, thee was an assumption amongst the policy makers that science policy was the concern of scientists alone and that research and development could be considered in isolation from the rest of the nation-building activities. That perhaps was the reason for the lack of involvement of social scientists in the conferences mentioned earlier. The task now is to involve social scientists in systematic identification, definition and assessment of the needs of the people to enable science policy to realise social goals.

    Finally, it may be said that science policy is a dynamic concept, continually evolving and modifying. No country has yet succeeded in introducing a comprehensive science policy although many are striving in that direction. India is no exception.

*Professor - centre for studies in science policy, JNU