Support for Start-ups and GCCs Can Go Hand in Hand, Says Niti Aayog Member Abhay Karandikar
Abhay Karandikar, member, NITI Aayog, talks to Parth Singh about the Prime Minister Research Chair (PMRC) scheme, which aims to bring top Indian-origin researchers and scientists back to India.
India is now a leading global supplier of talent in technology and research. What has prompted the focus on attracting this talent back to India?
The PMRC should not be seen as something that has emerged suddenly. It is an evolution of earlier initiatives such as the VAIBHAV and VAJRA schemes by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) to engage with the diaspora.
The first VAIBHAV Summit was inaugurated by the PM in October 2020, which laid the foundation to leverage global Indian expertise. After the summit, DST launched the VAIBHAV scheme.
The key difference is the duration of engagement. Instead of short visits lasting a few months, the new scheme envisages Indian diaspora scientists working in Indian higher education institutions or national R&D [research and development] laboratories for longer duration with an ideal tenure of about two years. Longer stays are expected to enable deeper and more meaningful research collaborations in areas of national priority.
The second major difference is the provision of a dedicated research grant. Under the VAIBHAV Fellowship, scientists received fellowship support and travel-related expenses, but there was no separate funding for research.
Under the PMRC, however, a senior scientist will receive a dedicated research grant of around ₹3-5cr, in addition to the scientist's fellowship or salary. The grant is intended to support research infrastructure, equipment and collaborative work, making the programme far more attractive and effective.
Our experience with earlier schemes showed that meaningful research collaborations cannot be built in just two months. Equally, the absence of dedicated research funding limited the scope of joint work. The PMRC addresses both these gaps by providing longer-term engagement as well as substantial financial support.
Could you share some details about the selection process?
The selection process will be overseen by an apex committee chaired by the principal scientific adviser. The committee has members from industry as well. Both overseas scientists and host institutions, eligible as per the scheme guideline, will be required to apply under the scheme.
Applicants will indicate their preferred institutions and areas of collaboration. The final selection will be made by the committee, taking these preferences into account. The objective is to facilitate the most suitable collaborations rather than assign researchers arbitrarily to institutions.
Given the expected volume of applications, it will not be possible to accommodate everyone. Proposals will therefore undergo expert evaluation across the scheme's 13 thematic areas, after which the apex committee will make the final selections based on merit.
There is a popular assumption that India is comfortable with 'brain drain', unlike China, which made serious efforts to retain its talent.
No, it is not true. The government acknowledges the problem and has been making efforts. The Chinese model cannot simply be replicated in India because our circumstances and institutional framework are fundamentally different.
Large corporations, barring a few, have not invested sufficiently in cutting-edge R&D
How does India compete with countries that attract Indian talent?
A great deal is happening in India's science and technology ecosystem today. The government has launched several mission-mode initiatives, including the National Quantum Mission and the IndiaAI Mission, both backed by substantial funding.
The establishment of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation has been another major step, with the foundation already launching mission-oriented programmes such as EV Mission, AI for Science, among others.
In addition, the ₹1-lakh-crore Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) scheme is aimed at promoting deep-tech innovation in the private sector.
Together, these initiatives have created a far more vibrant research environment in the country.
When many senior members of the Indian scientific diaspora left India years ago, cutting-edge research was largely confined to institutions such as ISRO [Indian Space Research Organisation], the Department of Atomic Energy and DRDO [Defence Research and Development Organisation].
Today, world-class research is being carried out across IITs [Indian Institutes of Technology], IISc [Indian Institute of Science], IISERs [Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research], universities and national laboratories, supported by sustained government investment and mission-mode programmes.
This transformation makes India a much more attractive destination for researchers of Indian origin who maintain strong family and social ties with the country. Regardless of geopolitical developments elsewhere, many scientists in the diaspora may be willing to return or collaborate more closely if they see India's research ecosystem continuing to strengthen.
Some critics argue that global capability centres (GCCs) have become a sophisticated form of 'brain drain' in India.
Our approach is not one versus the other. This is why I said India cannot replicate China because, we believe India's strategy should reflect its own strengths as the world's largest democracy. Alongside strengthening indigenous technological capabilities and intellectual property, we also want to deepen international collaboration with global research institutions and multinational companies.
These are not competing objectives. Supporting Indian start-ups and GCCs can go hand in hand. India remains open to international collaboration while safeguarding its national interests through investments in domestic innovation for achieving self-reliance.
That is why the RDI Fund will invest only in Indian companies, with the condition that their headquarters and intellectual property are based in India. At the same time, multinational companies have been encouraged to establish R&D centres in India, as they create high-skilled employment, strengthen the innovation ecosystem and help develop talent that ultimately benefits the country's broader technology landscape.
Would you agree that weak private R&D investment has driven talent abroad?
That is a valid point. Indian industry, particularly large corporations barring few exceptions, has not invested sufficiently in cutting-edge R&D. As a result, industry-academia linkages in India remain weaker.
Academic institutions such as IITs, IISc and universities are meant to educate students, produce PhDs and undertake basic and applied research. Their role is not to develop commercial products. That responsibility lies with industry, which needs strong in-house R&D capabilities to absorb research generated in academia and translate it into technologies and marketable products.
Therefore, the relatively weak industry-academia relationship cannot be attributed to academia only. A robust R&D culture in industry is also responsible for weak industry-academia linkages.
Recognising this gap, as we discussed earlier, the government created the RDI Fund to stimulate private-sector investment in R&D. Importantly, the fund is not meant for academic institutions; it will support only private companies and deep-tech start-ups. Large companies may receive long-term debt financing, while start-ups can be supported through equity investments.
The fund will finance up to 50% of a project's cost, requiring companies to invest the remaining amount themselves. The expectation is that this will attract 10 times the private investment over the next six to seven years, creating a robust R&D ecosystem led by industry and venture capital.
The long-term vision is that today's deep-tech start-ups will evolve into major technology companies with strong research capabilities over the years. As that ecosystem matures, industry-academia collaboration is expected to strengthen naturally, creating a more effective pipeline from academic research to commercial innovation.