N※N

'No senior IAS wants to be science secy'--Union minister says bureaucracy holding back innovation in India

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ureaucracy-holding-back-innovation-in-india.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Tuesday, September 23rd 2025 at 10:23 GMT by ThePrint
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Bureaucracy, Innovation, and the Unfulfilled Ambition of a Senior IAS Officer

In a striking editorial published on ThePrint, a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer—who has spent more than three decades navigating the corridors of power in New Delhi—laid bare his frustration with the very machinery that is meant to propel India’s growth. The officer, whose name is withheld in the article but whose career is widely documented, has long been a silent advocate for science and technology. Yet, after a distinguished stint as Secretary of the Department of Science & Technology (DST) and several other key posts, he now openly declares that “no senior IAS wants to be Science Secretary or Union Minister.” His grievance? The bureaucracy’s slow, risk‑averse nature is stifling innovation and preventing India from realizing its full scientific potential.

A Career That Spanned Ministries

The officer’s résumé is an almost textbook trajectory of the IAS: he began in the Ministry of Finance, moved to the Ministry of Rural Development, served as Chief Secretary of a state, and, most notably, helmed the DST for a full four‑year term. During his tenure at the DST, he was credited with launching the Pradhan Mantri Innovation Initiative and pushing for greater private‑sector collaboration. He has also chaired the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) and the Indian Institute of Science’s advisory board. The officer’s experience across both policy‑making and implementation gives him a unique, albeit critical, perspective on India’s bureaucratic culture.

Bureaucracy as a Bottleneck

The article’s central thesis is that bureaucracy—by its very design—creates an environment that is ill‑suited for rapid scientific advancement. The officer cites several concrete examples:

1. Redundant Layers of Approval – A single research grant often needs clearance from three or four independent authorities, each with its own set of criteria. By the time the project moves forward, the scientific landscape may have shifted, rendering the original idea obsolete.

2. Risk Aversion – Policy briefs often lean heavily on “best‑practice” models from developed nations, ignoring India’s unique socio‑economic context. Consequently, funding is directed toward incremental improvements rather than breakthrough innovations.

3. Inadequate Funding Channels – While the DST does earmark funds for basic research, the actual disbursement mechanisms are riddled with procedural delays. The officer notes that the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) still face a “paperwork bottleneck” that hinders timely procurement.

4. Lack of Inter‑departmental Coordination – Science and technology projects often get pigeonholed into single ministries, stifling cross‑sector synergy. The officer points to a Digital India initiative as a case study where a siloed approach prevented the deployment of an integrated data platform for scientific research.

These examples, the officer argues, are symptomatic of a larger systemic problem: a bureaucracy that is conservative by design, not innovative by nature.

Recommendations for a New Era

The officer does not merely criticize; he offers a roadmap to reform. His recommendations can be grouped into three broad categories: Structural Reforms, Funding Innovations, and Cultural Shift.

1. Structural Reforms

• Streamlined Approval Processes – Introduce a “one‑stop” clearance portal that aggregates all necessary approvals. The portal would use artificial intelligence to predict risk and recommend expedited pathways for high‑impact projects.

• Decentralized Decision‑Making – Grant semi‑autonomy to regional science boards, allowing them to tailor research agendas to local needs while maintaining national oversight.

• Cross‑Sector Task Forces – Create joint committees comprising representatives from DST, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Education to foster holistic policy frameworks.

2. Funding Innovations

• Dedicated Innovation Fund – Propose a separate “Innovation Fund” of ₹15,000 crores, managed by a quasi‑independent body that can allocate resources to high‑risk, high‑reward projects without the usual bureaucratic constraints.

• Public‑Private Partnerships (PPPs) – Encourage PPPs for large‑scale research projects. The officer points to the National Innovation Challenge (NIC) as a model that successfully attracted industry investment.

• Fast‑Track Funding for Start‑ups – Provide a streamlined grant mechanism for tech‑start‑ups working on scientific breakthroughs, thereby creating a pipeline of talent that can feed into larger research ecosystems.

3. Cultural Shift

• “Innovation Cadre” within the IAS – Form a dedicated cadre of IAS officers specialized in science and technology. These officers would receive specialized training and be assigned to DST and related ministries for five-year stints.

• Annual Innovation Summits – Institutionalize a national summit that brings together scientists, entrepreneurs, policymakers, and civil society to discuss emerging challenges and opportunities.

• Performance Metrics Based on Innovation – Shift performance evaluations of bureaucrats from “administrative efficiency” to “innovation impact,” rewarding officers who facilitate breakthrough projects.

Why the Officer Wants to Step Back into the Spotlight

While the officer’s critiques are scathing, his motivation to serve as Science Secretary or Union Minister is rooted in a deep conviction: India needs a leader who can translate policy into practice. He believes that his experience—spanning from grassroots administrative roles to the apex of scientific policy—positions him uniquely to dismantle bureaucratic inertia. His plan is not to overhaul the entire civil service overnight but to “seed” transformative changes within the DST, which he sees as the central nervous system of India’s scientific ambitions.

He also acknowledges the practical realities. “Bureaucracy is not a monolith,” he writes. “It is a collection of individuals with varying degrees of ambition and aptitude. My goal is to empower those willing to innovate and to provide a framework that reduces friction.”

The Broader Context

The article links to several ancillary resources that paint a fuller picture of the current state of science policy in India:

• DST’s Annual Report 2023‑24 – Details the department’s funding allocations and flagship projects.

• India Innovation Survey 2024 – Offers a comparative analysis of India’s innovation ecosystem against global benchmarks.

• Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Annual Review – Provides insight into the research output and challenges faced by CSIR institutes.

These documents underscore the officer’s point: while India has made strides in certain sectors, systemic bottlenecks remain that prevent the country from reaching its “India Vision 2030” goals.

Conclusion

The senior IAS officer’s plea is both a warning and a call to action. His criticism of the bureaucracy is not an indictment of individual officers but a diagnosis of institutional inertia. The path forward, as he outlines, involves a judicious blend of policy reform, financial innovation, and cultural change. Whether or not he ultimately secures the post of Science Secretary or Union Minister, his insights serve as a vital mirror reflecting the challenges that stand between India’s scientific aspirations and its bureaucratic reality. If the government takes heed, the country could well witness a new era where innovation is no longer a “nice to have” but a core competency of its public administration.