Birth, growth, collapse and renewal

Professor Nirmala Jain is a retired professor of Hindi literature from Delhi University, and a well-known literary critic.  A few days ago, after reading her commentary on some well-known Hindi writers (such as Krishna Sobti, Usha Priyamvada and Mannu Bhandari), I was curious to learn more about her own literary journey.  Her autobiography, "Zamane Mein Hum" is a detailed memoir of her life, covering her childhood (she was born in the early 1930s), her long academic career at Delhi University, and her literary associations. I started reading the book in earnest during recent travel, and it gave me an opportunity to reflect on personal resilience in the midst of unrelenting family struggles, the twists and turns of an academic journey, and the joy of being part of an academic ecosystem abundant with talented, purpose-driven scholars. Her journey also provides a glimpse into academically vibrant institutions with great potential devolving into uninspiring workspaces that no longer fulfill that potential. This is the story of many universities in India.

Professor Jain was among the cohort of lecturers who started teaching at Lady Shriram College in the year of its inception, 1956. She spent 14 years at the college. Her interview for the position was chaired by its founder, Lala Shriram, the owner of Delhi Cloth Mills, who also carefully mentored the institution in its early years. She witnessed the change of campus from a small school in Darya Ganj to its current location in Lajpat Nagar with its iconic red building and 55 pillars. She describes the efforts that the faculty members put into the academic training of their students (who came from diverse socio-economic backgrounds) and in creating an atmosphere that fostered wholesome growth encompassing the arts and culture. 

This part of her memoir was fascinating to me for two reasons.  My undergraduate education was completed at Lady Shriram College (LSR).  The college provided a safe, nurturing space for three years to study and reflect on the way forward.  As I entered the college gate every morning after a long, tiring commute from Noida, the red building and its 55 pillars represented a welcoming space that manifested everything positive in my life at that point [0].  A couple of years after graduating, I read the novel "Pachpan Khambein Laal Deewarein" (translation: 55 pillars and red walls) by Usha Priyamvada [1], who was also among the new faculty members who had joined the college. In the world of this novel, however, these pillars and walls symbolized the emotional suffocation of the protagonist. "How could the author not see this space as the intellectually stimulating space that I experienced", my younger self wondered [2]. On the other hand, Professor Jain's narrative was closer to how I viewed the institution, a space that provided its members the resources and opportunities to grow and find their way forward. 

The other reason why I enjoyed reading this part of her story is because it resonated with my experience of starting a faculty position at a new institution.  I joined IISER Kolkata (and later, IISER Pune) in their early years, and saw many transitions of the kind that she describes at LSR.  At a new institution, faculty members have to work with limited resources and often have to take up roles well beyond the purview of the classroom in order to contribute to institution-building [3]. Just as the young Nirmala Jain and her colleagues benefited from mentoring and encouragement by Lala Shriram and other institution builders, we were fortunate to be mentored by inspiring academic leaders such as Professor Ganesh and Professor Shashidhara through tough academic phases (individual as well as institutional). The birth and growth pangs of a new institution intermingled with our personal quest for scientific and intellectual growth.  Reading this part of the memoir revived memories of the journey of the IISERs in the early years. 

The later part of the memoir starts to get sombre. We now start reading stories about the downslide of institutions when a handful of people acquire disproportionate power and start putting themselves above the institution. We read about bureaucratic shenanigans by academics to hurt colleagues who have demonstrated higher scholarly merit, and situations where students try to acquire academic benefits through "extracurricular" means, overlooking the importance of individual, focused effort at the study table. Professor Jain lived through an era which saw the degeneration of many Indian universities into living nightmares. The early phases of this degeneration were also observed by Harivansh Rai Bachchan (a distinguished poet and a professor at Allahabad University who later quit academia) in the third volume of his autobiography. Professor Jain saw institutions in various phases: birth, growth, collapse and renewal. Her memoir presents the story of Delhi University from her point of view. Thanks to her own academic preparation, intellectual curiosity and association with the leading litterateurs of the day, she worked to keep the academic culture of her department alive and thriving. For example, dedicated teachers organized regular conferences and seminars to ensure that students and department members were exposed to distinguished poets and writers who were leading significant literary movements in their times.

