Good 1 PDF

Social Scientist
Debates on Science and Technology in India: Alliance Formation between the Scientific and
Political Elite during the Inter-War Period
Author(s): Sambit Mallick, E. Haribabu and S. G. Kulkarni
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 33, No. 11/12 (Nov. - Dec., 2005), pp. 49-75
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3518066
Accessed: 08-05-2020 07:02 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Scientist
This content downloaded from 157.37.92.184 on Fri, 08 May 2020 07:02:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Debates on Science and Technology in India
Alliance Formation between the Scientific and Political
Elite during the Inter-war Period
3
1K
This paper, from the sociology of science perspective, examines the

debates on the interface between science and society involving political
leaders, scientists and technologists between 1900 and 1947, especially r
during the inter-war period. The debates clearly showed a consensus on
the significance of modern science and technology as forces that could
transform the Indian economy and culture as part of the process of
building a nation, both as a political entity and cultural entity. The
debates also showed an ambivalent attitude towards traditional C
knowledge and techniques. The paper argues that the antecedents of the
science and technology policies, as statements on the interface betweenJ
science, on one hand, and, society, on the other, in independent India,
could be traced to the debates and also the outcomes of the debates. This
paper is a modest attempt to map the contours of the discourse on C)
science and technology, rather than carrying out an in-depth analysis of
the thoughts and actions of an individual or an institution.C
Introduction
Specific socio-historical contexts have shaped science a

technology policies in India. Understanding the process of policy-
making brings out various perspectives based on interests, motivation
and values of the key actors or groups that are involved in policy
formulation. In other words, an examination of the antecedents
provides insights into the various ways in which the linkages between
modern science and technology, on one hand, and, society, on the other,
are conceptualised. The present paper tries to explore some of the
important issues and perspectives on the science and technology
question in Indian society. In the Indian context, modern science and
technology took seed during the colonial period. The selective
introduction of science by the colonial government for furthering its
own interests, had elicited different kinds of responses from the Indian
populace, in general, and the intelligentsia, in particular. The
intelligentsia - educationists, political leaders, scientists, technologists
and engineers, since the late nineteenth century - could see the potential
of modern science and technology as important forces in nation-
building. However, there were differences among the intelligentsia in
49
Social Scientist
O3 what ways and how modern science and technology could be harne
c-4i address issues that are specific to the Indian situation.
,L) There were significant debates on the question of linkages between science
IB and technology, on one hand, and, Indian society, on the other, among the
o national political leadership even before India attained independence. The
Z present study is an attempt to understand how the different perspectives
!-- articulated perceptions on modern science, and which of the perspectives gained
- prominence and legitimacy in the formulation of the national science and
0 technology policy in the post-Independence era. To put it differently, this paper
Z tries to examine the critical debates on the potentials of modern science and
m~ technology in relation to economic and socio-cultural transformation, which
~o formed a part of the debates on nation-building during the inter-war period,
that laid the foundations for science and technology policies immediately after
Independence. For this purpose, the perspectives on Western science that
emerged during the colonial period and the adherents to these perspectives, the
social groups to which these adherents belonged, were examined critically by the
intelligentsia during the. interwar period.
The sources of data collection mostly include documents related to archival
materials, with a focus on building scientific institutions in colonial India. These
documents were generated by various scientific institutions in colonial as well as
free India. The study focuses on the emergence of different perspectives on
modern science in India during the colonial period. The discussion on the
economic, historical and cultural dimensions of science and technology that
figured in Science and Culture, on one hand, and, of various collected works of
political leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC), viz., Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, and
nationalist scientists of the Indian Science Congress Association, viz., of
Meghnad Saha, Homi Jehangir Bhabha and Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya, the
proceedings of the National Planning Committee and the Scientific Policy
Resolution of 1958, on the other, are some of the sources utilized for the present
study.
Sociology of Science Perspective

Sociology of science is a specialty that examines how and to what extent
socio-cultural factors, both internal to the world of science and those external to
the world of science, influence and shape scientific and technological activities.
The literature suggests that the earlier conception that science is autonomous but
not technology, having its own dynamics unconnected with the external forces, is
no longer sustainable. Rather, science and technology have been influenced by
various factors - social, economic, political, cultural, legal, ethical, institutional,
50 ideological, and so on. The divide between the internal world of science and
external world of science is, therefore, not rigid but porous (Haribabu 1999). As ,
Bloor (1976) put it, "All knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is socially 3
caused". Restivo and Bauchspies (1996) pointed out, "The term 'social' is not e
only in the 'external' social and cultural milieu or context of science, but in the Z
social organisation of science, indeed in scientists themselves. The 'social' in this -,
sense is pervasive, and no more transparent than quantum or gravitational
forces". m
Sociologis
that shaped science and technology policies. As C. Wright Mills (1959:162) put it, C
"Unless one assumes some trans-historical theory of the nature of history, or cv
that man in society is a non-historical entity, no social science can be assumed to
transcend history. All sociology worthy of the name is 'historical sociology"'. m.
Abrams (1982: 2) stated, "In my understanding of history and sociology, there m
can be no relation between them because, in terms of their fundamental C)
preoccupations, history and sociology are and always have been the same thi
Both seek to understand the puzzle of human agency and both seek to do so in
terms of the process of social structuring. Both are impelled to conceive of t
process chronologically; at the end of the debate the diachrony-synchrony
distinction is absurd. Sociology must be concerned with eventuation, because
that is how structuring happens. History must be theoretical, because that is
how structuring is apprehended. Historical sociology is thus not some special
kind of sociology; rather, it is the essence of sociology". Giddens (1984: 357-358)
wrote, "What distinguishes social sciences from history? I think we have to reply
as Durkheim did ... nothing-nothing, that is, which is conceptually coherent or
intellectually defensible". Thus, the present study employs, historical-
sociological perspective. This paper argues that the perspectives on science and
technology are based on the interests and ideologies of individuals and the social
groups, which they belonged to.
Many developing countries became politically independent in the wake of
World War II. During this period, the political leadership realized the significance
of modern science and technology as critical resources in achieving rapid
economic and socio-cultural transformation. In the Indian context, the political
leadership consciously chose modern science and technology as critical inputs
for the economic and cultural dimensions of nation-building, and the State was
made the chief patron and promoter of modern science and technology. The
contours of the modern nation-state in India, and the role of modern science
and technology in the process of nation-building were articulated by the Indian
political leadership, which was engaged in the freedom struggle during the first
half of the twentieth century. Especially during the inter-war period, the Indian
political leadership, not merely saw the need to achieve freedom from colonial
rule, but also recognized the need for building a blueprint for a prospective 5 I
Social Scientist
O independent India. In addition, larger international contexts like the histo

