By Dr. Arun Mitra
The meaning of India’s independence was not merely freedom from British rule. The dream of the freedom movement was also to build an India that was economically self-reliant, capable of developing its own scientific and technological capabilities, able to take independent decisions in world politics, maintain friendly relations with all countries, and raise its voice against imperialism and war.
From the Ghadar movement and revolutionary movements to the communist stream and the political thinking of Gandhi and Nehru, the various currents of the freedom movement developed the ideas of Indian independence and self-reliance in their own ways. After independence, this vision provided direction to the country’s economic, industrial and scientific policies.
In newly independent India, science and technology were regarded as the foundations of nation-building. The construction of major dams, public-sector industries, pharmaceutical production and research institutions was part of this approach.
It was in the course of this journey towards scientific self-reliance that India’s space programme was born. Despite limited resources, the manner in which Indian scientists advanced the country in space science and technology became a remarkable example before the world.
India’s space achievements are the result of decades of public investment, scientific research, institution-building and the hard work of thousands of scientists and technical employees.
When India faced international sanctions and technology controls in its efforts to acquire advanced space technology, Indian scientists chose the path of developing indigenous technologies. It was this spirit of self-reliance that brought India to the position it occupies today, where it enjoys global recognition in space launches, satellite technology and various space missions.
Therefore, it would be a mistake to view ISRO merely as a government department or research institution. It is an important foundation of India’s scientific sovereignty and strategic capability.
That is why any major change in the role or structure of ISRO must be subjected to a broad and serious public debate in the country.
In recent times, reports have emerged of ISRO scientists moving to private space companies and start-ups. At the same time, the policy of increasing the role of private companies in the space sector has also been advancing rapidly.
If ISRO is gradually restricted merely to research and the manufacture of rockets, launches and other critical technological capabilities are handed over to private companies, we must ask who will control these capabilities in the long run.
If technologies, infrastructure and human resources developed with public money eventually become the basis for private profits, this will no longer be merely a question of administrative reform. It will become a question of the private transfer of publicly developed scientific capabilities.
And if the benefits accrue to a few select large corporate houses, the issue becomes even more serious.
In this context, it is necessary to recall an important chapter in the history of ISRO—the S. Nambi Narayanan espionage case.
Senior ISRO scientist S. Nambi Narayanan was arrested in November 1994. He was accused of providing important technical information relating to ISRO to foreign powers. Other ISRO scientists were also arrested in connection with the case.
The investigation was subsequently handed over to the CBI. The CBI did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations and submitted a closure report. In May 1996, the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ernakulam accepted the closure report.
After a prolonged legal battle, in 2018 the Supreme Court ordered compensation of ₹50 lakh to Nambi Narayanan and took serious note of the damage caused to his dignity and career by his arrest and the manner in which he was treated.
The case provides an important lesson: protecting the dignity and independence of scientific institutions and scientists is a matter of national interest.
It is therefore necessary to ask whether India’s scientific institutions have ever faced political or external pressures and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent such situations in the future.
Colonialism has changed its form today. It is no longer necessary to send armies to occupy a country. A country’s independent decision-making capacity can also be influenced through economic dependence, technological dependence, control over markets and strategic pressure.
This is the modern form of neo-colonialism.
The world today is moving towards a multipolar order. New economic and political powers are emerging. Developing countries are seeking to strengthen their independent voice. At such a time, the challenge before India is whether it will strengthen its strategic autonomy and scientific self-reliance or gradually become dependent on foreign technology, capital and corporate interests.
The space sector is particularly sensitive in this regard. Satellites, communications, navigation, meteorology, defence and disaster management—all these areas are becoming increasingly dependent on space technology. Therefore, control over this sector is not merely a commercial issue.
The real strength of ISRO lies even more in the intellectual capabilities of its scientists than in its laboratories and rockets.
Whether transferring knowledge developed through decades of experience to a corporate company and then purchasing the same capabilities through the private sector serves the country’s long-term interests is a matter that requires serious consideration.
If scientists are encouraged to move from public institutions to private companies in the name of better salaries and facilities, public institutions could suffer a gradual erosion of institutional knowledge.
Science cannot be viewed merely through the lens of profit. Many important scientific achievements are the result of years of patient research whose immediate commercial benefits may not be visible. This is precisely the special role played by public scientific institutions.
The government must therefore clearly explain the actual limits of private participation in the space sector. Who will retain ultimate control over ISRO’s technologies, infrastructure and scientific capabilities? Who will own technologies developed with public money? How will the intellectual property of scientists be protected? And how will technologies related to national security be kept separate from corporate interests?
These questions are not merely the concern of the government or ISRO officials. Parliament, political parties, the scientific community, trade unions and civil society must also be involved in this debate.
If the government maintains that ISRO is not being privatised, it should place its policies and future plans before the country with complete transparency.
Because the issue is not merely about ISRO.
The real issue is whether India will remain the owner of its scientific capabilities or gradually hand them over to private and foreign interests.
If handing over the space sector to private hands means that profit becomes the overriding objective, there will always be a danger that groups such as the Adani Group—which has already been the subject of considerable controversy—may bow before and align themselves with powerful countries such as the United States and Israel and work in their interests. This danger will always remain. And both these countries are today viewed by many around the world as aggressor states.
ISRO has been built with the money of the Indian people, the talent of Indian scientists and decades of hard work. Turning it into a machine for corporate profit would not do justice to the country’s scientific self-reliance.
ISRO does not need to be weakened; it needs to be strengthened further.
India needs a space policy that welcomes private innovation but makes no compromise with the autonomy of public scientific institutions, national control and strategic independence.
The biggest question today is:
Will we strengthen our scientific sovereignty, or will we open the doors to new avenues of neo-colonialism?
The government must answer this question to the whole country. (IPA Service)