The coming up of institutions such as the IISERs, new Central Universities, new IITs and NITs represents a promising phase in science and education in our country (similar to what the older universities represented in the earlier part of the 20th century). The later part of Jain's memoir makes us reflect on what keeps an academic culture flowing and growing versus the attitudes/actions that have the opposite effect. Can we continue with the resolution and clarity of vision to put academic excellence above all else? Can we support and nurture academic potential in ourselves, our colleagues and students? Can we show up every morning to our work with a sense of wonder, and a commitment to give it our best? 

[0] It's a different matter that I had to walk across this part of the building into a darker, less inspiring section where the mathematics classes were conducted.

[1] The pen-name of Professor Usha Saxena-Nilsson, who later worked at Allahabad University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

[2] I learnt to appreciate that no author is obliged to represent something exactly as I view it, even if the topic is close to my heart :-)

[3] For example, folklore has it that Professor Ambika, one of our earliest faculty members at IISER Pune who also served as dean (academics), personally intervened to wake up students who slept late and were at the risk of missing their exams.

Harivansh Rai Bachchan: an inspiring PhD story

We know Harivansh Rai Bachchan to be among the most distinguished and prolific poets in the 20th century.  Although he primarily wrote in Hindi, his formal academic training was in English literature, and he served as a faculty member in the Department of English at Allahabad University for several years.  He had a rich, multifaceted and eventful life, which he documents in his four-volume autobiography. The first volume describes his family, early life in Allahabad, his student days, and culminates in the passing away of his wife, Shyama ji, who succumbed to tuberculosis at a very young age.  In the second volume, he describes his further training and search for stability in his professional and personal life, meeting Teji Bachchan and starting a new life with her.  This volume essentially concludes with him getting a regular faculty position at the Allahabad University.  The third volume is the motivation behind this blog post: it covers the period in his life when he travels to Cambridge as a visiting student to pursue a deeper study of the poet William Butler Yeats, and stays on to obtain a PhD, becoming the second Indian (after Balachandra Rajan) to obtain a doctorate in English literature at Cambridge University [0]. In the fourth volume, he narrates his life after quitting academia, his move to Delhi to join the Ministry of External Affairs, and further developments as his children grow up. I am only a few pages into this volume, and have not been able to immerse myself fully into it.

A common theme in the first three volumes is that of the nearly continuous stream of struggles and upheavals in his life, and how he faced them with resilience and tremendous self-discipline.  He shares his emotional journey with candour, and does not hesitate in letting us see (and feel) his vulnerabilities as he deals with bereavement, career struggles, unexpected disappointments, rejections and failures. Poetry enthusiasts will appreciate his attempts to describe his creative thought process, and to explain some of his poems in the context of his life events at the time of composition.  

The third volume, "Basere Se Door" describes his PhD story, and offers us much to reflect upon and learn.  Many aspects of his journey mirror issues and situations that we think about and live through in academia.  This includes figuring out our academic goals (on our own, even if they are starkly different from that of our peers), taking steps to fulfil them (often involving life-changing decisions), staying focused on research while also dealing with anxieties due to not having job-certainty for long periods of time, balancing a feeling of contentment with a desire for growth in the phase when certainty arrives, the willingness to see oneself as a student all through our lives, and the mental flexibility to make tough choices if our perspective towards academia changes or if academia can no longer meet our needs. 