?r4 October Revolution of 1917, influenced political thinking in the developing
a) world, in general, and, in India, in particular. Understanding the debates on the
I role of science and technology in nation-building during the inter-war period
o provides the required insights into the processes of policy-making.
Z Given the fact that modern science developed in Western Europe and
!-- diffused to the colonies of European countries, the sociologically significant
= question is how the cultures of colonial countries viewed modern science, and
Ln what the factors were that mediated the institutionalisation of modern science in
0
Z colonies. In this context, the sociologically significant question is how modern

science as a system of knowledge was evaluated or assessed in relation to the
0o system of knowledge that existed in Indian society. What were the responses of
the groups that were the custodians of traditional knowledge systems in relation
to modern science? Whenever a cultural group encounters a new knowledge
system, that cultural group evaluates the new knowledge in relation to its own
culture, and the evaluation results in declaring that the new knowledge is
compatible with culture or incompatible, or maintains ambivalence towards
that new knowledge system. The first declaration results in accepting the new
knowledge, the second results in its rejection, and the third leads to co-existence
of both the systems of knowledge and culture. The debate on role of science in
nation-building was based on one of the three positions cited above, which will
be discussed later.
Over a period of time, which of the perspectives gained prominence and
legitimacy, and aided in the acceptance and institutionalisation of modern
science and, as a corollary, of the adoption of modern technology? The attempts
to build nationalist science gained importance in the second half of the
nineteenth century, in general, and, during the inter-war period, in particular.
The factors that shaped the debate on the science and technology question in the
context of the rise and growth of nationalism in India, with specific reference to
the critical debates on industrialisation during the inter-war period, are
discussed. The main aim is to understand the relations between the processes of
nation-building, on one hand, and, science and technology question, on the
other, during the inter-war period.
At the outset, one should recognize that nation-building is a process, and the
process of nation-building depends on the interplay of various factors, viz.,
social, economic, political, cultural, institutional, ideological, and so on. But, to
begin with, we would like to proffer some conceptual understanding of terms like
nation, nationalism, nation-building, and so on, in a nutshell. It was in Europe,
especially Western Europe, that these concepts and phenomena took roots in the
sixteenth century.
52
Nation and Nationalism: Conceptual Understanding

A nation is a historically evolved, a stable community of language, terr
economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a community of cu
(Stalin 1935: 12). The term, 'nation' has been used to denote a human grou
such characteristics as the idea of a common government, whether as a reality in
the present or past, or as an aspiration of the future, a certain size and closen
of contact between all its individual members, a more or less defined terr
certain characteristics (of which the most frequent is language) clearly I
distinguishing the nation from other nations and non-national groups, certain
interests to the individual members and a certain degree of common feeling o
will, associated with a picture of the nation in the minds of the individual
members (Carr 1939: 7). More recently, Anderson (1983: 4) defined nation as an
imagined political community - imagined as both inherently limited and n
sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will
never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet 72
in the minds of each, lives the image of their communion. The nation is imagined =
as limited because even the largest of them encompassing perhaps a billion living
human beings, has finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations.
Nationalism refers to a psychological sense of unity, which holds a nation
united against disintegrating forces. National integration refers to a process by
which divisive people and culture are synthesized into a unified whole, along with
higher levels of understanding, shared values, and common identity, and above
all, national consciousness. As a process, it holds tightly together the various
relationships of ethnic groups and institutions in a dovetailed manner through
the bonds of contrived structures, norms and values.' It has also been described
as a psychological and educational process...... involving the development of a
common feeling of unity, solidarity, and cohesion, in the hearts of people, a sense
of common citizenship, and a feeling of loyalty to the nation.2 The concept of
national integration involves two processes, that is, the process of nation
building and state-building. Nation-building involves development of a shared
system of meanings and values by doing away with the divisive identities based
on casteist, linguistic and regional lines, on one hand, and, fostering
psychological sense of unity, on the other. State-building refers to territorial
integrity, which implies the absence of separatist forces within the territorial
boundaries where the administration of the central and state government runs
(Siwach 1985: 481). In fact, both the processes are inter-related and mutually
influenced, and any attempt to study them separately will be misleading.
It is against this background that the study tries to examine the debate over
the potential of science and technology in bringing about economic and socio-
cultural transformation, by deploying science and technology in productive
sectors like industry and agriculture, and cultural spheres like education, as part 53
Social Scientist
CD of the process of nation-building. The participants in the debate were

?I-4 leaders - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas
U Chandra Bose, and nationalist scientists and technologists - Mokshagundam
? Visvesvaraya, Meghnad Saha and Homi lehangir Bhabha. The Muslim
o intellectuals also joined the debate much before the frontline political leaders and
Z intelligencsia. It was quite evident from the building of scientific institutions in
l-- the nineteenth century like the Delhi College, originally established as Madrassa-
= i-Ghaziuddin, by Nawab Ghaziuddin Firoz Jung in 1772, re-christened Delhi
o College in 1825, which was set up to translate scientific books into local
Z languages, in general, and, Urdu, in particular. That apart, an attempt in the
direction of popularising modern science was made by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in
-o the form of building the Aligarh Scientific Society in 1866 and by Imdad Ali in
setting up the Bihar Scientific Society in 1868. Translation of Western literature
into the local Indian languages, practical attempts to popularise mechanised
farming, delivering lectures on topics of common interest, and highlighting the
socio-political problems of the country, were some of the common mottos of
these scientific institutions. Their views reflect national reconstruction as the
main goal and industrialisation as the principal strategy. They also discussed
how to develop human resources through education, building scientific
institutions, popularising science, emphasising on research and development in
the fields of agriculture and industry, and focusing on democratisation of
technological development. None of these variables can be studied in isolation,
as all these variables are interrelated. That apart, this paper attempts to explore
the nature of interaction among the political elite-, the scientific elite,4 and the
industrial elite' in shaping the science and technology policy for India after
Independence. The question of modern science and technology elicited a variety
of responses, that ranged from questioning the potential of modern science and
technology in the process of nation-building, to acknowledging the
transformative potential of modern science and technology. Among those who
held the second view, the debate centred on the scale on and the sectors in which
science and technology should be deployed.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi:'Khadi is the Symbol of Indian Humanity, of

its Economic Freedom and Equality...'
During and after the World War I, the programme of the Indian National
Congress (INC) of reviving and restoring traditional industries and crafts was
not only going on but also parallel developments favourable to the advancement
of modern science and technology were also set in motion.
On a global scale, the aftermath of the World War I and the achievements of
Socialist experiments in the erstwhile USSR unveiled the immense potentialities
of science for mankind in terms of the economy and material progress.
54
Moreover, the global economic crisis in the form of the Great Depression
1933) and the subsequent crisis of the bi-polar world compelled the
leadership to have a fresh look at each aspect of society - be it social, econom
political. In the process, the earlier INC policy, as a whole, and the 'Gand
philosophy', to a great extent, gave way to new forces of change. ,,
The term, 'Gandhian philosophy' needs to be explained here. Under the
leadership of Gandhi, the INC accorded prime importance to cottage industries
and Khaddar during 1920-35. As Gandhi (quoted in Tendulkar 1960: 20) put
"Khadi, to me, is the symbol of unity of Indian humanity, of its economi
freedom and equality and, therefore, ultimately, in the poetic expression
Jawaharlal Nehru, 'the livery of India's freedom'." It involved technology based
on animate sources of energy, dexterity and skill. o_
Health, hygiene and sanitation together with indigenous systems of ?
medicine - Ayurveda and Unani - were given a high place in the Gandhian
scheme, in particular, and, Congress programmes, in general. The world was
then gasping after being ravaged by the horrendous crimes and casualties
perpetrated during World War I. The national economies of most countries D
were in shatters. International trade touched the lowest ebb. Probably, the
repercussions of World War I forced the INC to go for these indigenous systems
of medicine.6 Gandhi also practised naturopathy. Meanwhile, Gandhi
maintained a hostile indifference to modern science, attacked modern civilization
and looked upon machines as an evil. Traditional industries and Khaddar
formed the basic content of the Congress policy. As late as 1938, the party
remained preoccupied with evolving a system of National Education, which was
then envisaged in a system called Basic Education. None of these exercises,
however, offered any prospect for the advancement of science and technology.
As a practical tool, the INC succeeded in wielding national unity and patriotism,
but it utterly failed to cope with the changed material conditions. In this context,
Gandhi had reservations in opposing science in the first two decades of the
twentieth century, but he tried to relocate modern science and technology in a
new fashion during the 1920s and 1930s. The time and context, of course, are of
supreme importance, which reflect a deep-rooted 'Gandhian philosophy'. In this
regard, Gandhi maybe quoted:
"If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be
ruined.... Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should never be
forgotten that the English people are at present afflicted by it (Gandhi
1938: 34, 38)."
Before the mid-1930s, opting for modern science and technology was
definitely a progressive step. But, being possessed of it was far away from reality.
During this period, people were illiterate, superstitious and were rooted in
tradition. In such a situation, traditional industries promised wider acceptance, 55
Social Scientist
S- feasibility and self-reliance whereas modern industries implied immediate

