Parali solution may lie closer to the farm

Source: The post “Parali solution may lie closer to the farm” has been created based on “Parali solution may lie closer to the farm” published in “Indian Express” on 2nd September 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS-3-Science and technology

Context: The global technology race is increasingly shifting from developing individual AI models to creating an ecosystem that connects science with industry. China is moving from manufacturing strength towards original scientific discovery, while the US is attempting to reconnect its strong scientific base with domestic manufacturing. India needs to bridge a similar gap.

China and US: Different routes, similar objective

1. China: It is leveraging its vast manufacturing ecosystem to apply AI to robotics, automobiles, biotechnology, materials, energy, agriculture and research. It spent about 2.8% of GDP on R&D in 2025, with basic-research expenditure rising by 11%.
2. United States: It seeks to leverage its universities, laboratories, technology companies and capital markets while rebuilding domestic manufacturing and reducing vulnerabilities caused by globalised supply chains.
3. Common objective:Both countries share a common objective: to build a continuous ecosystem linking AI, scientific discovery, technological innovation, manufacturing, and ultimately economic and geopolitical power.

Challenges before India

1. Low R&D spending: India’s R&D expenditure is only 0.64% of GDP, compared with around 2.8% in China and 3.5% in the US.
2. Weak private-sector participation: Indian private capital has largely retreated from long-term investment in basic research and frontier technologies.
3. Institutional rigidity: India has not undertaken a major reform of its scientific institutions comparable to China’s post-1970s science reforms.
4. Talent retention: Despite producing a large scientific talent pool, India struggles to attract and retain researchers, particularly in advanced fields.
5. Weak science–industry linkage: Universities, laboratories, entrepreneurs, finance and manufacturing are not sufficiently integrated to convert discoveries into commercially viable technologies.
6. Excessive bureaucratisation: State-led scientific institutions have suffered from bureaucratic structures, which can constrain innovation and experimentation.
7. Misplaced technological sovereignty: Excessive emphasis on self-reliance can isolate India from global science, capital, technology and talent.

Way Forward

1. Increase public and private R&D expenditure, especially in basic and frontier research.
2. Reform scientific institutions to provide greater autonomy, flexibility and accountability.
3. Build stronger university–industry–startup linkages and facilitate technology transfer.
4. Attract global talent while creating incentives for Indian researchers to return.
5. Develop domestic manufacturing and supply chains alongside integration with global technology networks.
6. Use AI missions in semiconductors, robotics, quantum technology and other strategic sectors to connect research with production.
7. Encourage Indian industry to revive the tradition of supporting scientific institutions, as seen historically through Jamsetji Tata, Homi Bhabha and the Tata Trusts.

Conclusion: India must avoid choosing between global cooperation and technological self-reliance. It needs to walk on both legs—deepening access to global science, technology, capital and talent while strengthening domestic research, manufacturing and institutions. The ultimate goal should be to convert scientific capability into industrial capability and national power.

Question: China and the US are attempting to bridge the gap between scientific discovery and industrial production. In this context, examine the challenges before India in building a globally competitive science–industry ecosystem.

Source: Indian Express