On Friday, December 9, we had a fascinating conversation with Mr Jayant Krishna as part of the ICFAI WiseViews Series.

About Mr Jayant Krishna

Mr Jayant Krishna has had a distinguished career of over three decades across the industry, government, think tanks, and non-profits. He is currently the CEO of the Foundation for Advancing Science and Technology (FAST India), an organisation that seeks to bring about transformational change in India’s Science & Technology landscape. He was earlier CEO, Executive Director & COO of the National Skill Development Corporation. He was also the first Indian Group CEO of the UK India Business Council (UKIBC). Most of his three-decade long experience in the tech industry was in global leadership roles at Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). A Senior Fellow in US-India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, DC, he serves on the Board of Directors of a few companies. Mr Krishna is also a Fellow of the Computer Society of India and All India Management Association. He studied at the University of Leeds as a British Chevening Scholar, taught at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, has been a recipient of honorary doctorate (honoris Causa) and received the APJ Abdul Kalam Award for Innovation in Governance.

The importance of innovation

Mr Krishna began by pointing out that the global economy today is led by innovation. Economic growth is being fuelled by vibrant tech ecosystems that commercialise research in cutting edge areas like Biotech, Neuroscience, Quantum computing, etc.

India’s economic reforms of 1991 were to some extent inspired by those of China whose journey began 13 years earlier in 1978-79. China grew rapidly, became a global manufacturing hub and turned into a huge exporter. Over a period of time, the country moved up the value chain and developed capabilities in emerging technologies. China is today a world leader in cutting edge areas including AI. But unlike China, we did not invest the gains of the economic reforms in improving our science and technology/university ecosystem.

India introduced scientific temper that sought to promote the spirit of inquiry, in the constitution through the 42nd amendment in 1976. But there were no transformative reforms to shape the technology ecosystem.

Despite being the world’s fifth largest economy, a large talent pool and vibrant startup ecosystem, due to lack of investment in science and technology research, we remain a far cry from being an innovation led economy.

Strengthening the research culture

The ease of doing research in India is poor. Our researchers spend about two thirds of their time on administrative matters. Our research institutions (90% in the government sector) are separate from the universities. So, there is little collaboration between the centres of education and the centres of research. Research institutions are characterised by bureaucracy. The rules for procuring equipment are complicated. There is a lack of incentives for good researchers. The culture in most research institutions is not merit driven. Interdisciplinary research is rare. PhD scholars are lucky if they get a competent guide. There is little hand holding, and their stipends are often delayed.

The agenda for us

The recent move to set up institutes of eminence and the IISERs is good. These universities may raise the standard of education and research by attracting good faculty and students. But unless the ecosystem is properly connected, the graduates may leave for greener pastures abroad.

We need to increase spending on research. We spend only about 0.64% of our GDP on research. Compare this with 4% for South Korea, 2.73% for the US and 2.3% for the OECD countries. Out of the 0.64%, government research institutions spend two thirds and industry spends only on third. In China, it is the other way around.

When it comes to research impact through citations, we rank 10th, with USA and China bagging the two top spots. In the QS global ranking, only three universities, IISc, IIT Bombay and IIT Delhi find a place in the top 200.

In the Bloomberg Global Innovation Index, we rank 46th. When it comes to IP, we are ranked 40th in a survey of 53 countries. We are 72nd in WEF’s global competitiveness. We have a low rank (59) on the global talent index.

If we do not get our act together, our aspiration of becoming a $5 tn economy in the next few years, and a $ 10 tn economy by 2035, will remain a pipedream.

The good news is that we have a strong base. We have 15 lakh schools, 10,000 science colleges, 1000 universities, 23 IITs, 31 NITs, 7 IISERs, 38 CSIR labs, 64 ICAR labs, 52 DRDO labs, 21 labs under ISRO and 5 labs under Atomic Energy Commission. (There are almost 1400 major science and tech labs in the country.) We have a good telecom density and 60% smartphone penetration. We have the third largest number of startups in the world. The number of internet users in the country runs into 80 crores. With the setting up of a well-funded National Research Foundation (NRF), and the proposal to encourage research universities, under NEP, 2020, research in India will get a boost.

If we look at the top 10 companies in Silicon Valley, half of them are led by Indians, many of whom have received their first degree in India. Indians make up 12-15% of the scientists in the UK and the US. Indian students are the second largest community after the Chinese in the US and the UK. We must introspect why our people shine abroad but languish in our own country.

The success of IISc Bangalore, IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay shows that things can be turned around quickly if we have the intent. At the same time, the philanthropic money of leaders like Krish Gopalakrishnan and Kiran Mazumdar shows that industry is willing to fund research.