dependence on the West. A sudden shift from technology based on animate
sources of energy to technology based on inanimate sources of energy was
L perhaps not possible. That was why both tINC leaders and eminent Indian
o scientists of the time, emphasized general material progress as well as education
Z at the lower level, for creating a more favourable condition for the growth of
I modern science.
- Gandhi began to express his reservations about science and modern
V) machines as early as 1909, in Hind Swaraj, but it was only around 1920 tha
Z launched the attack with full vigour. Thereafter, he attacked them both in
and action. However, he started reconsidering the whole question almost at t
0o same time. He compromised on the question progressively and eventually f
machines not entirely useless.7
Jawaharlal Nehru: "Future Belongs to Science and to those who Make

Friends with Science..."
A new generation of the Congress leadership, led by Pandit Jawaha

Nehru, articulated a position that was in contrast to that of Gandhi. N
stood for modern science, heavy industrialisation and socialism. Both
industrialisation and socialism stood on the foundation of modern science and
technology. In his presidential address at the annual INC session in 1936, Nehru
declared:
"I am convinced that the only key to the solution of the world problems
lies in Socialism, and when I use this word I do so not in a vague
humanitarian way but in the scientific, economic sense.... I believe in the
rapid industrialisation of the country and only thus I think will the
standard of the people rise substantially and poverty be combated
(quoted in Zaidi and Zaidi 1980: 95, 97)."
In his message on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of the Indian Science
Congress he proclaimed:
"... Congress represents science, and science is the spirit of the age and
the dominating factor of the modern world. Even more than the present,
the future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science
and seek its help for the advancement of humanity (See Selected Works of
Jawaharlal Nehru, 8: 806-808)."
The above celebratory proclamation reflects an unflinching penchant on the
part of Nehru for science as a means for advancement of humanity, in general,
and, of India, in particular, and becomes a conscious invitation to science as a
defining feature of the INC - of both the present and the future. That apart, the
above epigraph involves within it an explicit reference to the inevitable success to
be achieved by science as a means of development through the INC as a political
56
weapon, if employed. Hence, the INC would strongly advocate both the ,
acquisition of scientific knowledge and its application in all productive do
This faith is based on the advancements already made and the future e
promises in science and technology ahead. Here, both nationalism a
modernity can be realized, as one finds the causal linkages between modern -
science and technology, and socio-economic transformation being articulate
Science was an essential, indeed, basic cultural element of the India which Nehru m
sought and worked so hard to build. Nehru fully realized that modern scienc
and technology were as necessary for a highly developed agriculture as for
industry. He argued that the cause of the growth of agriculture in many other cr
countries was because of the application of science and technology. In Nehru's
vision, modern life depended so much on science and technology, that we must a_
seize hold of them, understand them, and apply them. He saw the essential role ?
of science in its historical perspective, not only in transforming the material C)
environment, but also in transforming man (Bhabha 1966). Not only Nehru, 7\
but erudite scholars and engineers, and the best planners of the country, like
Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya, shared Nehru's vision and perspective, and D
exercised their influence in shaping the science policy in post-colonial India.
Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya: Integration of Technology and Planning in

India
Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya was basically an engineer. But, later on, he

became an engineer with a social vision. He may be termed as an 'engineer-
sociologist' (Raina 2001), a term, originally coined by Callon, to understand the
role of engineers in radical innovations. According to Callon, engineers are
forced to develop explicit sociological theories (Callon, Law and Rip 1986).
Callon, along with Bruno Latour, has developed the theory of the actor-
network, which is central inasmuch as it recognizes the sociological style of the
'engineer-sociologist' (Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 1987). Similarly, Visvesvaraya
never confined himself only to the technological aspects of industrialisation;
rather, he realised the necessity of creating the required social base that can
potentially facilitate technological development. It is this understanding that
made Visvesvaraya give priority to the social context before embarking upon
prescribing technological and organisational strategies for the upliftment of the
rural masses. As the Dewan of Mysore, Visvesvaraya proposed large-scale
public spending in Mysore to create a base for industrialisation along the
following lines:
(a) The construction of a reservoir to generate hydroelectric power and
irrigate 1,00,000 acres of land;
(b) The establishment of an iron and steel factory in Bhadravathi, and the
commencement of a soap factory using locally available sandalwood;
Social Scientist
(c) A scheme for industrialisation based on the spread of higher educa

thereby founding Mysore University, the first in Princely India (quote
Raina 2001: 16).
This programmatic transformation could only be affected through a m
efficient bureaucracy keeping the Western mode of planning in mind. It ref
the persona of the administrator in the realization of the vision. He stress
the address at an engineering college, on the increasing role of the governme
evolving an economic plan to eradicate poverty. For Visvesvaraya, industri
') essential for national progress and prosperity, and research in applied sc
very essential for promoting industries, especially heavy or large-scale indu
In the context of de-industrialisation, as indicated in the 1931 Census,
Visvesvaraya argued what the country wanted was growth of economic power
in our population and rapid increase of production in agriculture and industries.
Visvesvaraya was of the opinion that production in agriculture and industries
should be advanced by a large-scale use of machinery and by the adoption of the
latest scientific methods, commercial practices and discipline of the Western
world. Industrialisation became an instrument of change as reflected in
Visvesvaraya's slogan: 'Industrialise or perish'. As Visvesvaraya put it;
"The huge waste of effort that is going on will be prevented, if the
Government also awakens the general public of the fact that in present-
day economy, agriculture, though a necessary occupation, plays a less
important part than industries. In advanced England, agriculture,
though protected and subsidized, is regarded as on the whole
unprofitable.
This is a machine age. It is power machinery that moves heavy railway
trains, immense sailing ships, military and naval armaments,
automobiles, aeroplanes, mills, pumping engines and a host of other
instruments of mechanical production and propulsion. The condition
of the country will remain low and primitive until the deficiencies in
mechanical equipment and use of machinery are speedily made good
(Visvesvaraya 1939: 76)."
In his view, universities and colleges were generally accustomed to pure
science and were proud of their knowledge on theory; and much of the research
work done during the 1930s was, therefore, of an academic character. Of course,
theoretical research paves the way for industrial research and should not be
neglected. But, what was particularly desirable, according to Visvesvaraya, was
that industrial research should be greatly strengthened and the existing
disproportion between the pure and applied science remedied without delay.8
Visvesvaraya's technological vision maybe schematised as a triptych. This
inveterate innovator felt that the vision could never be achieved, if he pursued the
58 implementation of each panel of his triptych sequentially. The developmental
process could only be bolstered, if steps were taken towards implementing VI