After finishing his Master's, he spent nearly 10 years holding temporary academic positions, including that of a high school teacher, research scholar and short term lecturer. After 10 years of uncertainty in his professional life, he obtained a regular position as a lecturer in the Department of English literature at Allahabad University in 1941.  Although he experienced a feeling of contentment after obtaining this position, he simultaneously encountered the common acquaintance of almost every academic: the impostor syndrome.  He was sensitive to gossip around him about a Hindi poet being at an English department [I suppose multidisciplinary skills weren't valued much in those days].  As was his usual tendency, in response, he devoted an unusually high amount of time and energy on his teaching assignments. [1]  

 While he grew into his role as a teacher, he also observed the academic atmosphere in the university, and reflected upon what career progression meant to people there. Why is seniority relevant in the context of university, he wondered.  Can intellectual growth be measured by a wall calendar? The mind expands or shrinks according to the work that it engages in. He felt that research and self-study demonstrated in a concrete form through scholarly publications should be used as a parameter for progression as opposed to counting age, in order to prevent stagnation of the mind.  

"Admittedly, it is difficult to determine criteria to evaluate intellectual ability, but if universities don't make an effort to do this, who will?"

[Basere Se Door, Page 23, 2013 edition, Rajpal and Sons (The translation is mine, and I apologise for any deficiencies.  I don't have access to the English translation of his autobiography.)]

His observations proved to be prescient.  Despite being a meeting ground for intellectual giants in all fields in pre-independence and early independence days, Allahabad University lost its eminence over the next few decades (as did many of our older universities), mired in bureaucracy and unhelpful policies that did not nurture academic growth. 

Harivansh Rai Bachchan spent the next 11 years teaching at the university, and describes these years as those of good health, professional stability and personal contentment.  He raised his children, and spent time in study and creative writing, but stayed away from formal movements taking place in the Hindi poetry world. But, instead of settling down into complacency, his mind was agile, and open to opportunities to learn and grow. Therefore, at the end of 1951, when the British Council announced some travel support for faculty members to spend six months at a British university, he decided to apply.  He revived a research project that he had initiated several years ago on the work of William Butler Yeats.  Putting his plan into action was not easy: after receiving invitations to spend a few semesters at both Cambridge and Oxford and getting a sabbatical from AU, he had to arrange for finances for a 15-month stay in England.  This required negotiations with publishing houses who published his poetry, and dipping into family savings, but he received whole hearted support from his wife in his plans [2].  When he did not get any reply from the education ministry to his application for financial support, she encouraged him to write straight to the Prime Minister.  Pandit Nehru not only gave him an appointment, but also immediately approved the entire amount that was required.  Meanwhile, the British Council did not approve his application for traveling expenses, and he had to make those arrangements on his own.  Finally, in April 1952, at the age of 45, this professor with a permanent academic position left his secure establishment in Allahabad, and flew to England to become a student again.  I was personally quite inspired by this episode in his life, because it teaches us to not let age or complacency come in the way of our intellectual goals. 

At the time of his voyage, Mr. Bachchan had not made any plans for pursuing a doctorate. His plan was to explore some questions about the work of Yeats while spending six months in Cambridge, followed by nine months in Oxford.  At Cambridge, he met Professor Thomas Rice Henn, who agreed to supervise his work, and gave him access to all his collected books.  He writes about his daily schedule:

"I would go to the university library after breakfast, and study there until 1.30 pm.  After a light lunch, I would go to Mr. Henn's office, and study until 6 pm.  Often, he would drop in during that time, with questions and suggestions about my reading.  After dinner, I would either attend a seminar, take a walk, or enjoy theatre or cinema.  After that, I spent several hours reading anthologies of modern English poetry, making journal entries or writing letters before going to sleep."

In Henn, he found a hands-on advisor who provided him the necessary guidance and resources for his project.  Naturally, with the progress that he made on the project, he started to consider the possibility of staying on at Cambridge and expanding his work into a doctoral thesis.  He was encouraged by a friend, Vishwanath Dutt to follow this plan.  Henn enthusiastically agreed, but explained that since Bachchan had only two years, he would have to formally register for a Master's in Literature, and write a thesis: if the degree committee found the thesis and his performance in the viva strong enough (and this would be exceedingly hard), they would consider the thesis for the award of a Ph.D.  With the further support of his wife, therefore, he registered for an M. Litt. and started working on his thesis.  

