Connect with us

Society

Swami Vivekananda — The Monk Behind India’s Greatest Science Institute

Long before the Indian Institute of Science took shape in Bangalore, it existed as a conversation at sea—between a monk, an industrialist, and an idea powerful enough to challenge empire. This is the lesser-known story of how India imagined its scientific future.

Dipin Damodharan

Published

on

swami

The Indian Institute of Science (IISc), today a global leader in scientific research and India’s top-ranked higher education institution, owes its origin to more than institutional foresight or industrial philanthropy alone. It is the product of an unusual intellectual alliance, forged at sea, sustained through resistance, and animated by a radical idea for its time: that science in India must grow from freedom, reason, and national purpose.

While the name of Jamsetji Tata rightly dominates the institute’s formal history, two other figures—often relegated to the margins—played decisive roles in shaping the idea that would eventually become IISc: Swami Vivekananda, arguably the most influential Indian monk in modern history, and his closest disciple, Sister Nivedita. Their influence did not merely inspire an institution; it articulated a philosophy of scientific self-reliance that would later define modern India.

A Conversation at Sea: Vivekananda and Tata

In the summer of 1893, during a voyage from Japan to Canada, two men from vastly different worlds found themselves in sustained conversation. One was Swami Vivekananda, then a 30-year-old monk, unknown internationally but already possessed of a formidable intellect and a sweeping vision for India’s future. The other was Jamsetji Tata, a leading industrialist deeply invested in India’s economic and industrial transformation.

Their discussions during this journey proved consequential. Vivekananda spoke passionately about India’s structural weakness: a civilisation rich in spiritual capital yet reduced to exporting raw materials while importing finished goods. For India to regain dignity and autonomy, he argued, scientific and technological education had to become central—not in imitation of the West, but rooted in India’s own needs and conditions. He suggested Tata to think on that lines.

Tata, already an influential figure in India’s industrial landscape, was deeply moved by Vivekananda’s ideas. Although the monk’s vision was far-reaching and idealistic, Tata recognized its importance and resolved to act upon it. This was the beginning of Tata’s long-standing commitment to the advancement of science in India. Vivekananda’s ideas gave philosophical coherence to Tata’s industrial instincts, transforming them into a national project rather than a private enterprise.

From Idea to Commitment

Five years later, in 1898, Tata wrote to Vivekananda, recalling their shipboard conversation and seeking his guidance for a proposed research institute. By then, Vivekananda had returned from his celebrated travels abroad, having profoundly altered Western perceptions of India.

In his letter, Tata outlined his intention to establish a research institution devoted to both natural and humanistic sciences, supported by residential communities of scholars. He pledged £200,000—an extraordinary sum at the time—to bring this vision into being.

“I trust you remember me as a fellow-traveller on your voyage from Japan to Chicago. I very much recall at this moment your views on the growth of the ascetic spirit in India, and the duty, not of destroying, but of diverting it into useful channels.

I recall these ideas in connection with my scheme of a Research Institute of Science for India, of which you have doubtless heard or read. It seems to me that no better use can be made of the ascetic spirit than the establishment of monasteries or residential halls for men dominated by this spirit, where they should live with ordinary decency, and devote their lives to the cultivation of sciences – natural and humanistic. I am of opinion that if such a crusade in favour of an asceticism of this kind were undertaken by a competent leader, it would greatly help asceticism, science, and the good name of our common country; and I know not who would make a more fitting general of such a campaign than Vivekananda,” Tata wrote in the letter.

Vivekananda’s response, published in the April 1899 issue of Prabuddha Bharata magazine, was unequivocal in its endorsement:

“We are not aware if any project at once so opportune and so far-reaching in its beneficent effects was ever mooted in India, as that of the post-graduate research university of Mr. Tata. The scheme grasps the vital point of weakness in our national well-being with a clearness of vision and tightness of grip, the masterliness of which is only equalled by the munificence of the gift with which it is ushered to the public.

It is needless to go into the details of Mr. Tata’s scheme here. Every one of our readers must have read Mr. Padsha’s lucid exposition of them. We shall try to simply state here the underlying principle of it. If India is to live and prosper and if there is to be an Indian nation which will have its place in the ranks of the great nations of the world, the food question must be solved first of all. And in these days of keen competition, it can only be solved by letting the light of modern science penetrate every pore of the two giant feeders of mankind: agriculture and commerce.”