components of programmes from each of the panels simultaneously. The 3
fascinating feature of the triptych is Visvesvaraya's integrated perspective, which e+
recognised that all three programmes, viz., technical and technological Z
education, rural industrialisation and industrialisation, should be ,-
commissioned simultaneously. The relationship between these
was, therefore, symbiotic. That is, the installation of one component in
would catalyse the initiation of programmes in another panel. I
While Visvesvaraya's vision recognised the potential of growth for the v
agricultural growth of the economy, he felt that the primary increase in C
productivity and output would result from industrial development. o
Industrialisation would, in turn, augment production, provide employment an
make available more goods at cheaper rates. L
Education was a means to achieving this end. As far as planning was C)
concerned, it was essential to acculturate the population to the new industrial 7\
culture such that it could contribute to a developing industrial society. In the 77
words of Visvesvaraya: D
"Planning is usually and pr
economic activities and betterment. Planning for spheres of
development - social, cultural, etc. - maybe attempted by bringing
parallel organisations into existence separately where necessary but
should not be mixed up with the movements and measures devised for
economic development (Visvesvaraya 1939: 70-71 )."
This vision was not technological but was a frame for social engineering - of
embedding a new technological and organisational culture in order to achieve
social transformation in a particular direction. This direction can be discerned in
his approach to industrialisation. According to Visvesvaraya, the proper way to
deal with industries under Indian conditions would be to consider them under
three classes, viz., (a) Large-scale, (b) Medium-scale, and (c) Minor and cottage.
For securing rapid economic advance, Visvesvaraya suggested some measures
that were compiled and included in the schedules of the Five-Year Plan:
(i) Establishment of heavy industries, especially those relating to the
manufacture of machinery and heavy chemicals and extensive spread of
small-scale and cottage industries;
(ii) Providing adequate tariff protection for both heavy and cottage
industries;
(iii) Increasing production under agriculture;
(iv) Providing banking and credit facilities;
(v) Rapid extension of literacy;
(vi) Establishing real self-government in villages;
(vii) Introducing a District Development Scheme (Visvesvaraya 1939: 74). 59
Social Scientist
03 Finally, Visvesvaraya drew up some proposals and recommendatio

the advancement of industries in India. Economic planning was a means
end, but the end was to secure a rise in material prosperity and standard of
A plan for a province would be part of the larger plan for India as a wh
o Five-Year Plan was suggested both for Federal India and for the provinces.
Z Economic planning was part of a larger development, that is, the 'Planning for
T Reconstruction and Nation Building' (Visvesvaraya 1939: 75). With the change
-- in political status in the provinces, reconstruction on a planned basis in all three
o spheres - be it political, economic or social - becomes a necessity that would be
Z tantamount to nation-building.
\m The main result expected from these improvements would be a rise in the
o0 standard of living. A large increase in production and income would be possible
only in the early stages of planning. Gradually, resources would get used up;
growth would necessarily be at a progressively diminishing rate. But, such
diminution could be counteracted by increased technical skill, energy and
enterprise on the part of the community. Visvesvaraya argued that for successful
establishment of small-scale and cottage industries, local self-government in
villages was mandatory. There should be no hesitation to grant self-government
to village populations to the same extent that Japan had done. By this, nation-
building might be a slow progress at first, but it would not elude us as the
country began to acquire money power, manufacturing power and the power of
defence. Banks would be the mainstay for all growth.
The inauguration of planning might be made in each province at once by the
establishment of a Development Department under the supervision of a minister
with a competent secretary and a staff of three or more experts. An Economic
Council of local men of experience and influence, financiers, economists and
experts was suggested to be associated with the Department. The Development
Department was to start surveys and investigations and prepare a provisional
Five-Year Plan as well as a plan for action in the first year. The resources of each
province in men, material and equipment had to be mobilized fully to serve these
ends. The services of university and college professors, retired officials,
economists, financiers, engineers, chemists and other experts, wherever available
in the country, had to be freely utilized by constituting commissions,
committees, informal 'brain trusts' and the like, and the men should adequately
be rewarded for their services. In other words, the population in every part of the
country should be put to work and induced by suitable propaganda to respond
gladly to the call made on them to raise their income and standard of living.
To summarise, Visvesvaraya tried to conceive of a balanced relationship
between the development of agriculture, industry and education. He identified
six bottlenecks in the advance of Indian agriculture:
60 (i) The high population pressure on the land,
(ii) The repeated fragmentation of land holdings, g

(iii) the primitive methods of cultivation, 3
(iv) The wasteful use of farm manure, r'
(v) The poor utilization of women in the workforce, and Z
(vi) The rural indebtedness of the farmer.
This appreciation of the agricultural economy shaped his prescriptio
the agricultural economy, which maybe summed up in two propositions:
(i) An agricultural economy that sells merely grains and raw-materials I
remains poor; and c_
(ii) The degree of development of an economy is inversely proportional to C
its dependence on agriculture. C
However, what was germane to Visvesvaraya's vision was that an
important strand of the Nehruvian legacy was inherited, which was evident in
two important insights, viz., (a) the recognition on his part of the importance of C
estimating national income; and (b) his appreciation of the decline in the 7~
population dependent on agriculture with the introduction of structural changes
in an industrial economy. In fact, Visvesvaraya appeared as a visionary, whether
amongst others it was his emphasis on planning for the nation, or on district
level planning, or the Bombay Plan, or his guidance of the All India
Manufacturers Association.
As mentioned earlier, the present study is an attempt to sketch visions of
technology and planning during the inter-war period. Though there were several
views on the role of science and technology in nation-building, two perspectives
stand out in the discourse. Though both Visvesvaraya and Nehru recognized the
need for a focus on agriculture, they assigned relatively higher priority to
industry, as it was perceived to be more profitable than agriculture. Whereas
Nehru's vision encapsulates the whole nation, Visvesvaraya envisioned planned
economy for the provinces. While Visvesvaraya admired the first Soviet Plan,
but was sure that this was not what India needed, Nehru became scientifically
attached to the socialist model of planning, but achieved State-led capitalism
(Bettelheim 1968). Whereas Visvesvaraya found rural industrialisation to be a
weapon to combat rural unemployment, Nehru sought to operationalise
community development as a solution to the problem. As a technocrat,
Visvesvaraya assumed that in India groups functioned in harmony, whereas
Nehru was conscious of class differences and conflicts, and his socialism resulted
in a mixed economy. Visvesvaraya's vision was based on the State theory of
economic development whereas Nehru's vision was based on a historical and
international perspective.
Subhas Chandra Bose:"No Escape from the Industrial Revolution"

Subhas Chandra Bose's (1897-1945) ideas had a very important influence 6
Social Scientist
LO on Indian nationalism. He saw himself as a student of Swami Vivekananda. He