His doctoral studies started full steam.  His description of Henn as an advisor is touching: Henn met and guided him regularly, kept his project goals on track, gave him feedback on his writing (this included approving thesis chapters which contained a point of view very different from that of Henn, as long as they were supported by literary evidence and proper analysis), and often invited him home for meals and long discussions.  He was also sensitive to Bachchan's mental anxieties on account of his family in India (especially the financial and other hardships that his wife was facing bravely on her own [3]).  

As part of his thesis preparation, Bachchan also visited Ireland to meet Mrs. Yeats and other people associated with Yeats.  They met him graciously, and answered all his questions. He describes a heart-warming episode at the end of his stay in Ireland, when he invited Mrs. Yeats and some others for a farewell dinner.  After dinner, the hotel manager refused to accept any payment for the dinner gathering, because he was a guest of Ireland.  Bachchan suspected that Mrs. Yeats had secretly paid the hotel bill herself, so as not to strain the finances of a struggling PhD student. 

The book is full of such incidents and many others, which tell us about the importance of deep and regular work for a thesis, staying focused [4], good mentorship and a support network of peers from graduate school. His housemate was a statistics student by the name of Ranvir Singh Bawa, who taught him how to live with minimal expenditure, and supported him emotionally through good and bad times.  

One of the most exciting parts of the book is the period after his thesis submission in 1954. He prepared thoroughly for his viva.  Although Henn had advised him to focus on his research work and not get distracted by anxiety about results,  Bachchan was conscious of what was at stake.  He had heard scary dissertation stories.  Would they tear the thesis into bits during the viva, he wondered. Would he be able to answer all their questions? During the four-hour long viva, he desperately searched for hints about what the committee thought of his work, but all members maintained the proverbial British "stony face" during the proceedings.  Post viva, in which he thought he did well, he had to wait for a few weeks before the final decision of the committee.  Finally, on the day the results were declared, he walked with Bawa to the main office.  It was Bawa who had the first look at the notice board, and confirmed that the 47-year old Bachchan had indeed received a Ph.D.  His instant reaction was the same as that of his wife when she got the good news later, "Izzat Reh Gayi." [5]

Dr. Bachchan's life was full of interesting contradictions: on the one hand, he was unable to afford a gown for convocation.  On the other hand, when he returned to India, he was welcomed and hosted by the families of some of the richest industrialists of India.  He returned a happy, content and confident man to Allahabad, and rejoined the university with renewed hope.

But, the biggest "anti-climax" was yet to happen.  Instead of appreciation from his colleagues for his academic accomplishment, he had to face jealousy at the work place.  The university could no longer give him the work satisfaction and intellectual stimulation he was hoping for, and he was disappointed by the toxic reactions to him.  And so it was that one of India's greatest poets, and a knowledgeable English lecturer who had achieved a nearly impossible academic feat decided to quit academia.  He was invited by Pandit Nehru to join the Ministry of External Affairs as an expert who would supervise the translation of all documents and communication of MEA into Hindi, and to introduce new initiatives to promote the use of Hindi at the work place [6].  

It was with a heavy heart that he left Allahabad with his family, after having spent nearly all his life there.  After devoting years to scholarship and teaching, he moved into an entirely different sphere of bureaucrats.  This, he realized, was what would make him happy at that point of time, and he did not hesitate to change course.  This also makes us reflect upon the deterioration in the work culture at universities in India in those days, and how they lost several bright minds as a result. 

One final thought: it requires great integrity to accept and appreciate the academic accomplishments of others, and great clarity of vision to support and nurture such talent.