WhatsApp Image 2025 01 12 at 17.48.09
Image credit: Dipin Damodharan/EdPublica

Although Vivekananda could not personally lead the initiative—bound as he was to his monastic responsibilities—his intellectual sanction gave the project moral authority. He urged his disciples to support it fully.

Sister Nivedita and the Battle for the Institute

Among those disciples, Sister Nivedita emerged as the most tireless advocate of Tata’s vision. Deeply invested in India’s intellectual regeneration, she recognised the proposed institute as essential to national self-respect and autonomy.

nivedita

Through articles in English-language newspapers and sustained public engagement, she defended the project against skepticism and delay. In 1899, she wrote:

“We are not aware if any project is at once so opportune and so far-reaching in its beneficent effects as that of the Post-Graduate Research University of Mr. Tata. The scheme grasps the vital point of weakness in our national well-being with a clearness of vision and tightness of grip.”

Her efforts proved crucial at a time when the British colonial establishment viewed Indian scientific ambition with suspicion.

Colonial Resistance and Intellectual Pushback

The proposal encountered formidable resistance. Lord Curzon dismissed the idea outright, questioning whether Indians were capable of advanced scientific research. Later, William Ramsay, tasked with reviewing the proposal, rejected it on the grounds that science and the humanities could not coexist within a single institution—a judgment steeped as much in colonial prejudice as in academic opinion.

Undeterred, Nivedita took the campaign to London, enlisting figures such as William James and Patrick Geddes. James, in particular, insisted that the institute must remain autonomous and nationally governed, free from bureaucratic control.

Realisation After Loss

Jamsetji Tata died in 1904, two years after Vivekananda. Yet the idea they had shaped survived them both. In 1909, under Lord Minto, the proposal finally received approval.

Though originally planned for Bombay, the institute was established in Bangalore after Krishnaraj Wadiyar donated 370 acres of land. His father, Chamaraja Wadiyar, had been instrumental in supporting Vivekananda’s early travels to the West.

The IISc would later become the intellectual seedbed for institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the Indian Institutes of Technology.

Legacy Beyond Recognition

While Tata’s name remains inseparable from IISc, the intellectual and moral architecture of the institute bears the unmistakable imprint of Vivekananda and Sister Nivedita. Vivekananda’s insistence on freedom, reason, and disciplined inquiry—and Nivedita’s relentless defence of those principles—ensured that the institute was conceived not as a colonial appendage, but as a national institution rooted in Indian epistemology.

iisc
Indian Institute of Science when it was just completed. Image credit: tata.com

Vivekananda’s philosophy rejected blind authority in all forms. He always suggested that: Rational truth must be accepted from anyone; irrational claims must be rejected, even if spoken by authority.

That commitment to intellectual freedom lies at the heart of IISc. The institute stands today not merely as a centre of scientific excellence, but as a living testament to an idea: that India’s freedom, dignity, and future depend on the fearless union of reason and responsibility.

IISc stands, more than a century later, as evidence that India’s scientific future was imagined not only in boardrooms and government files, but in conversations about freedom, reason, and responsibility. It is a reminder that the pursuit of science, when rooted in national self-respect, becomes an act of civilisation-building.

Dipin Damodharan is the Co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of EdPublica. A journalist and editor with over 15 years of experience leading and co-founding both print and digital media outlets, he has written extensively on education, politics, and culture. His work has appeared in global publications such as The Huffington Post, The Himalayan Times, DailyO, Education Insider, and others.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Society

79 Years After Independence: Is India Investing Enough in Science and Technology?

India’s R&D spending remains below 1% of GDP despite rising research output and patents. Is the country investing enough to achieve technological independence by 2047?

Vaishnavi V S

Published

on

India R&D spending and investment in science and technology
The bigger question is whether its investment in science is sufficient to build the technologies and industries needed for technological independence. Photo by Dibakar Roy /Pexels.

India’s research and development (R & D) spending has more than doubled in absolute terms, but R&D intensity remains below 1% of GDP. As India approaches 2047, the bigger question is whether its investment in science is sufficient to build the technologies and industries needed for technological independence.