r-4 was Gandhi's rival within the INC. He was anti-British and very militant in his
<1) ideas. He was opposed to Gandhi's inclination towards indigenous technology,
IC] and, of course, Gandhi's method of non-violence. He supported an aggressive
o revolt against the British. He was also opposed to the liberal democratic ideas of
Z Europe, but rather supported the Communist ideas of the erstwhile USSR. The
,- historic October Revolution of 1917, the emergence of anti-colonial nationalist
- struggles in India, and the rise of Nazism in Germany under Adolph Hitler were
0 the broad circumstances that influenced Bose to wage war against the imperialist
Z British.
m Bose was interested in the application of science to t
~o reconstruction. Bose's understanding of national reconstruction, India's
industrialisation and introduction of modern science and technology to the
Indian soil, have to be placed in the ideological context of anti-colonial
nationalism.
The movement for Indian emancipation had reached a stage when Swaraj
was no longer a dream - no longer an ideal to be attained in the distant future.
On the contrary, independence was within sight of the country. Seven out of
eleven provinces of British India were under INC Ministries during the 1930s.
Though the powers of those governments were limited, they had yet to handle
the problems of reconstruction within their respective domain.
Bose urged the Congressmen not only to strive for liberty but also to devote
their thought and energy to problems of national reconstruction. He was of the
opinion that national reconstruction would be possible only with the aid of
science and the scientists of India. He was of the view that the country was not
facing the problem of industrial recovery, but industrialisation itself. India at
that time was in the pre-industrial stage of evolution. No advancement was
possible until the country passed through the throes of an industrial revolution.
To quote Bose:
"Whether we like it or not, we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that
the present epoch is the industrial epoch in modern history. There is no
escape from the industrial revolution. We can at best determine whether
this revolution, which is industrialisation, will be a comparatively
gradual one, as in Great Britain, or a forced march as in Soviet Russia. I
am afraid that it has to be a forced march in this country (Address on the
occasion of the Anniversary Meeting of the Indian Science News
Association in the year 1938)."
Bose marked a shift within the larger trajectory of this very debate, for he
went beyond the fundamental engagement being set with terms of justification/
rejection, with which other key players were primarily engaged with, for he
62 viewed industrialisation as an inescapable inevitability. Bose, rather, pushed the
debate into a different terrain of setting the very pace of industrialisation based
on the need to choose one of the two options: a comparatively gradual one as in 3
case of Great Britain or the forced inauguration of a fast-growing, large-scale '
industrialisation, as in Soviet Russia. He explicitly stood for the latter. Bose's
suggestions for a forced march for industrialisation in India should be n
understood in relation to the context in which he was articulating his views. Bo
had an international exposure, which enabled him to see what industries could
do to generate wealth in Western countries including Japan. It also meant tha
gradual approach to industrialisation would take a relatively longer time, and
would continue to put India in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the
industrialised countries. He urged that it was this situation that the political
leadership should take into account in evolving strategies for economic c_
development, in general, and, industrial development, in particular. ?n
Some principles of national planning outlined by Bose need to be discuss
here. Though from the industrial perspective, the world was one unit, India
should nevertheless aim at national autarchy, especially in the field of our
principal needs and requirements. India should adopt a policy, aiming at th
growth and development of the mother industries, viz., power supply, metal
production, machines and tools manufacture, manufacture of essential
chemicals, transport and communication industries, and others.
India, as a nation, should tackle the problem of technical education and
technical research. Bose was of the opinion that so far as technical education is
concerned, as in the case of Japanese students, Indian students should be sent
abroad for training in accordance with a clear and definite plan, so that as soon
as they returned home, they would proceed straightway to build new industries.
That apart, Bose felt, technical research should be freed from governmental
control of every kind. He was not in favour of the idea that government servants
should be entrusted with scientific research on reccipt of princely salaries, as the
results that had been obtained therefrom were not satisfactory. In pursuance of
this, he proposed that there should be a permanent National Research Council.
And, eventually, as a preliminary step towards national planning, there should
be an economic survey of the present industrial position with a view to securing
the necessary data for the National Planning Committee (NPC). The NPC was
truly a reflection of an alliance between the political elite and the scientific elite.
What was desired was far-reaching cooperation between Science and Politics.
The National Planning Committee: Formation and Proceedings

The Government of India Act of 1935 placed the INC in a new role.
According to the provisions of the Act, elections were to be held in the provinces,
and by August 1937, Congress ministries were formed in seven out of eleven
provinces. A limited autonomy was introduced, which foreshadowed 63
Social Scientist
O Independence. As the party in power, the INC was faced with greater
?c- responsibilities. An appropriate strategy for economic recovery and full-fledged
a, national reconstruction was urgently needed. This required large-scale national
planning. Soon a conference of the ministers of industries of the provinces was
o called at Delhi in 1937. It voiced the need for a comprehensive scheme of national
Z planning. Needless to say, planned reconstruction and development of the
,- country, as a strategy, was influenced by the success of planning in the erstwhile
= USSR.
Accordingly, the then Congress Presid

Z appointed the NPC in October 1938. The
was assigned to it. Nehru was made its c
-o scientists like Meghnad Saha, Jnan Chandra Ghosh, industrialists like
Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Walchand Hirachand, Ambalal Sarabhai,
economists like K. T. Shah and others joined it in different capacities. Thus, the
committee served as a common platform where intelligentsia and captains of
industry collaborated to evolve a plan for national reconstruction.
However, there was no consensus in the INC towards the problem of
industrialisation. All Congressmen did not hold the same view on this question.
But, Bose was of the opinion that the young generation was in favour of
industrialisation and for several reasons. Firstly, industrialisation was necessary
for solving the problem of unemployment. Though scientific agriculture would
increase the production of the land, if food were to be given to every man and
woman, a good proportion of the population would have to be transferred
from land to industry. Secondly, the rising generation was then thinking in terms
of socialism as the basis of national reconstruction and socialism presupposed
industrialisation. Thirdly, industrialisation was necessary, if the domestic
economy had to compete with foreign industries. Eventually, industrialisation
was necessary for improving the standard of living of the people at large.
The Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA) was established in 1914
with the twin goal of knowingscience and doingtechnology. The ISCA owes its
origin to the foresight and initiative of two British chemists, viz., Prof. J. L.
Simonsen and Prof. P. S. MacMahon. The main activities of the ISCA were to:
(a) advance and promote the cause of science in India,
(b) hold an annual congress at a suitable place in India,
(c) publish proceedings, journals, transactions, etc., and
(d) popularise science.
The first meeting of the ISCA was held during January 15-17, 1914 at the
premises of the Asiatic Society, Kolkata, with the Honourable Justice Sir Asutosh
Mookerjee, the then Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, as the President.
One hundred and five scientists from different parts of India and abroad
64 attended the meeting, and thrity-five research papers divided into six sections -
Botany, Chemistry, Ethnography, Geology, Physics and Zoology under six

Sectional Presidents - were presented. The ISCA was formed in the style
British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Institute of '
London. Z
Eminent sc
political eli
Indians. Du
Homi Jeha
ISCA. While
to articulate their perspectives, the scientific elite made use of the ISCA to c
articulate their perspectives on the linkages between science and technology, on p
one hand, and Indian society, on the other. _
Meghnad Saha:"The Problem of Indian Science is the Problem of Living for C

India's Millions" 7
Meghnad Saha's und
on one hand, and, natio
economic, political an
shift in organising styl
system was developing:
was relatively easier,
presented to scientists,
just depend on local su
national politics. Congr
and there was a reviva
successful in Chittagon
Gandhi and Irwin in London failed to secure any commitment for
Independence. Both civil disobedience and militant opposition continued in
1932-33, encouraging the appointment of a counter-insurgency expert, Sir John
Anderson, as Governor of Bengal in 1932.
During 1931-38, that is, till the formation of the NPC, Saha influenced the
establishment of academic and research institutions and journals as a result of
foreign recognition for his early work, his persistent efforts to build a viable
research group in Allahabad, and the firm position he took on the national
political issue.
Saha drew heavily from foreign models. In 1935, he started the popular
science monthly journal Science and Culture. He hoped that it would play a role
similar to that of Nature in Britain and Science in the United States. Saha stated
that it would interpret science in non-technical language and advocate the
planned application of science to India's problems. It was published by the
Indian Science News Association, which was housed in a small office in Science
65
Social Scientist
S: College at Calcutta. Saha asked one of his Allahabad students, G. C. Muker

