Content uploaded by Hardev Singh Virk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hardev Singh Virk on May 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why India failed to produce a Second CV Raman?
Hardev Singh Virk
Visiting Professor, SGGS World University, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab), India
E-mail: hardevsingh.virk@gmail.com
Rajinder Singh writes in introduction of Raman’s biography1: “Within India and abroad, the
Indian physicist Chandrasekhar Venkata Raman, remains a legendary figure in the history of
science. At the end of the 1920s he founded the Raman spectroscopy, an analytical tool to
determine the molecular structure of substances. He was the first Asian to win the coveted
Nobel Prize in the field of physics.” He further writes: “Author’s aim is to show the
achievements of Indian scientists in the field of modern Western science, and obviously show
that the ‘Indian brain’ is as good as that of a man/woman from Western culture”.
C.V. Raman (1888-1970)
I am somewhat astonished on the second statement of author. If ‘Indian brain’ is as fertile as
anywhere in the West, then why India failed to win a 2nd Nobel Prize in Physics (or any other
area of Science in India) after CV Raman? We have to look into the reasons, which may be
classified as socio-cultural, religious and political.
When the British - Indian Government established 3 Universities in Calcutta, Bombay and
Madras in 1857, it was envisaged that Modern Science will be taught in vernacular in Indian
Universities. But this was opposed by Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the renaissance leader of
Bengal on the plea that British do not want to teach European Science to Indians. I think this
was a retrograde step which created an Indian elite, well- educated through English medium,
and always in support of status quo with the British. Majority of Indian students were left in
the lurch due to this policy as they could not afford to compete with the elite group getting
education in the English medium. Even after independence, English is ruling the roost and
creating a wedge in the Indian society. During 21st century, English has assumed the role of
Mother tongue for elite Indians. We failed to produce a Second Raman due to our failure to
teach Science in Indian languages, as practiced in all other countries of Europe and Asia
where Science is taught in the Mother tongue of students. It is well known that conceptual
understanding of a subject is possible only in Mother tongue.
Raman topped in all his University examinations but not allowed to study abroad due to poor
health but more due to a taboo that Hindus considered it a sin to cross over the sea. Mahendra
Lal Sarkar who created Indian Association for Cultivation of Science (IACS) for promotion
of Science in India on the pattern of Royal Institute, London was highly critical of orthodox
Hinduism2: “The Hindu religion, besides having a pre-eminent degree, is the grand
characteristic of all religions which is to divorce the mind from the works of God which had
through the corruption of successive ages, become a heterogeneous medley of theology,
philosophy, science and what not. In other words, a chaotic mass of crude and undigested and
unfounded opinions on all subjects, enunciated and enforced in the most dogmatic way
imaginable”. A myth had been propagated by orthodox Hindus that all discoveries in Science
were already known to Vedic Indians; the West has simply exploited the Indian knowledge of
Vedas. What a stupor? It was announced in Indian Parliament by no less a person than our
Prime Minister that Genetic Engineering and Surgery had been practiced in India when he
referred to Ganesha’s story3 with transplanted head of an elephant. How can Science develop
in India when our political leaders take pride in Indian mythology and call it harbinger of
modern Western Science?
Raman was not a University Professor till 1917 but an employee of Finance department of
British India who took to research in Science as a passion of his life. IACS Calcutta provided
him bare minimum facilities, with hardly any research journals and grants for participation in
International Conferences. However, by sheer dedication, Raman succeeded where all
Western scientists failed to discover something already predicted theoretically by their own
colleagues. Professor Saha wrote about Raman’s discovery eulogising his work as follows4:
“This is rather strange, because European writers are never tired of describing the Indians as
given over completely to metaphysical speculations, and possessed of little practical abilities.
Here were the roles reversed - an Indian giving the first practical effect to the theoretical
speculation of European savants, which they themselves have been unable to verify!”
If we try to investigate the historical development of Science in India after 1947, we notice
that Scientific Policy Resolution (SPR) does not lay stress on developing Universities vis a
vis National Research Institutes created under CSIR. Once I asked VS Arunachalam,
Chairman Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) about lop-sided
development of Science in India. He replied5: “India had Scientific Policy (SPR) which is not
the same as Science Policy. Hence our failure to produce world class Scientists in the
University system.” One can differ with Arunachalam on connotation of SPR but it is a
matter of fact that Universities were not provided as liberal a funding as to CSIR Laboratories
in India. Indian Universities suffered due to poor quality of Infrastructure even for teaching
of Science at an appropriate level.
Another valid reason for not producing good quality Scientists in India is the Reservation
Policy adopted for recruitment and promotion in the Universities and Research Institutes.
When 50% recruitment is not based on merit, how can we expect quality of production in
education and research at the same level as in scientifically advanced countries? Reservation
in India should be based on economic status of Indian families; not on any other criteria as
being practiced now. When I was involved in the conduct of PMT (examination for entry to
Medical Colleges in Punjab) during 1980s, I found that students with Zero mark were
allowed to join if the vacant seats were available under Reservation Quota for some
privileged class under the Indian Constitution.
Last but not the least, Indian parents are also responsible for killing creativity of Indian
students at the School level. Almost 80-90% students selected in Medical and Engineering
Colleges are those who have not studied in regular Schools but in Coaching Academies being
run in every small and big city of India. These Academies do not teach prescribed courses but
train the students in tackling multiple choice questions being asked in competitive
examinations. As a consequence, the creativity takes the back seat and the sole purpose of
getting admission by hook or crook gets the upper hand. There are coaching academies in
Kota city of Rajasthan catering to hundreds of thousands of students from all over India. I
have never seen such a flourishing business in education anywhere in Europe or America. But
at what cost, if we failed to produce a Second Raman out of a population reaching the
threshold of 1.25 billion Indians!
Let me finish this essay with some quotable quotes of the first and last Nobel Laureate in
Physics, Sir CV Raman: “Good science was not created merely by spending money, starting
laboratories and passing orders. More important was the human element, and if quantity
replaces quality then disaster would surely follow”. How true Raman’s prediction is when we
look to proliferation of Private Universities and Colleges in India.
Raman was against all type of Govt. control or interference: “Government control not only
inhibits creativity, but more disastrously, it encourages sloth and intrigue, besides rewarding
non-performance.” Let us not forget what is happening under the present regime; the
examples of JNU and Central University, Hyderabad are recent examples.
Raman was one of the first to raise his voice against the bureaucratic approach in the post-
independence era but bureaucracy has survived, thrived and grown to even more ominous
proportions. And there is no body left now to raise a word of public interest.
References
1. Singh Rajinder, Nobel Laureate C.V. Raman’s work on light scattering – Historical
contributions to a scientific biography, Logos Verlag, Berlin, 2004, ISBN 978-3-
8325-0567-7, www. logos -verlag.de/cgi-bin/engbuchmid .
2. Palit C., Mahendra Lal Sircar 1833-1904: The quest for national science (in: Science
and empire - Essays in Indian context: 1700-1947, Kumar D. (Ed.)), Anamika
Prakashan, Delhi 1991, pp. 152-168.
3. Indian Prime Minister’s speech in winter session of Parliament, 2015.
4. News item in an Indian Newspaper, Jan. 15, 1933, Document No. RP 6.34, Raman
Research Institute Archive, Bangalore.
5. Personal discussion at National Conference on “Science Policy and its impact on
Development of Science in India” held at Punjabi University, Patiala, 1979.
CV Raman with Bawa Kartar Singh, a renowned Chemist
(Cover Photo of My book: Indian Scientists (in Punjabi)