When India became independent in 1947, the country had only 17 universities and 636 colleges serving about 2.38 lakh students. Literacy was around 14%. Nearly eight decades later, India has built a vastly larger education and research system. The country had 1,168 universities, 45,473 colleges and 12,002 standalone higher-education institutions in 2021–22, according to the All India Survey on Higher Education.

But as India looks towards its centenary of Independence in 2047, its scientific ambitions are running into a persistent question: is the country investing enough in research and development to build the technologies it will need? India’s R&D spending has increased sharply in absolute terms. Yet as a share of the economy, it has remained below 1%.

India’s R&D Spending Remains Below 1% of GDP

India’s gross expenditure on research and development rose from ₹60,197 crore in 2010–11 to ₹1,27,381 crore in 2020–21, according to the Department of Science and Technology. However, R&D expenditure as a share of GDP was 0.64% in 2020–21. The corresponding figure was 0.66% in both 2018–19 and 2019–20.

This means that while India’s research spending more than doubled over the decade, R&D intensity remained at roughly two-thirds of 1% of GDP. The latest detailed official figure available for India is therefore 0.64% for 2020–21. WIPO’s Global Innovation Index 2025 uses an R&D intensity figure of 0.65%, based on 2020 data. One of the most commonly used measures of a country’s research effort is R&D intensity—the amount a country spends on research and development as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP). It allows researchers to compare the relative priority given to R&D across economies of very different sizes.

There is currently no single internationally comparable R&D figure for every country for 2026. UNESCO’s new global R&D data collection is still underway, with the resulting data scheduled for release in November 2026.

Government Still Funds the Larger Share

The issue is not only how much India spends on R&D, but who pays for it. Government accounted for 59.2% of India’s gross expenditure on R&D in 2020–21, while business enterprises accounted for 40.8%, according to DST data.

The figures point to India’s continuing dependence on public funding for research. That becomes significant as research moves into areas such as semiconductors, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, advanced materials and clean energy. These fields can require expensive infrastructure, specialised equipment and long development cycles before research produces commercially viable technologies.

Increasing private-sector participation is therefore likely to be as important as increasing the overall R&D budget.

India is Producing More Patents and Research

Despite its relatively low R&D intensity, India has become a significant contributor to global research and innovation. The latest Nature Index data, covering April 2025 to March 2026, records 3,565 research articles from India in the journals tracked by the index.

Patent activity has also grown rapidly. Indian applicants filed 76,470 patent applications worldwide in 2024, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. This was a 19.2% increase over 2023 and placed India sixth among origins for worldwide patent applications.

The growth marks the sixth consecutive year of double-digit growth in patent applications from India-based applicants, according to WIPO. But patent filings do not necessarily mean that inventions reach the market.

A patent can protect an invention without it becoming a commercially manufactured product. For research to generate wider economic value, it has to move through several stages—from discovery to patent, prototype, product and eventually large-scale deployment. That transition remains one of the important challenges for India’s innovation ecosystem.

India Ranks Higher on Innovation Than Its R&D Spending Suggests

India’s relatively low R&D intensity has not prevented it from performing strongly on broader measures of innovation. WIPO’s Global Innovation Index 2025 ranked India 38th among 139 economies. India was also ranked first among lower-middle-income economies and first in Central and Southern Asia.

WIPO identifies India as an innovation overperformer, citing strengths including ICT services exports, venture-capital activity and the country’s ability to translate scientific knowledge into commercial impact. The contrast is significant.

India is generating considerable innovation despite spending a relatively small share of its GDP on R&D. But that does not necessarily mean that the existing level of investment is enough to support the next generation of technologies. As research becomes more capital-intensive, countries seeking technological leadership require sustained investment in infrastructure, specialised researchers and long-term development.

China Spends Four Times India’s Share

The gap becomes clearer when India is compared with major research economies. WIPO’s latest internationally comparable estimates for 2024 put R&D intensity at 6.33% of GDP in Israel and 5.32% in South Korea. Japan and the United States were both at 3.45%, while Germany stood at 3.11%.