Can we make 2023-2030 a period of transformation for Indian science and technology? In the case of the economic reforms of 1991, we could achieve a consensus. We all agreed they were necessary. But in the case of reforms in science and technology, we are finding this difficult.

We need to create centralized R&D cells in each university. The funding value chain needs to be optimized. We need to change the outmoded procurement rules. Compensation for researchers must be on par with the average industry compensation. We need progressive policies for our research institutions along with performance centricity.

We should think of creating mega clusters of universities, science and tech labs where there can be collaboration and sharing of resources. We should look at a combination of functional, hard and soft mergers to bring together different institutions, which are currently operating in silos. During the Q&A, Mr Krishna mentioned that some thematic clusters have already been created to promote collaboration among the universities, industry, and the research labs.

We should tap international research opportunities. As Mr Krishna mentioned during the Q&A, why cannot India aspire to be the research back office of the world? Discussions are on with companies like Shell to explore the possibility of leveraging Indian talent for doing research.

Our research should be aligned with the national priorities. It is expected that NRF will work as a liaison between the universities, the government and the industry so that the government knows about the breakthrough research that is going on and the universities and the researchers know what the national priorities are.

Concluding remarks

Today, science is not in the public imagination. School students cannot name the top 5 scientists in the country. After Dr Abdul Kalam we have not had any scientist who is well known across the country. Our newspapers and television channels generally do not cover science in any great detail. We need documentaries like the Rocket Boys (featuring Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai and Abdul Kalam among others) to bring science back into the public imagination.

Today, most Class 12 students do not aspire to be scientists. People study technology to get jobs and not because they are passionate about science. Only about 200-300 scientists are absorbed in our research labs every year. Compare this with the 300-400,000 technologists which the IT industry absorbs. Our scientists must talk to people in a language they understand. We must hold science festivals.

We must aspire to have 5 universities in the top 100, 10 in the top 200 and 25 in the top 500.

Indian science and technology is a sleeping giant. We must awaken it. For this, transformative reforms are needed.

Q&A
On his journey

Mr Krishna had a successful and rewarding stint with Tata Sons and later with TCS. He held key responsibilities, heading verticals like Life Sciences and Healthcare. While working with the Tatas, he had also taken charge of CSR initiatives in the northern region. The outreach activities had given him a lot of satisfaction.

A chance encounter with Prof CK Prahalad had further whetted Mr Krishna’s appetite to do something for the country. Prof Prahalad had been invited to India by Dr Manmohan Singh in 2007 to give talks on India at 75. He had painted a vision of what we should aspire to become by 2022. Prof Prahalad had mentioned the need to create 500 million skilled people by 2022. Mr Krishna felt uncomfortable that a lot of what Prof Prahalad had evangelized was not being implemented.

When former TCS CEO Mr S. Ramadorai was appointed by the Government of India, with Cabinet rank, to head the skill development initiatives, he roped in a few capable TCS executives including Mr Krishna. In this role, Mr Krishna had the satisfaction of putting in place the Indian Apprenticeship Act and the National Skills Qualification framework. He could see that wherever some successful initiatives were launched, they had a transformative impact on the lives of people. The underprivileged were able to change their life’s trajectory.

Mr Krishna saw an opportunity to drive reforms that would trigger job growth and make India an innovation led economy. The exciting opportunity to work for a better India ensured that he did not go back to Industry though that would have meant a much higher compensation. Mr Krishna hopes to keep working even after his formal retirement for the noble cause of nation building. Having achieved his financial goals early on in life, he is happy that he is able to spend the last 15 years of his career (and beyond) on a larger purpose. He has realized the limit to making money while appreciating the sense of fulfilment and happiness he can get through nation building.

Mr Krishna admitted that the Tata culture has shaped his thinking. The founder, Mr JN Tata would say that community is the very purpose of existence of the business. JRD Tata would say that what comes from people must go back to them many times over. One of the important values Mr Krishna picked up from the Tata culture is that austerity is a virtue and not something to be ashamed of.

On the current Science and Technology Ecosystem: The priorities

Mr Krishna reiterated some of the key points he had made in his prepared remarks. We must increase the rigour of research in our universities and enable them to improve their global ranking. We must improve the ease of doing research and ensure that the time of the scientists is not wasted on administrative activities. We must help the government in their various initiatives in Science and Technology. We must encourage industry to spend more on R&D. We must bring science back into the public imagination.

On Agriculture

Agriculture generates about 16% of India’s GDP but employs directly and indirectly close to 50% of the population. In other words, agriculture is pulling down the country’s per capita income. We should make efforts to consolidate land holdings, improve productivity and move into more profitable, value added products. With due emphasis on research, India can improve productivity and become the food bowl of the world. We should be encouraged by our past success with the Green revolution and the White revolution.

