'Despite being a software powerhouse, we're not producing proportionate original IP, frameworks, or global tech products originating in India.'
Countries like the United States, China, and Germany built their national strength by first investing in science.
In contrast, India often appears to be pursuing prosperity without first laying the scientific foundation.
The result? We celebrate the IPL but import deep tech.
We idolise Bollywood yet lag in innovations.
We support services and delivery startups, while R&D remains underfunded.
These lines are part of a viral LinkedIn post by Mayank Shrivastava, a professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, and co-founder of a deep-tech startup.
"When we invest in impact, readiness, and potential -- while maintaining a strong commitment to inclusion -- we create a research ecosystem that is not only fair but also future-ready," Professor Shrivastava tells Rediff's Shobha Warrier in the second of a multi-part interview.
What do you mean by socialistic approach?
When I refer to a 'socialistic approach', I don't use the term in any ideological or critical sense.
I'm referring to a funding philosophy that prioritises inclusivity -- ensuring that institutions and researchers across different states, geographies, or categories have access to research opportunities.
This principle is important, especially in a country as diverse and vast as ours, and it reflects our collective commitment to equitable development.
That said, in the context of competitive research funding -- particularly when resources are limited -- we also need to make sure that our systems are structured to support excellence and impact.
Sometimes, well-intentioned efforts to distribute resources uniformly can inadvertently shift the focus from the strength of the proposal to geographic or institutional representation.
This isn't about blame -- it's about balance.
Every successful research ecosystem in the world has followed a complementary approach: It builds a few globally competitive centres of excellence, and then uses those as anchors to strengthen the broader network through collaboration, training, and shared infrastructure.
We need to do the same -- recognise and nurture high-performing institutions, while simultaneously uplifting emerging ones.
This doesn't mean withdrawing support from under-represented regions or institutions.
On the contrary, it means designing targeted mechanisms -- such as mentorship programs, joint projects, national consortia, and infrastructure grants -- that enable more institutions to rise to that level of competitiveness over time.
The goal is not to exclude, but to elevate.
So when I talk about evolving our funding model, I'm simply suggesting that equity and excellence must go hand in hand.
One should not come at the cost of the other.
When we invest in impact, readiness, and potential -- while maintaining a strong commitment to inclusion -- we create a research ecosystem that is not only fair but also future-ready.
What is the role of the industry in research? Why is it that the academia-industry collaboration is not happening in a big way in India?
Industry plays a vital role in strengthening the research ecosystem, especially when it comes to translating academic discoveries into practical, scalable technologies.
In countries like the US and Germany, industry actively co-invests in research aligned with their long-term technology strategies.
This creates a virtuous cycle -- academia pushes the frontiers of knowledge, and industry brings those advancements into the real world through productization and deployment.
In India, while the intent for such collaboration certainly exists, its scale and depth remain limited due to a combination of structural and cultural factors -- on both sides.
From the industry side, many Indian companies -- barring a few notable exceptions -- tend to operate with shorter planning horizons, typically two to three years.
Their focus is understandably on delivery, efficiency, and incremental innovation.
Fundamental research, which may take years to mature and carries significant risk, often doesn't align with these business cycles.
As a result, long-term investment in R&D remains modest.
Even where R&D is present -- particularly in sectors like software and manufacturing -- it is often focused downstream, with work being done on adaptation, integration, or cost optimisation of known technologies.
The classic pipeline of R&D → Development → Manufacturing, with foundational research originating domestically, is still nascent in many sectors.
For multinational companies operating in India, R&D centers here often serve as cost centres, with strategic decisions and core research mandates retained at global headquarters.
While this setup contributes significantly to talent development, it limits the autonomy and scope for original upstream research within the country.
That said, we are beginning to see positive shifts.
In areas like semiconductors, materials, and defense, where India has strategic needs, genuine collaboration between academia and industry is growing.
These are promising models that can be scaled and adapted to other sectors.
From the academic side, too, we have room to grow. Effective industry collaboration requires more than technical capability -- it also demands an understanding of timelines, deliverables, and the product lifecycle.
Researchers with prior industry experience often bridge this gap more naturally. But we now need structured programmes, training, and ecosystem support to help more researchers become industry-ready, particularly in applied domains.
What we ultimately need is a shared platform -- a stronger R&D culture within industry, and a more structured interface between academia and industry.
Not just for consultancy or short-term projects, but for co-developing technologies that are globally competitive and nationally relevant.
When both sides invest in the relationship with a long-term perspective, the results can be transformative -- for both innovation and economic growth.
IMAGE: Professor Mayank Shrivastava. Photograph: Kind courtesy Professor Mayank ShrivastavaEven Indian software companies are mostly into service and not interested in R&D...
Yes, that's a critical aspect of the broader R&D challenge in India.
While our software industry has achieved global scale and reputation in services and system integration, its structure inherently favours execution over invention.
These companies excel in delivering large-scale, cost-effective solutions, but their business models are primarily built around fulfilling client-defined needs -- often within tight deadlines and predefined frameworks.
This model leaves limited room for fundamental research or long-gestation innovation projects.
R&D in such setups, if it happens at all, tends to be incremental and tightly coupled to client deliverables.
There's typically little incentive -- or bandwidth -- for investing in uncertain, long-horizon research with no immediate commercial payoff.
Even when multinational companies set up R&D centres in India, those centres are often focused on development and support rather than primary innovation.
Strategic and high-risk research typically stays with their global headquarters.
This structural reality has led to a situation where, despite being a software powerhouse, we're not producing proportionate original IP, frameworks, or global tech products originating in India.
Importantly, this isn't a critique -- it's an honest reflection of how the industry evolved based on global demand and comparative advantage.
But going forward, if we want India to be not just a hub of talent but a source of new ideas and technologies, we'll need to structurally incentivise R&D within our strongest sectors --including software.
That shift will require long-term thinking, leadership buy-in, and deeper integration with academia, where many of these high-risk, exploratory ideas can germinate and grow.
Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff
© 2025