China’s R&D intensity reached 2.65%. By comparison, India’s latest available figure is about 0.65%. China therefore spends roughly four times India’s share of GDP on R&D. Other emerging economies also show different levels of research intensity. WIPO estimates Brazil at 1.15%, Thailand at 1.16%, Türkiye at 1.42%, Vietnam at 0.42%, the Philippines at 0.32% and Indonesia at 0.28%.

The figures are not all based on the same data year, making direct comparisons imperfect. However, the broad difference between India and the world’s leading research economies remains clear.

Government Changing The Funding Model

India has begun introducing policies aimed at expanding research funding and encouraging greater industry participation. The Anusandhan National Research Foundation was established through legislation in 2023, with a planned five-year outlay of ₹50,000 crore for 2023–28.

The foundation is intended to strengthen research across universities, colleges and research institutions and encourage collaboration between academia, industry and government.

In July 2025, the government also approved a ₹1 lakh crore Research, Development and Innovation Scheme. The scheme is intended to encourage private-sector investment in high-risk and high-impact R&D, particularly in strategic and emerging areas.

The initiatives reflect an attempt to address a longstanding problem: India’s research system needs greater private-sector participation if overall R&D investment is to rise substantially.

What Would Higher R&D Spending Change?

There is no fixed relationship between R&D spending and the number of patents, papers or technologies a country will produce. Reaching a particular percentage of GDP cannot guarantee scientific breakthroughs.

But higher sustained investment could expand the country’s research capacity. Moving from 0.64% to 1% of GDP would represent an increase of about 56% relative to India’s current R&D intensity. It could provide greater resources for research grants, laboratory infrastructure, doctoral training and advanced equipment.

At 2%, India would move much closer to China’s current R&D intensity and have a substantially larger pool of resources for research in areas such as biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, AI, semiconductors and clean energy. At 3%, India would enter the range of several major research economies. The outcome, however, would depend on how effectively that money is used.

From Research Papers to Technologies

For India, the next phase of science policy may therefore need to focus as much on the movement of research into the economy as on increasing research output. Universities need stronger research infrastructure and stable funding. Public laboratories need effective technology-transfer mechanisms. Companies need stronger incentives to conduct R&D domestically. Researchers need access to advanced equipment and long-term funding.

Success could also be measured through indicators beyond publications and patents: technologies licensed to companies, university spin-offs, industry-funded research, prototypes entering production and revenue generated from publicly supported research. This is particularly important for technologies that could shape India’s economic future.

A semiconductor process developed in an Indian laboratory, a new pharmaceutical platform, an energy-storage technology or an agricultural innovation can have an economic impact far beyond the research paper that first describes it. At the same time, basic research cannot be judged only by immediate commercial returns. Some of the technologies that eventually transform economies begin as discoveries with no obvious market.

India therefore faces a two-part challenge: expand research that pushes scientific boundaries while building the institutions and industrial capacity needed to convert discoveries into technologies.

The Science Challenge India Faces in 2047

The scientific challenge India faced in 1947 was largely about building capacity. The country needed universities, laboratories, trained researchers and institutions capable of supporting scientific inquiry. Much of that foundation now exists.

The challenge approaching 2047 is different. India is no longer simply trying to establish a scientific system. It is trying to use that system to compete in technologies that will determine economic and strategic strength. That will require more sustained investment, greater participation from industry and stronger links between research institutions and the market.

India R&D Spending: Is It Enough to Power Science by 2047?
As India approaches 2047, the bigger question is whether its investment in science is sufficient to build the technologies and industries needed for technological independence.Photo by Adam Saad/Pexels

As India approaches 100 years of Independence, the question is therefore no longer only how much science the country produces. It is whether India can invest enough in that science—and build the systems around it—to turn research into technologies, technologies into industries and scientific capability into technological independence.

Editor’s Note

Dipin Damodharan, Co-founder & Editor-in-Chief, EdPublica

South Korea offers an instructive comparison. R&D intensity—the share of a country’s GDP devoted to research and development—is not, by itself, a guarantee of economic transformation. But South Korea’s experience shows what sustained investment can achieve when it is accompanied by strong university research, private-sector participation and technological development.

UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics reported that South Korea’s R&D expenditure had reached 4.03% of GDP in 2011, compared with 0.81% for India at the time. The private sector accounted for a substantial share of South Korea’s R&D expenditure, highlighting the importance of industry participation alongside public investment.