be assistant editor, because he was well read in history, politics and sociology
a,) in science. Mukerji eventually became the Director of Bombay Talkies, a
t film company.
o The journal was frequently used by Saha to expound his views - scientific,
political or nationalistic. Some of his writings were also unsigned. Saha's articles
i-- in the early issues of Science and Culture were some of the most critically incisive
- pieces on the Indian society. Saha's views on national planning, the role of
public-sector industrialisation, the control and development of the river valleys
Z of eastern India, and on the 'modernizing' role of science and technology,
22 became known in political circles through this journal. His views gained wider
o0 recognition when he was appointed to the NPC in 1938.
His attempts at establishing credible and relevant linkages between science
and the Indian context made him tread into political arena. Between 1932 and
1936, Saha published only two papers in his field of research - one was a joint
paper with D. S. Kothari (1934) and the other reviewed Saha's ideas on the upper
atmosphere (published in the first proceedings of the National Institute of
Science, 1935). His students continued to work in Allahabad, beset by difficulties
in Saha's absence, while Saha spent much of his time in other cities.
In 1938, Saha entered the scene of national politics, something that initially
increased his science organising capacity, but which ultimately placed severe
restrictions on the Bose Institute, with which he was associated. Saha had met
Subhas Chandra Bose while staying at the Eden Hindu Hostel. Saha was four
years older than Bose. They had met while they were students at Presidency
College, and again, when they were in England during 1920-21. They worked
together on flood relief in 1922-23 before Bose was arrested without charges on
suspicion of'collusion of revolutionaries' in 1923 and was imprisoned in Burma
for three years. On his return, he was elected the Mayor of Calcutta in 1930. He
was holding other positions until 1938, in the INC when he was either in jail or
abroad. With Gandhi's support, Bose had been elected as the President of the
INC in 1938, the same year, as mentioned earlier, that the party won elections in
seven provinces and began to hold government offices. Saha had urged for the
formation of a planning committee on science and technology in Science and
Culture, and Bose invited Saha to work on the formation of this committee.
Saha also invited Subhas Bose, the then President of the INC succeeding
Nehru, to preside over the general meeting of the ISNA, which, as mentioned
earlier, published the journal Science and Culture. On August 21, 1938, Bose
made views on development clear at the general meeting of the ISNA:
"Though I do not rule out cottage industries and though I hold that
every attempt should be made to pressure and also revive cottage
66 industries whenever possible, I maintain that economic planning for
India should mean largely planning for the industrialisation of India. o

And industrialisation, as you will all agree, does not mean the 3
promotion of industries for manufacturing umbrella-handles and bell- e'
metal plates, as Sir John Anderson would have us believe (Chatterjee 3
1984: 61)." :
Saha was equ
both cottage
1938. His view
USSR. He was
put it: cr
"Is there
by the C
planners
leaders h
freedom
thought an
to look at
224)."
Saha was in
Ministers o
important
NPC, and d
of the com
Chairman
Chairman,
have no val
the argum
in Europe,
1975: 28).
Homi Jehangir Bhabha:"Building Excellent Institutions for Basic Research"

The contributions of Homi Jehangir Bhabha should be located within the
context of certain national political circumstances. The golden age for Bhabha's
organising abilities was the period 1947 to 1957. He played a key role in
formulating policies to protect the huge rare earth deposits of India from foreign
manipulation. Bhabha used countries like France as models for emulation. He
was very close to Nehru. Nehru's confidence in Bhabha enabled him to expand
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) into the Department of Atomic Energy
(DAE) after Independence in 1954, and to begin plans that year (with models and
plans) on both new Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) building in
south Bombay and the Atomic Energy Establishment at Trombay in north 67
Social Scientist
O Bombay. In fact, Bhabha had acknowledged that he was indebted to Nehru for
?rl- his support.
a) Attempts to establish science as an important national activity have been
I made in India by a number of governmental and quasi-governmental
o organisations working more or less independently, the most important among
Z these being the TIFR, Atomic Energy, the Council of Scientific and Industrial
7- Research (CSIR) and Defence Science.
= Bhabha began the TIFR in 1945 with a small amount of money, but with
o surety of an increasing supply. His reasoning to the Sir Dorab Tata Trust follows
Z from his letter to Sir Sorab Saklatvala, Chairman of the Sir Dorab Tata Trust, on
'm August 19, 1943:
o0 "It is absolutely in the interests of India to have a vigorous school for
research in fundamental physics, for such a school forms the spearhead
of research, not only in the less advanced branches of physics but also in
the problems immediate practical application to industry. If much of the
applied research done in India today is disappointing and of very
inferior quality, it is due to the absence of a sufficient number of
outstanding pure research workers who could set the standards of good
research. Moreover, when nuclear energy has been successfully applied
for power production, in say a couple of decades from now, India will
not have to look abroad for its experts but will find them ready at home.
... In the last two years I have come more and more to the view that
provided proper appreciation and financial support forthcoming, it is
one's duty to stay in one's own country and build up schools
comparable with those that other countries are fortunate in possessing
(Anderson 1975: 33)."
This letter showed that Bhabha was of the view that the Indian scientists
should not go abroad after World War II. Bhabha stressed two principles, which
he wanted the TIFR to follow and build into the proposal: first, that groups for
research be built only around suitable scientists, and, secondly, that government
support need not entail government control. The tireless efforts of Bhabha
would not go in vain, as the TIFR became a self-generating Institute, though at a
considerable cost. In 1968, it had 300 scientists and 1,000 support personnel,
which represented a 15 percent annual growth rate since 1956. The Saha Institute
of Nuclear Physics (SINP), which Saha founded, remained smaller in 1968, with
140 scientists and 200 support personnel. In aristocratic style, Bhabha combined
his energy, his scientific reputation and his primordial connections with
extraordinary skill, to obtain large sums of money from private and government
sources. The financial autonomy, which Bhabha gave to the Institute, had a
liberating effect on the free-wheeling styles of rapidly growing research teams;
68 such an effort-cum-effect was rare in India. In 1955, the government assured
Bhabha of secure financial support by the tripartite agreement between the ,

Govcrnment of Bombay (now Maharashtra), the Sir Dorab Tata Trusts and the 3
Government of India. Consonant with Bhabha's national visibility, the TIFR e
was since then called 'TIFR - National Centre of the Government of India for 3
Nuclear Science and Mathematics'. All three parties had representatives on

Council that governed the TIFR. 7
Even more important for the future w
changing national situation, on the verge
as in Mumbai, he moved in intellectual circles w
During that period, nation-building thro
motivating factor for both Saha and Bhabha
Communist Party of India (CPI) during th
a number of intellectuals, writers and artists had gathered around the Party. n
Bhabha was one of them, associated with the front organisation 'The Friends of
the Soviet Union'. For some time, he was considered a sympathizer. He used to 7
subscribe to the party paper, People's War. He had shared the vision of J. D.
Bernal, a historian of science, about the social functions of science, and agreed D
with the Nehruvian vision of the modernisation of India by the use of science and
technology, as tools for rapid development of our economically and socially
backward nation. It must be stressed that a majority of scientists at that time,
including Saha, shared these visions. Bhabha had the prescience to sense the
impending period of fresh development in free India.
Both Saha and Bhabha shared an intricate relationship between themselves
that involved both agreements and disagreements as to the role of science and
technology in nation building. Their emphasis on building scientific institutions
as part of nation building manifests a point of commonality. But, they differed
as to the purpose of the scientific institutions within the larger context of nation-
building. While Bhabha was in favour of building strong theoretical scientific
institutions in India, Saha found the problem of Indian science to be problem of
living for millions of the country. It implies that while Bhabha propounded pure
research in India, Saha emphasised on applied research in solving the problem of
living for India's millions. Perhaps Nehru was one among the few who craved
for both pure and applied scientific research.
Concluding Remarks
Initial evaluation of Western science as a knowledge system in relation to the
Indian culture influenced the perspectives on modern science and technology
that the Indian intelligentsia developed. One can infer two paradigms of thought
as to the question of the implantation of modern science and technology in India
during the colonial period. One was led by no less a person than Gandhi with his
vision of Khadi. The other stream was led by Nehru along with Visvesvaraya and 69
Social Scientist
05 Bose, and eminent scientists like Saha and Bhabha with a visio
industrialisation. As a result, there were tensions between the cust
0.) traditional knowledge systems in relation to modeiri science and the
of modern scientific knowledge, which gave rise to the debates over Kh
o modern manufacturing industries, indigenous technology versus imported
Z technology for manufacturing, agriculture versus industry, centralised versus
!-- decentralised planning, small-scale versus large-scale industries, pure research
=- versus applied research, and so on.
V) Despite initial reservations about the transformative potential of modern
Z science and technology (epitomised by Gandhi's perspective), and the possibility
of promoting iwving traditions of kTowledge in India, it became increasingly clear
o I that modern science and technology had to be given a prominent place in the
process of nation building in the realms of economy, culture and polity. The
debate was, however, on the relative importance to be given to agriculture and
industry, and the scale on which modern science and technology had to be
deployed. One sees a clear alliance between the political elite and the scientific
elite, drawn from different linguistic, religious and caste groups, most of whom
were educated in Western science and technology in conceptualising the role of
modern science and technology in nation building. In the visions of most of the
nationalist political elite and s ientific elite, who shared the view of what science is
and its potential to transform consciousness and production systems, anti-
imperialist and anti-colonialist ideologies were the common elements that
created the alliance between the political elite and the scientific elite. In the case of
Western nations, the alliance between Science and Politics was forged in
situations of war and imperialist expansion, whereas in colonised countries,
such as India, it was the response to imperialism and colonialism, and the urge to
build an independent nation free from imperialist exploitation that forged the
alliance between the political elite, the scientific elite, and other sections of the
Indian intelligentsia. The value-system, which placed modern science and
technology on a higher pedestal vis a-vis the traditional systems of knowledge,
guided the science policy in post-colonial India as reflected in the Scientific Policy
Resolution of 1958.
Sambit Mallick is Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of

