Historian Ramachandra Guha on India’s Growing Unscientific Temper

Warns Against Subordination of Scientific Research to Political Agendas

Newsreel Asia Insight #214
May 7, 2024

Historian Ramachandra Guha has criticised the Indian government’s approach to science, claiming significant ideological interference in scientific institutions. In an op-ed published by The Telegraph, Guha asserts that the current political leadership shows a distinct disinterest in genuine scientific progress, favouring technological developments only when they serve political ends.

Guha reflects on the contrast between the scientific environment in India in 2009 and the situation since 2014. A decade ago, India appeared to be a more promising field for scientists—both economically and socially, he writes. The period was characterised by an increased tolerance and reduced communal polarisation, which, coupled with better economic conditions, attracted many scientists educated abroad back to India.

However, according to Guha, this trend has reversed under the current administration led by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

He argues that Modi appreciates technological advancements that can bring him political gains, such as the achievements of the Indian Space Research Organisation, but neglects broader scientific research. Guha claims that Hindutva ideologues now interfere with the appointment processes at prestigious institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). Unlike in the past, where academic peers solely made director appointments, now these decisions are influenced by right-wing elements. This, Guha suggests, has led to a preference for candidates who align with right-wing ideologies, affecting the academic and research integrity of these institutions.

One of the more controversial examples Guha cites involves the secretary of the department of science and technology, a former director of an IIT in Kanpur. The official issued a series of tweets praising the Indian Institute of Astrophysics for designing a system that allowed sunlight to shine on a deity during a religious festival in Ayodhya. Guha points out that the temple was inaugurated just a few months prior to the general elections for political rather than spiritual reasons.

The tweets were criticised on social media, with some commentators arguing that the scientific achievement touted was trivial and could have been managed by a high school student. And the criticism was understandable.

The promotion of a “scientific temper” is a value enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It is mentioned specifically in Article 51A, under the Fundamental Duties of citizens. It is the duty of citizens “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform,” it says. This duty encourages citizens to adopt a rational and evidence-based approach to problem-solving and decision-making, which is seen as crucial for the progress and development of the country. This inclusion shows the importance that the framers of the Constitution placed on science and rational thinking as foundational elements in the building of a modern India.

This duty does not imply that citizens should abandon their religious practices. Instead, it recognizes that science and religion address two distinct realms: science is an inquiry into the physical world and its laws, while religion explores realities beyond the physical, catering to those who are religious.

Using historical analogies to express his concerns, Guha writes that political and racial ideologies severely damaged scientific progress in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Marxism. He warns that the subordination of scientific research to political and religious agendas in India could deter the country’s brightest minds from pursuing their research at home or encourage them to move abroad.

The Nazi regime, led by Adolf Hitler, promoted “Aryan” supremacy and dismissed Jewish scientists from their positions, leading to the expulsion of leading intellectuals who were instrumental in various scientific advancements. Further, Hitler’s regime propagated pseudoscientific ideas such as racial biology and eugenics, distorting scientific research to fit their racial ideologies. This not only caused a brain drain but also weakened the integrity and development of scientific thought in Germany, impacting fields like physics, genetics and anthropology, where politically motivated “science” replaced genuine, unbiased inquiry.

The Soviet regime endorsed Lysenkoism, a politically favoured yet scientifically discredited theory that rejected Mendelian genetics – the study of how inherited traits are passed down from parents to offspring through genes – in favour of a doctrine that aligned with Marxist principles. This led to the suppression of genuine genetic research and the persecution of geneticists who opposed Lysenko’s theories. The adherence to this pseudoscience not only set back biological sciences and agriculture in the Soviet Union for decades but also demonstrated how political ideologies could deeply corrupt scientific disciplines and hinder their development.

Guha questions the future impact of the policies of the current regime in India on the morale and practice of science, suggesting that when science is made subservient to politics and religion, it not only hampers scientific innovation but also makes it difficult to attract and retain talented scientists.