The lesson for India is therefore not simply to spend more. It is to build an ecosystem in which increased R&D funding translates into research capacity, technologies, companies and productive industries.

Continue Reading

Climate

From Fighting Water to Saving It: The Netherlands Faces a Growing Drought Challenge

A land built to keep water out is now struggling to keep enough of it in — forcing a world leader in water management to rethink its infrastructure

Sebin Pious

Published

on

Netherlands drought challenge
Low water levels on the Nederrijn near Arnhem's Andrej Sacharovbrug, 5 August 2026. Photo: Tomas Guus / Wikimedia Commons (CC0)

The Netherlands built its global reputation by keeping water out. Now, longer dry spells and intensifying heatwaves are forcing the country to confront a very different problem: how to keep enough fresh water in the landscape. From greenhouse agriculture to homes built on wooden foundation piles, the Netherlands drought challenge is exposing the limits of infrastructure designed primarily for flood protection.

When people think of the Netherlands, the images that come to mind are windmills, tulip fields and the great sea walls that have kept the ocean at bay for centuries. The Dutch built their reputation, and much of their nation, on mastering water — pumping it away, holding it back, and reclaiming land from the sea to build a prosperous country on ground that, by rights, shouldn’t exist. Yet beneath that carefully engineered landscape, the Netherlands is now facing an unfamiliar problem: it is running out of fresh water.

As repeated summer heatwaves sweep across Western Europe, Dutch water authorities say they have reached the limit of what engineering can do. In several regions, officials have exhausted every standard measure available to them and are left with what amounts to a last resort — waiting, and hoping, for rain.

Netherlands Drought Challenge: From Floods to Water Scarcity

To understand how a country famous for its rainfall and rivers has arrived at this point, it helps to look at how the land itself was designed. For generations, the Dutch water system had one job: get excess water out to sea as fast as possible, to prevent flooding. That same efficiency has become a liability as weather patterns shift towards longer dry spells and more intense heat. The pressure peaks in late summer, when temperatures regularly cross 35°C and water evaporates faster than rainfall can replace it.

The consequences of shrinking water reserves go well beyond the daily weather report. They are already reaching into the economy, and into the foundations — quite literally — of Dutch homes.

Thousands of historic Dutch houses stand on wooden foundation piles. When groundwater levels drop, those piles are exposed to air and begin to rot. On clay and peat soils, the ground shrinks unevenly, pulling foundations down and cracking brick walls

Economic Strain and Sinking Homes

In Westland, the heart of Dutch greenhouse horticulture, the Delfland water authority has banned growers from drawing irrigation water from local ditches and canals — the first such ban in its history. According to the growers’ umbrella body Glastuinbouw Nederland, the ban affects around 150 commercial growers, with potential damages running as high as €150 million.

At the same time, a quieter crisis is unfolding beneath people’s homes. Thousands of historic Dutch houses stand on wooden foundation piles. When groundwater levels drop, those piles are exposed to air and begin to rot. On clay and peat soils, the ground shrinks unevenly, pulling foundations down and cracking brick walls. The Council for the Living Environment and Infrastructure estimates that close to half a million buildings across the country could show foundation damage by 2035, with repair costs reaching as much as €54 billion.

From Water Battle to Water Sponge

This reality is forcing a fundamental shift in how the Netherlands manages its resources. For centuries, Dutch policy was simple: fight the water, and push it away. Today, water authorities are engaged in a delicate balancing act, trying to save every drop using canal locks and storage basins. But holding onto existing water can only do so much once the rain stops altogether.

Long-term resilience will require redesigning the landscape itself. Rather than treating rainwater as a threat to be flushed out to sea, experts increasingly argue that the Netherlands needs to function more like a giant sponge — capturing heavy winter rain and storing it safely to survive the dry summer months that are becoming the norm.

A Lesson Beyond Borders

What is unfolding in the Netherlands carries a lesson well beyond it. If a nation this experienced in water engineering is struggling to keep pace with a changing climate, it says something about how quickly conditions can outrun even the most sophisticated infrastructure. As riverbeds stay low and the dry spells drag on, the Dutch find themselves in an unfamiliar position for a country built on water: waiting for the skies to open.