Hyderabad, Hyderabad. E. Haribabu is Professor, Department of Sociology, University
of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. S. G. Kulkarni is Professor, Department of Philosophy,
University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
70
Notes /
The autho
Workshop
Delhi, as th
issues on
nationalism
K. Basu, Department of Philosophy, University of Hyderabad, for his comments and 7
suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript. m
1. J. E. Ade Ayayi delivered a lecture on 'The prob

historian's perspective' at the University of Sokoto o
the series of NICSER Distinguished Lectures). He wa
in 'The problems of national integration in Nigeria', The In
Science, 48(2): 267.
2. This is the definition of national integration by the National Integration Confer- m

ence. This was quoted by G. S. Ghurye (1965) in his Social Tensions in India )
(Bombay: Popular Prakashan, pp. 502).
3. In the present study, the term, 'political elite' refers to the frontline political leaders
of the Indian National Congress (INC). "
4. The term, 'scientific elite' refers to the eminent In
war period. Especially this term denotes the m
Congress Association (ISCA).
5. The term, 'industrial elite' refers to those industri

in formulating the famous Bombay Plan of 1944.
6. See Indian National Congress Resolution, 1918,

Memorial Museum and Library. It is also cited in J
and the Indian National Congress' in Deepak Kum
Essays in Indian Context, 1700-1947, Delhi: Anam
7. For Gandhi's views, Young India of January 2

September 17, 1925, can be referred to. The evaluat
complete, we suppose, by critically examining bot
8. Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya at the Royal Instit

published in Science and Culture, April 1940, 5(10
References
Abrams, Philip (1982), Historical Sociology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin an

Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, Robert S. (1975), Building Scientific Institutions in India - Saha and

Bhabha. Montreal: Centre for Developing Asia Studies, McGill University.
Baber, Zaheer (1996), The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization and
Colonial Rule in India. The USA: State University of New York.
71
Social Scientist
Ln Barnes, Barry (1982), 'The Science-Technology Relationship: A Model and a Query',

c) Social Studies of Science, 12(1), pp. 166-172.
Barnes, Barry and David Edge, eds (1982), Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology
C] of Science, Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.
O Basalla, George (1967), 'The Spread of Western Science', Science, 156(3775), pp. 611-
Z 622.
oN
-5 - Bellow-Imam, I.B. (1987), 'The Problems of National Integration in Nigeria', Indian
- Journal of Political Science, 48(2), pp. 267.
0 Bhabha, Homi Jehangir (1966), 'Science and the Problems of Development', Science,
Z 151(3710), pp. 541-548.
Ben-David, Joseph (1984), The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study
> Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bettelheim, Charles (1968), India Independent. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Bloor, David (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Bose, Subhas Chandra (1935), 'Some Problems of Nation Building', Science and
Culture, 1(5), pp. 258-259.
(1938), 'Presidential Address delivered on the occasion of the Anniversary

Meeting of Indian Science News Association', Science and Culture, 4(3), pp. 139-141.
Callon, Michel (1986), 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric
Vehicle', in Michel Callon, John Law and Arie Rip, eds, Mapping the Dynamics of
Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan, pp.
19-34.
(1987), 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for

Sociological Analysis' in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch, eds,
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and
History of Technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 83-103.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1945), Nationalism and After. London and New York:
Macmillan.
Chatterjee, Partha (1986), Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse? London: Zed Books for the United Nations University.
(1994), The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, Santimay, ed (1982), Collected Works of Meghnad Saha. Vol. I and II.
Calcutta: Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics.
Chatterjee, Santimay and Enakshi Chatterjee (1984), Meghnad Saha. Delhi: National
Book Trust.
Cunningham, A. and Perry Lewis (1993), 'Decentering the 'big picture': The Origins of
Modern Science and the Modern Origins of Science', The British Journalfor the History
72 of Science, 26, pp. 407-432.
Desai, A.R. (1948), Social Background of Indian Nationalism. Delhi: Popular Prakashan. Ln
Deshmukh, Chintamani (2003), Homi Jehangir Bhabha. New Delhi: National Book
Trust. e
Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1938a), Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 3_

25. Delhi: Publications Division. n
(1938b), Hind Swaraj or In

House. I
Ghurye, G.S. (1965), Social Tensions in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. _

Giddens, Anthony (1984), The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of Califor- c
nia Press. c
Habib, S. Irfan and Dhruv Raina (1989), 'Copernicus, Columbus, Colonialism, and the a
Role of Science in Nineteenth Century India', Social Scientist, 17(3-4), pp. 51-66. t
Hacking, Ian (2001), The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Massachusetts and C)
London, England: Harvard University Press.
Haribabu, E. (1999), 'Scientific Knowledge in India: From Public Resource to ;-

Intellectual Property', Sociological Bulletin, 48(1-2), pp. 217-233. -
Hegde, Sasheej (2004), 'Reframing Science Studies', Economic and Political W

39(36), pp. 4114-4116.
Jairath, Vinod K. (1984), 'In Search of Roots-The Indian Scientific Comm

Contributions to Indian Sociology, (n. s.), 18(1), pp. 109-130.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay

Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford/ New York/ Toronto/
Paris/ Frankfurt: Pergamon Press.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. and Michael Mulkay, eds (1983), Science Observed:

tives on the Social Study of Science. New Delhi: Sage.
Krishna, V.V. (1991), 'The Emergence of the Indian Scientific Community',

cal Bulletin, 40(1-2), pp. 89-107.
Kumar, Deepak, ed (1991), Science and Empire: Essays in Indian Context (17
Delhi: Anamika Prakashan.
MacKenzie, Donald and Judy Wazcman, eds (1998), The Social Shaping of Technology.
Buckingham/Philadelphia: The Open University Press.
MacLeod, Roy and Deepak Kumar, eds (1995), Technology and the Raj: Western
Technology and Technical Transfers to India, 1700-1947. New Delhi: Sage Publications
Pvt. Ltd.
Mallick, Sambit (2004), 'Science and the Image of Nation Building: A Study of the
Indian Perspectives during the Freedom Struggle (1885-1947)'. M.Phil. dissertation
(unpublished), by the University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India.
Merton, Robert King (1973), Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investiga-
tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (first published in 1942).
73
Social Scientist
Ln Mills, Charles Wright (1959), The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford
0 University Press.
<l) Mulkay, Michael (1980), 'Sociology of Science in East and West', Cu

