While the Centre has announced the first set of recipients of a fellowship programme called Vaibhav (VAIshwik BHArtiya Vaigyanik), the premise of the initiative remains intriguing. Scientists of Indian origin, or of Indian ancestry, can apply to spend up to three months in a year, for three years, at a host research laboratory in India. In that period, these researchers are expected to begin a project or technology start-up, build long-term connections with the institute, collaborate with the host faculty and bring in new ideas to the field, in Indian university and research settings. As the programme gains momentum, officials say, new kinds of relationships could emerge: the Indian origin faculty could be encouraged to take on students, more associates and even supervise degrees that could lead to a genuine transfer of knowledge, innovation and work culture and perhaps optimistically, the non-resident Indian scientist even considering staying on in India.
Vaibhav is not an original idea. During this government’s tenure itself, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) conceived the VAJRA (Visiting Advanced Joint Research) Faculty Scheme with similar objectives. The differences in the two schemes are minor. Vaibhav is exclusively for the Indian diaspora, while VAJRA can include other nationalities too. VAJRA, though generous in the amount offered as fellowships, was restricted to one-year engagements, unlike Vaibhav which pays less but extends to three years. The DST, which is in charge of both schemes, says that nearly 70 international faculty have spent time in India as part of VAJRA, though there have been concerns over the effectiveness of the scheme. Currently, officials say, both schemes will continue. While facilitating exchange between Indian and foreign universities is welcome, there ought to be clarity on what India hopes to gain by specifically focusing on the Indian diaspora. Through the decades, much ink has been spilt on the problem of ‘brain drain’, where talented researchers went abroad for want of commensurate opportunities in India. While economics and individual proclivities heavily influence such decisions, short-term fellowships are useful in priming foreign faculty and researchers to the potential for science in India. They can also lay bare the challenges — the lack of funding for basic research, the lack of participation by private companies in core research and development and limits on academic freedom — and trigger changes in policy. The tremendous competition for tenured jobs in American and European universities means that there is a vast pool of skilled scientific manpower, trained abroad, who can be brought back or retained in India. Realistic expectations must be the touchstone of such engagements. It remains to be seen if the presumption that scientists of Indian origin will be likelier to stay back, indicated by the ethno-nationalist restriction, will bear fruit.
