Research will need more than NRF Act

One of the flagship features of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has now become an Act after the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Bill was passed by Parliament recently. The nomenclature of the Act, bringing in the Hindi word ‘Anusandhan’, appears a bit odd. The National Research Fund (NRF) as such would have been alright.

While moving the Bill, the Minister for Science and Technology said, “The Act will pave the way for India to join the select league of developed nations,” and added that the Act is going to have “a long-term effect” and that all citizens of India are going to be the “stakeholders”... “possibly history in the making”. Lofty statements.

Let us get down to dissect the central features of the Act. It contains four chapters. Chapter 1, called ‘Preliminary’, refers to the short title and commencement. Chapter 2 with 12 sub-headings is about the NRF, giving details of the objectives of the Foundation, the constitution and functions of the Governing Board (GB) and the Executive Council (EC), etc. Chapter 3 is about the finances, accounts and audit. Finally, chapter 4 entitled ‘Miscellaneous’, among other things, refers to the powers of the GB to delegate and issue directions, the EC’s powers to make regulations, and the usual references to the powers to “remove difficulties” and “repeal and savings”.

Against the backdrop of the overarching structure laid down by the Act, let’s focus on its good and not-so-good features. As is known, the Parliament Act envisages the Foundation to receive a total funding of Rs 50,000 crore spread over five years, with the Union government contributing Rs 14,000 crore during the period, which works out to Rs 2,800 crore annually, a very small amount compared to the lofty ideals associated with the Foundation’s dream of taking the country to the league of developed nations.

The remaining Rs 36,000 crore, as the minister stated, is going to be raised from: a) private sources, but including public sector enterprises  (many of them are in the red as we know), b) philanthropist organisations (India does not have the culture of philanthropists funding research, barring some exceptions), c) any amount from the investment of funds received by the Foundation (a high hope again), d) funds in the possession of the Science and Engineering Research Board to be transferred to the NRF, as the SERB will be subsumed in the Foundation, and e) any other sources as may be prescribed in due course (Page 7 of the Act).

The last source is quite vague as there is no clarity either in the Act or the statement made by the minister while moving the Bill in Parliament. More importantly, we need to wait and see what role the Union government is going to play in asking the industries to make available funds for research. Will the government make it compulsory for industries to set aside a part of their CSR funds for NRF? Can such things be made mandatory? Will such directives work? These are some serious issues demanding the attention of
the government and the academic community in the days to come.

The other critical issue is the role of the government, the prime minister, the two ministers and the eight secretaries who are going to play a crucial role in the functioning of the NRF. The Act says that the PM and the two ministers will hold ex-officio positions. But, as we have seen in the past, the role of the government and the bureaucracy has been overbearing, which is not conducive to independent research by individual researchers and higher educational institutions. The government must bring in outstanding academicians into the Governing Board and Executive Council, and not pack them with loyalists.

The Act mentions that the Executive Council “shall prepare the budget, maintain proper accounts, showing the estimated revenues and expenditures and submit accounts annually to Parliament” (Page 7 of the Act).
The fear is that the council might spend more time on
bureaucratic work than guiding research.

The Act talks about the opportunity for enrolling consultants and visiting scientists, which is a welcome feature. The best from within the country and abroad should be accommodated.

Another positive feature of the Act lies in the funding of research in state universities and colleges. Expectedly, the Act does not lay down any criterion for the selection of topics for assistance, which should be best left to the experts in the council. While it is expected that research in cutting-edge technologies will receive priority, social sciences and languages should also receive adequate funding. All in all, the functioning of the NRF will have to be keenly watched.

(The writer is former Dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)