On Healthcare

We spend only 1.3-1.5% of our GDP on healthcare compared to 7 -12% (and even more in some cases like the US) for most developed countries. There is a need to increase spending.

India is a country of paradoxes. Every 5th doctor in the UK NHS is an Indian. This is an indication of the calibre of Indian doctors. The best Indian hospitals like Breach Candy and Medanta attract foreign patients. In areas like hip replacement and angioplasty, we have achieved process rigour and standardization and productized the approach. The result is high quality treatment at low costs. While we have these top class hospitals, we also have dysfunctional district hospitals and primary healthcare centres. This means that many poor people do not have any access to even basic healthcare.

We must increase healthcare spending to 4% of GDP. We must also plug the leakages as most of the spending goes to the government hospitals. Our pharma sector has done well but is still heavily dependent on imported APIs. Our hospitals are good but despite having a lot of patient data, there is not much research that is happening. We are not able to use the data to create new interventions.

On NEP and higher education

The NEP has come up with some good ideas: research universities, NRF with a Rs 1000 crore budget, vocational education to improve employability, apprenticeships and internships, and an emphasis on learning outcomes. We spend only 3.5% of our GDP on education. There is a need to increase this to 6%. While the NEP has good ideas, implementation will be a challenge. We are currently unable to attract the best people to academics. Many come into Academics not because they are interested but as a last resort. This must change. There is also a huge gap between the top institutions and the others. We must close this gap.

On improving the scientific temper in the country

We must enable school students to visit the various government labs. In fact, some of the classes could be held in these labs. Students learn about electron microscopes in the textbook but never see one. We should hold science festivals.

We must train scientists to talk to the students in a way that will motivate and inspire them. We should publish popular science books. Mr Krishna is creating some fellowships in this regard. Calcutta Doordarshan used to run a program called Quest in which live experiments would be conducted. We need to bring back such programs.

Scientists should be able to meet senior government functionaries and discuss their plans and proposals freely. There was a time when our top scientists like Satish Dhawan could directly interact with the top ministers and even the Prime Minister. Today, even joint secretaries in the government do not entertain the scientists.

The scientific community should be able to do benefit selling more effectively to the government officials. They should be able to explain convincingly that the investments made today will generate returns 5-6 years down the line. They should be able to explain the importance of developing the IP. For example, in the case of an iPhone, the Chinese make $10 per phone but the Americans who hold the IP make $40-60 per phone.

On making chips in India

The father of the Indian IT industry, Mr FC Kohli would lament that India did not have a sharp focus on microelectronics. That is why our country did not become a hardware hub. In fact, Mr Kohli met various PMs including Mrs Indira Gandhi, Mr Charan Singh and Mr Rajiv Gandhi but somehow could not convince them to invest in chip manufacturing. Microelectronics requires huge investments that will be viable only if we produce for the global markets. We set up the Semiconductor Complex Limited in Chandigarh but that could not take off.

The success of Taiwan is a good illustration of what is possible if we have global ambitions. China’s geopolitical posturing, lack of respect for IP and big brother attitude means that the world is looking for a new manufacturing hub. India can move into this gap. We respect IP, are peace loving and follow the laws. With the setting up of the Semiconductor Mission, we have a real opportunity in front of us to strengthen our presence in this critical technology.

On improving the learning outcomes

Prof Prasad mentioned that we must build higher education institutions considering the local context. India is a diverse country and all the students are not alike. Each institution should be clear about the kind of students it is attracting and how it can customize the course. The students who go to the IITs and IIMs will not come to the best private universities till they mature and become something like a Stanford. More generally, we should be more learner centric. We must put ourselves in the learners’ shoes and give them more options. Then only we can get the desired outcomes. Swayam has great teachers and great courses but the learning outcome is poor because of the lack of student connect.

On IIT coaching institutions

In no other country, will we find coaching factories like Kota. It is a shame that we attach so much importance to our children getting admission to the IITs. We are killing the child in students by putting them under so much pressure. If they are responsible, the coaching institutions should come up with a different model. All children should be encouraged to study for board exams. A small number of students who have the aptitude for science and technology should receive special training. Putting children from Class 6 or Class 7 in coaching institutes is a mockery of education. The parents should accept that getting admission to the IITs is not the be all and end all of life. The JEE is the world’s toughest exam. To make the system more student friendly, we must increase the number of seats and create more IITs. Healthy competition for admission to the top schools is fine. So is academic rigour. But this kind of dog-eat-dog competition that puts so much pressure on children is not desirable.