[0] There seems to be some ambiguity about this. Some online portals mention that Harivansh Rai Bachchan was the first Indian to obtain a PhD in English literature from Cambridge University.  But, in his book, Mr. Bachchan mentions that his friend who encouraged him to try and obtain a PhD gave him the example of B. Rajan as the only person from India until then to have obtained a PhD in this subject from Cambridge.

[1] He also consciously underplayed his identity as a poet in the university.  He insisted that his students address him as Mr. Harivansh Rai, and not Mr. Bachchan (or Bachchan ji).  He mentions his conscious efforts to dress, walk and behave "like a lecturer of English".   

[2] In the book, he expresses his gratitude to her on several occasions: she was a remarkable woman who braved anxiety and unpleasant situations in Allahabad in his absence, but provided unconditional support to him in all his academic plans.  

[3] He describes a rare occasion when Professor Henn flew into a temper.  One morning, Mr, Bachchan was excited to see a frozen lake for the first time, and walked over it to come to office.  When Henn heard this, he got extremely upset at this irresponsible and dangerous act, and questioned Bachchan about how his family would cope if something happened to him. Bachchan was grateful for the concern. 

[4] which is undoubtedly hard while also facing financial pressures.  Pandit Nehru, who had been generous in the beginning, refused his request for further support: apparently, some colleagues of Bachchan had spread malicious rumours about him. Bachchan had to further dig into family savings to finance his doctoral study.  Today, PhD students receive their fellowship as part of well structured schemes, but one cannot help thinking about students in India who routinely do not receive their fellowships on time, and battle disappointments and anxieties on this account. 

[5] Hard to share the sentiment in translation.  Roughly, they are both relieved at not having to "lose face".  

[6] This, in itself, was a difficult task, as he had to contend with contemptuous English-speaking civil servants.  His experience at the ministry, and later life is described in Volume 4.  

A meeting with the Prime Minister

There have been reports in the media of a meeting of the Prime Minister with around 30 scientists at his residence on 19^th August.  This blog is about my experience and impression of that meeting as (possibly) the youngest person present in it.  As the meeting was organized by the Department of Biotechnology, I thank Professor VijayRaghavan for this truly awesome opportunity. 

Disclaimer 1:  This post is not meant to be a comprehensive report about the event (one can read the news reports for that), but solely my own perception of how it played out.  A lot of it is from memory and some hurried notes I took during PM’s speech: so, I can only paraphrase his statements and not quote them verbatim.

Disclaimer 2: This is going to be a long post.

Although I am not very interested in politics, I have been very curious about Modi government’s thoughts and policies on science in India.  Sadly, be it mainstream or social media, our intellectual elite or journalists, the discourse on anything related to our Prime Minister seems to fluctuate between two extremes: one side considers him as the savior who will solve all of India’s problems in no time and the other side is extremely critical and suspicious of him.  It is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in reading prevalent opinions.  At the same time, as a scientist at a new institute, I cannot help but notice the pressure under which our administration is functioning due to severe budget cuts.  Are the current science funding policies of the government formulated with a view to control the overall government expenditure across the economy or does it have something to do with how high (or low) they place science on their priority list? How does the present regime view science, science in India and the scientific community?  These are questions to which I have been unable to get reasonable answers through our biased (and may I add unscientific) media discourse.  Therefore, when I received an invitation to attend this meeting, I was very excited at the possibility of meeting the Prime Minister and hearing directly his views about science in India.

The agenda of the meeting had been designed carefully.  The PM wanted a discussion on the current state of Indian science and from what I understood in a smaller preparation meeting before we headed out to RCR, he had conveyed his eagerness to hear diverse viewpoints.  The secretaries of the science ministries (mostly scientists themselves), therefore, were to play a moderating role and let the other invitees from the science community do most of the talking.