Continue Reading

Society

Urban Women Hit by a Stark 8.7% Unemployment Rate

India’s unemployment rate rose to 5.4% in April–June 2026, but the sharpest divide was among urban workers: women faced 8.7% unemployment, while only 22.8% were employed compared with 70.7% of men.

Published

on

Women wearing masks march in a protest, holding a sign that reads “WE WANT JOB SECURITY.”
Women participate in a protest demanding job security, highlighting concerns over employment and workplace stability. Representational image. Image credit: Rsapmech/Pexels

India’s urban labour market continues to show a persistent gender imbalance, even as overall employment trends remain relatively stable. While unemployment rates are often used as the primary indicator of job stress, they do not fully capture who is able to access work in the first place.

India’s latest employment data reveal a divide larger than the headline unemployment rate. In April–June 2026, 8.7% of urban women aged 15 years and above who were in the labour force were unemployed, compared with 6.1% of urban men. But the sharper gap lies in employment itself: only 22.8% of urban women were working, compared with 70.7% of urban men.

The figures come as India’s overall unemployment rate rose to 5.4%, from 5.0% in January–March, according to the latest Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Quarterly Bulletin released by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Rural unemployment rose from 4.3% to 4.8%, while urban unemployment remained almost unchanged at 6.7%.

For urban women, unemployment actually fell from 9.1% to 8.7% over the quarter. Yet it remains considerably higher than the rate for men.

That makes the story less about a sudden rise in female unemployment and more about a persistent question: why are so few urban women participating in paid work?

The Bigger Divide is Participation

The unemployment rate counts people who are working or actively seeking and available for work. Those outside the labour force are not counted as unemployed.

That distinction is crucial. The urban Worker Population Ratio (WPR) stood at 46.8% overall in April–June. But the gender gap was stark: 70.7% for men and just 22.8% for women.

The nearly 48-percentage-point difference means that looking only at the 8.7% female unemployment rate captures only part of the employment problem. India can therefore have a relatively stable urban unemployment rate while still having a large pool of women who are not participating in the labour market.

Unemployment and gender gap in employment.
Women work on a production floor, illustrating the growing importance of women’s participation in India’s urban workforce amid persistent gender gaps in employment. Image credit: EqualStock IN/Pexels

Urban Jobs are Changing, But the Gender Gap Remains

The urban labour market itself is not showing signs of a broad collapse. Urban unemployment edged up only marginally from 6.6% to 6.7% during the quarter. At the same time, the share of urban workers in regular wage or salaried employment increased from 48.9% to 49.3%.

Urban employment is also dominated by services. The tertiary sector accounted for 62% of urban employment in April–June, compared with 61.7% a year earlier.

Yet these shifts have not translated into comparable employment outcomes for women.

Rural Unemployment Rose Faster

The national increase in unemployment was partly driven by rural India. Rural unemployment rose by 0.5 percentage points, compared with a 0.1-point increase in urban areas. At the same time, rural employment continued to shift away from agriculture: agriculture’s share fell from 55.8% to 52.9%, while the secondary sector rose from 22.6% to 24.4%.

chart visualization

The figures point to an economy undergoing changes in where and how people work, even as access to employment remains uneven.

Women’s Participation Also Fell

The gender gap extends beyond cities. Overall female labour-force participation declined from 34.7% in January–March to 33.2% in April–June. The overall LFPR for people aged 15 and above also fell, from 55.5% to 54.6%.

The latest figures should not be interpreted as proof that women simply lost jobs. LFPR measures participation in the labour force, while WPR measures actual employment.

But together, the indicators highlight a persistent challenge: India’s employment story cannot be understood through unemployment alone.

The Question of Gender Gap

The PLFS does not establish why urban women participate in the labour market at much lower rates than men. Factors such as childcare, household responsibilities, transport, workplace conditions, safety and access to suitable jobs require separate evidence and reporting.

What the data do establish is the scale of the divide. Urban female unemployment is 8.7%, compared with 6.1% for men. But the much larger gap is in actual employment: 22.8% of urban women were working, against 70.7% of urban men.

As India’s urban economy becomes increasingly service-led and regular salaried employment expands, the central employment question is no longer only how many jobs are being created. It is also who is able to enter the workforce and stay in it.

Continue Reading

Trending