AS it goes under the microscope at a faltering 50, the storm that has been brewing at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) for over 10 years has now reached its peak. At the vortex is the declining standards of an institution that was the crucible of India's nuclear programme and which has given the country its top mathematicians and physicists.
As the first-ever review of TIFR in 50 years—authored by a committee headed by British Nobel laureate Prof G. Porter—remains hidden from public gaze, the rumblings of dissent and discontent have gone beyond the walls of India's premier basic science institute. Those in the know claim the Porter Committee has approved of a shake-up, but a well-entrenched old guard is resisting. Already, Dr R. Chidambaram, chief of the Department of Atomic Energy which sponsors TIFR, is looking for a new director. Apparently, many TIFR scientists have been unhappy with the present director, Prof Virendra Singh, who completes his second term this June.
Caught up in the controversy is the Scientific Forum of TIFR (SFOT) comprising members of the academic community, and the Council of Management which has personalities like J.J. Bhabha, Ratan Tata and Montek S. Ahluwalia. The grievances aired by the forum reflect the growing friction between the traditionally dominantgroups—mathematicians, physicists and molecular biologists—and the so-called technical staff—computer scientists and technicians engaged in experimental rather than fundamental research. SFOT members, most of whom are from the so-called technical groups, are asking for more objectivity, transparency and accountability from the director and the management. With fewer resources going around and more groups to sustain, funds have become a major source of contention. And promotions, salaries and nepotism form the grist of the complaints.
Says Prof R. Pinto, president of SFOT and senior academician from the solid-state electronics group: "The institute comprises scientists of international standing and we want to preserve the standards we have been known for." That these standards have been declining is evident from the fact that fewer freshers are coming to TIFR. Quips one professor: "The institute rejects the second best, but now the best are rejecting us." The SFOT points to the "fingerprints of stagnation" in the past 10 years: no new programmes at the Mumbai campus except High Temperature Superconductivity, no significant recruitment to replace ageing scientists, no new programmes initiated and no steps to improve the efficiency of a bias-ridden administration.
Dissatisfaction with the functioning of the institute has already caused a flight of eminent scientists. Prof Jayant Narlikar left when he was deprived of a deserved directorship. He went on to head the Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune. Similarly, Dr Dinesh Sharma left when refused associate professors -hip. He joined IIT as a full professor and was honoured with the Best Teacher of the Year Award within a year. And Prof Amit Roy upped and walked away, frustrated with a delayed promotion which put him on par with people far junior.
The absence of a definite policy to evaluate programmes on a regular basis, the SFOT members point out, has led to arbitrary dealings. There has been no review of TIFR ever since it began and the work of individual scientists is reviewed only every five to eight years at the time of promotion. Moreover, in a multi-author contribution, a person is at times rewarded as per the personal biases of the people at the top. Consequently, research infrastructure like central workshops, purchase and store facility as well as essentials like the low temperature facility often end up being bottlenecks rather than support systems. According to a junior scientist, facilities not easily available are often traded.
At present, according to the SFOT, research funds are disbursed at the whims of the influential few. Subsequently, considerable money goes into projects with limited significance, while work with better potential is often ignored. Says one disgruntled scientist: "Over the years, many successful groups, such as the Solar Energy group, there constituted National Centre for Software Technology, and the Microwave group were dismantled simply because they did not qualify as fundamental research."
SALARY is another major sore point. TIFR pays less than the IITs and there has been no improvement in scales in the past decade. The director takes home about Rs 30,000 a month. And after 20 years, a senior scientist could earn less than Rs 25,000. Promotion norms are often applied arbitrarily. "Although the Council reserves the right to lay down these norms, they should be made known to the academic staff," argues one scientist.
The other weak point, claims SFOT, is the management structure itself. When the institute began with Homi J. Bhabha as director, his benign dictatorship had helped it grow rapidly. But, today, in the absence of a democratic process of decision-making, there is a potential danger in too much dependence on the competence of the man at the top.
The director chooses the deans and chairmen of the nine group committees. With the result, as SFOT points out, that the decision-makers are aligned together and are unable to fairly represent the opposing views. Which, once again, brings up the issue of accountability. "Most senior scientists are exhibiting the Retirement Syndrome," complains one scientist, "so they don't care to improve anything". But at the same time, he feels, they don't want to loosen their stranglehold and help infuse fresh blood and thinking into the institute. Senior academicians like Prof Obaid Siddiqi and Prof Govind Swaroop are cited as examples.
Swaroop and Siddiqi, however, dismiss the allegations as politically motivated. Argues Swaroop: "The bottomline is, there are very few good scientists left and we, at least TIFR, cannot promote the average." Siddiqi believes that like any other institution, TIFR has grown unmanageably bigger and older, making it inescapably bureaucratic. This, he feels, has "affected the quality of science produced". The renowned molecular biologist is not happy with the way the Porter Committee went about their job. "This review, the first in 50 years, should have been done every decade. The committee should have spent six months studying the institute's affairs to do a good job of it. What wisdom would they have gained in a week?" Charges, veiled or otherwise, are being traded between the two dominant groups as the academicians await the Porter Committee's report. Whether the SFOT recommendations for a change in the structure and in the evaluation norms of the institute will be accepted is still unknown. But meanwhile, reality moves further and further away from TIFR's idealistic origins.