Around 14 people, representing various fields of science, were to give presentations about the progress made and challenges ahead in their respective domains of expertise.  The meeting was to be conducted for two hours and therefore, speakers were requested to respect the time limitations so that there could also be adequate time for discussion.  Before heading out to RCR, some of the invitees wondered if the PM would be able to follow the numerous presentations and if someone should further summarise the main points of the speakers at the end.  As it turned out, however, Mr. Modi not only listened attentively to each and every presentation, but also kept asking very pointed questions from almost all the speakers.  For instance, when the first speaker presented data about the number of research papers that were published in India every year, Mr. Modi immediately asked how big or small this number was, in proportion to our population.  The very low number of scientists in our country was briefly discussed.  

As the presentations continued, he made several remarks, but I only remember a few.  For example, one of the speakers mentioned that in India, once a faculty member becomes a full professor, the only further possible ``promotion” beyond that is to become a senior level administrator.  This hinders research productivity and he therefore suggested that we create more positions, equivalent to VCs/directors etc, but in which one would only do research.  The PM caught on to this suggestion and requested the speaker to prepare a detailed proposal.  There were several other talks on topics including biomedical research, agricultural research, research in universities, physics, mathematics, research in industry and research in the north east. 

My personal favourite was Professor Spenta Wadia’s talk on physics, in which he beautifully outlined, in simple language, India’s recent contributions to several areas like string theory, high energy physics, condensed matter and materials science, statistical physics and physical biology[*].  I also liked Professor Gagandeep Kang’s talk on biomedical research.  Prof. Mythily Ramaswamy gave a talk on mathematics.  

(* A previous version of this blog post just mentioned string theory.  This is because (as I have stated in the disclaimer), I was writing from (limited) memory and in no way did I mean to imply that he only talked about string theory!  As a mathematician with an interest in modular forms, string theory stayed back in my memory.)

Among his many questions, Mr. Modi had one for mathematicians: he wanted to know if mathematics could solve the problem of call drops in mobile conversations!  Later, when the presentations got over, I made a comment about applications of cryptography and coding theory in communication problems, but that this field is underrepresented in most Indian institutes [please see addendum below for the mathematics behind call drops].  It was only after returning home that I came to know from my brother that the issue of call drops is, in fact, a very contentious issue nowadays and has also been raised in the parliament. 

In most presentations, the presenters explained and emphasized the need for sustained funding in science if we were to continue the progress and not slide backwards. 

After the presentations were over, it was time to elicit comments from the rest of the audience: by this point, we ran out of time.  But the PM continued to listen to the comments and personally called out the names of people who indicated that they wanted to speak  (either his vision is very strong or he had the seating plans laid out in front of him!). 

Since it was well beyond 6 pm, I thought with some disappointment that he would leave and I would not be able to hear his views on science issues in India.  But, he did speak, and from that point, Modi, the orator, took over.

 After addressing us as ``Aap Diggaj Log,” he started his talk with the observation that we cannot make much progress in the current scenario.  The lack of  openness between the cabinet and scientists as well as overwhelming administrative regulations hindered science.  He recognized that research needs flexibility, and while there had to reasonable checks and balances, one could not expect scientists to keep, in his own words, ``pai pai ka hisaab.”   This generated some laughter and applause.

The next point he made was that there was a lot of overlap between the work done by different science agencies, which do not communicate adequately with each other and are unable to work towards common scientific goals of the nation.  He emphasized, as the news reports mention, that instead of working in isolation, scientists have to come together and take a multidisciplinary approach to solving problems.

One point that the PM kept making repeatedly was that the solutions to most of the problems, be it coordination of resources or addressing specific needs of the nation such as Swachh Bharat, cleaning the Ganges, low agricultural productivity, the contradictory problems of malnutrition and food wastage, better utilization of solar energy, the solutions would have to come from the scientists and not the bureaucracy.  ``Can you do it?” he asked us directly.

