India must build a stronger framework for scientific talent

The Hindu

a day ago

Last December, China unveiled images of its prototype sixth-generation fighter jets, sending ripples across global defence circles. Weeks later, its home-grown DeepSeek AI matched OpenAI's GPT-4 on international benchmarks. These milestones are not isolated achievements. They represent the momentum of a country that has been investing deeply and consistently in scientific talent and ecosystems.
Among the early accelerators of this momentum was its 'Thousand Talents Plan', launched in 2008 to bring leading global researchers into Chinese institutions, though it later drew scrutiny, particularly from the West on issues of transparency and intellectual property. However, it demonstrated how talent strategies, when backed by long-term vision, can influence a nation's scientific trajectory. China's progress is also the result of parallel investments in research infrastructure and coordinated doctoral training. Its leading universities now routinely appear higher in global rankings.
India, too, has reason for confidence. Its scientists are globally respected. Our institutions have trained generations of high-impact researchers, many of whom now lead labs, departments, and innovation hubs across the world. National missions in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and biotechnology reflect India's growing strategic focus on frontier science.
Yet to translate this momentum into long-term leadership, the country needs a sharper framework for scientific talent, one that helps India not just retain but also actively attract and integrate the world's best minds. This cannot be achieved through incremental initiatives or those in silos. It calls for distributed ambition and the ability to act decisively, across institutions, disciplines, and borders.
Talent zones
A good starting point could be to designate select cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Pune, Hyderabad, and Kolkata, having a high density of research and industrial institutions, as science talent zones. Within these zones, participating universities and research centres could be enabled to hire global faculty, initiate joint labs, and offer co-supervised Ph.D.s with international partners, using fast-track, peer-reviewed processes. Institutions such as Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and Seoul National University in South Korea have demonstrated how institutional agility and targeted hiring can rapidly elevate research output and visibility.
India needs to rethink how long-term scientific careers are structured. Institutions should be encouraged to establish global tenure tracks, open to both Indian-origin and international scientists. These could be evaluated through international peer review and tied to performance in research, mentorship, or innovation. Models such as Tel Aviv University's diaspora-led faculty recruitment drive could be looked for inspiration.
Talent relocation, particularly at the mid-career or senior level, depends on much more than funding. Institutions would need to be supported through outcome-linked incentives to build their own onboarding systems for housing, schooling, lab infrastructure, and spousal employment. This is essential to encourage relocation.
To sustain momentum, the existing national missions could go further by embedding convergence science tracks within their architecture. The future of innovation lies at the interface of disciplines. AI for new materials, quantum sensing for climate resilience, or genomics for agricultural adaptation all require teams that span traditional departments and even institutions. Internationally, convergence institutes are being created that assemble such teams by design. India's missions can support similar efforts by enabling proposals that cross scientific domains and are reviewed by interdisciplinary panels. The private sector could also be encouraged to jointly co-invest in specific projects, with the incentive architectures built-in for them to also reap benefits.
India must also streamline entry. A global science residency card, tied to institutional affiliation and academic review, could offer five-year residency with the option of permanent settlement. Authorised institutions, especially those participating in national missions, could be given the discretion to fast-track eligible candidates and remove procedural delays.
Finally, engagement with India's vast scientific diaspora must evolve from episodic outreach to structured collaboration. Peer networks, virtual sabbaticals, co-supervised doctoral programmes, and shared research infrastructure can keep overseas scientists meaningfully connected to India's knowledge ecosystem, without necessarily requiring relocation. Countries such as Israel have shown how alumni-driven platforms can support returning researchers with professional and personal transitions, building long-term loyalty and exchange.
None of these steps require large new structures. What they demand is coordination, clarity, and a shift in posture, specifically institutional empowerment. India already has the raw ingredients, including good scientists, increasingly capable universities, and national missions aligned with long-term goals. What we now need is a system that makes it easy for talent to arrive, thrive, and lead.
The global race for scientific leadership is no longer just about infrastructure or capital. It is about people. Nations that succeed will be those that build environments where the most ambitious minds want to belong. India has the opportunity to be one, however it must act with clarity, ambition as well as urgency.
Swapan Bhattacharya is the Director of TCG CREST (Deemed to be University), Kolkata; views expressed are personal.