2'Q 28(3), pp. 1-184.
o Nandy, Ashis (1995), Alternative Sciences: Creativity and Authenticity in Two Indian
Z Scientists. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
--7 Prakash, Gyan (2000), Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India.
- New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
0 Rahman, A. (1970), 'The Scientist in India: The Impact of Economic Policies and
z Support in Historical and Social Perspective', International Social Science Journal,
m~ 22(1), pp. 54-79.
O _____ (1981), 'The Interaction between Science, Technology and Society: Historical
and Comparative Perspective', International Social Science Journal, 33(3), pp. 508-518.
Raina, Dhruv and S. Irfan Habib (1995), 'Bhadralok Perceptions on Science, Technol-
ogy and Cultural Nationalism', The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 32(1),
pp. 95-117.
(1996), 'The Moral Legitimation of Modern Science: Bhadralok Reflections on

Theories of Evolution', Social Studies of Science, 26(1), pp. 9-42.
(2004), Domesticating Modern Science: A Social History of Science and Culture in

Colonial India. New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Raina, Dhruv (1998), 'Beyond the Diffusionist History of Colonial Science', Social
Epistemology, 12(2), pp. 203-213.
(2001), Visvesvaraya as Engineer-Sociologist and the Evolution of his Techno-

Economic Vision. Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced Studies.
(2003), Images and Contexts: The Historiography of Science and Modernity in

India. New York: Oxford University Press.
Restivo, Sal and Wenda Bauchspies (1996), 'How to Criticise Science and Maintain
your Sanity?', Science as Culture, 6, Part 3(28), pp. 396-413.
Saha, Meghnad (1938a), 'The Social Implications of Science', Science and Culture,
4(2), pp. 65-66.
(1938b), 'The Congress President on National Reconstruction', Science and

Culture, 4(3), pp. 137-138.
(1939), 'Industrial India', Science and Culture, 4(7), pp. 365-367.
(1940a), 'On the Use of Science and Scientists', Science and Culture, 6(4), pp.
191-193.
(1940b), 'The Four-Fold Ruin of India', Science and Culture, 5(9), pp. 499-503.
(1945), 'Science in Social and International Planning, With Special Reference

to India', Nature, 155(3930), pp. 221-224.
Shapin, Steven (1992), 'Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of
74
Science as seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate', History of Science, 30, L

pp. 333-369. 3
cr
Singh, Baldev, ed (1988), Jawaharlal Nehru on Science and Society: A Collection of H
Writings and Speeches. New Delhi: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. 3
Siwach, J.R. (1985), Dynamics of Government and Politics. New Delhi: Sterling. ~
Stalin, Joseph V. (1935), Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. New Y
International Publisher.
Tendulkar, D.G. (1960), Mahatma. Volume 6, Second Edition, New Delhi: Publica- -
tions Division.
0"
Universities Press (2003), The Shaping of Indian Science: Indian Science Congress c
Association Presidential Addresses, Vol. I: 1914-1947. Hyderabad: Universities Press. o
Visvanathan, Shiv (1985), Organising for Science: The Making of an Industrial Research
Laboratory. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
(1997), A Carnival for Science: Essays on Science, Technology and Development.

Delhi: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Oxford University Press. c
(1998), 'A Celebration of Difference: Science and Democracy in India', Science,

280(5360), pp. 42-43. -
Visvesvaraya, Mokshagu
and Culture, 5(2), pp. 7
Zaidi, A. M. and S. G. Za
VIII [1921-24]. New Delh
Ziman, John (2000), R

Cambridge University Pr
75

Good 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Good 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Scientist

This paper, from the sociology of science perspective, examines the

Specific socio-historical contexts have shaped science a

Sociology of Science Perspective

O independent India. In addition, larger international contexts like the histo

Z colonies. In this context, the sociologically significant question is how modern

Nation and Nationalism: Conceptual Understanding

CD of the process of nation-building. The participants in the debate were

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi:'Khadi is the Symbol of Indian Humanity, of

S- feasibility and self-reliance whereas modern industries implied immediate

Jawaharlal Nehru: "Future Belongs to Science and to those who Make

A new generation of the Congress leadership, led by Pandit Jawaha

Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya: Integration of Technology and Planning in

Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya was basically an engineer. But, later on, he

(c) A scheme for industrialisation based on the spread of higher educa

58 implementation of each panel of his triptych sequentially. The developmental

process could only be bolstered, if steps were taken towards implementing VI

03 Finally, Visvesvaraya drew up some proposals and recommendatio

60 (i) The high population pressure on the land,

(ii) The repeated fragmentation of land holdings, g

Subhas Chandra Bose:"No Escape from the Industrial Revolution"

LO on Indian nationalism. He saw himself as a student of Swami Vivekananda. He

The National Planning Committee: Formation and Proceedings

Accordingly, the then Congress Presid

Botany, Chemistry, Ethnography, Geology, Physics and Zoology under six

Meghnad Saha:"The Problem of Indian Science is the Problem of Living for C

S: College at Calcutta. Saha asked one of his Allahabad students, G. C. Muker

India should mean largely planning for the industrialisation of India. o

Homi Jehangir Bhabha:"Building Excellent Institutions for Basic Research"

68 such an effort-cum-effect was rare in India. In 1955, the government assured

Bhabha of secure financial support by the tripartite agreement between the ,

Nuclear Science and Mathematics'. All three parties had representatives on

Sambit Mallick is Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of

1. J. E. Ade Ayayi delivered a lecture on 'The prob

2. This is the definition of national integration by the National Integration Confer- m

5. The term, 'industrial elite' refers to those industri

6. See Indian National Congress Resolution, 1918,

7. For Gandhi's views, Young India of January 2

8. Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya at the Royal Instit

Abrams, Philip (1982), Historical Sociology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin an

Anderson, Robert S. (1975), Building Scientific Institutions in India - Saha and

Ln Barnes, Barry (1982), 'The Science-Technology Relationship: A Model and a Query',

(1938), 'Presidential Address delivered on the occasion of the Anniversary

(1987), 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for

Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1938a), Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 3_

(1938b), Hind Swaraj or In

Ghurye, G.S. (1965), Social Tensions in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. _

Haribabu, E. (1999), 'Scientific Knowledge in India: From Public Resource to ;-

Hegde, Sasheej (2004), 'Reframing Science Studies', Economic and Political W

Jairath, Vinod K. (1984), 'In Search of Roots-The Indian Scientific Comm

Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay

Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. and Michael Mulkay, eds (1983), Science Observed:

Krishna, V.V. (1991), 'The Emergence of the Indian Scientific Community',

<l) Mulkay, Michael (1980), 'Sociology of Science in East and West', Cu

(1996), 'The Moral Legitimation of Modern Science: Bhadralok Reflections on

(2004), Domesticating Modern Science: A Social History of Science and Culture in

(2001), Visvesvaraya as Engineer-Sociologist and the Evolution of his Techno-

(2003), Images and Contexts: The Historiography of Science and Modernity in

(1938b), 'The Congress President on National Reconstruction', Science and

(1939), 'Industrial India', Science and Culture, 4(7), pp. 365-367.

(1945), 'Science in Social and International Planning, With Special Reference

Science as seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate', History of Science, 30, L