He also made some remarks about a disconnect between writing research papers and translating the research into technology.  One of the examples he mentioned was why agricultural research has not addressed the problem of poor yield of pulses in India. 

Towards the end of his speech, he said that he has noted our complaints to him: those of science policy, budget and administration.  But, he too has a complaint, namely the scientific community is not broadminded about optimum sharing and utilization of resources.  His wish list for us was sensitivity to India-specific problems, better coordination among science workers and a multidisciplinary approach. 

 All in all, I certainly understood the PM’s attitude towards science better than before.  It was heartening to note his awareness of science challenges in the country and that his thoughts on science are not restricted to Ganesha and plastic surgery, as many journalists would have us believe.  But, I am writing as an assistant professor whose research work is mostly of a solitary nature and who does not have to deal (much) with administration and bureaucracy.  People in positions of responsibility, who deal directly with the consequences of budgetary cuts and lack of a coherent science policy would have higher expectations of this meeting and its consequences. 

Speaking personally, I came back with a strong feeling that this government perceives the science community as underperforming and wants it to produce more.  Therefore, it is absolutely essential for us early career scientists to keep improving our performance so that we do not feel unempowered in front of any administrator or bureaucrat.  For a scientist, empowerment comes only with productivity.

  -----------------------------     

Addendum: 

My comment is not entirely accurate.  Professor Vijay Chandru (Co-founder and Chairman, Strand Life Sciences), who was also present at the meeting, pointed out the following in a private correspondence:

``While cryptography and coding theory are at the foundations of computing and fault tolerant communications, the problem of call drops is driven more by cellular transmission capacities (# of cell towers and energy considerations) and protocols for handoff between cells. 

The multiple co-existing cellular technologies GSM, 3G, LTE would also add a layer of complexity. I believe the math disciplines involved would be more like stochastic dynamical systems and congestion modelling.

Anurag Kumar, D. Manjunath and Joy Kuri have authored a nice book “Wireless Networking” that makes these connections."

Down memory lane - the move to IISER Pune

Last week, as I was waiting to meet the institute doctor regarding a medical exam, I met a colleague at the reception.  He asked me how I felt after moving from one IISER to another.

Warning: this is going to be a long post!  Read at your own risk.

This took me down memory lane and I remembered my first visit to IISER Pune.  I then realized that I was here this time last year.  I had come to attend the Pan Asian Number Theory Conference/Workshop on Bloch-Kato conjectures in July, 2012.  Apart from attending lectures by experts in this field, I thought it would be a good opportunity to meet and interact with number theorists at IISER Pune.  Moreover, I was really curious to know how another IISER was doing.
Until then, I had not been to any IISER other than IISERK.

I was under the impression that the conference would be in the Sai Trinity building, the temporary campus in the city and that the permanent campus would be somewhere far away.  However, the conference was being held at the permanent campus, situated at a central location on the Homi Bhabha Road in Pashan, Pune, surrounded by other research institutes like NCL, IITM and DRDO.  It was very close to the temporary campus.

On the first morning, as we entered the permanent campus, we noticed huge announcements at the entry gate about the conference.  As the car stopped in front of the conference venue (a building by the name of HR4 as I was to learn later), my heart skipped a beat.  The campus looked really impressive.  I had not expected that the construction of such a huge building (housing conference facilities and the future guest house) would be complete at a (twin) sister institute.

Prof. Raghuram, the Mathematics co-ordinator, who had recently moved to IISER from Oklahoma, welcomed us and took us to the conference room.  On entering and registering, we all got an umbrella designed with the logo of the institute and a special value of the Riemann zeta function.  We met Prof. Shashidhara, the Dean of Faculty and Research, who inaugurated the programme and gave a small welcome speech, followed by another one by Raghuram.  Both of them talked enthusiastically about how their Mathematics group was growing, the number of faculty along with the research areas represented  and the newly launched Maths PhD programme.  Shashi said two things which I still remember.  Firstly, he mentioned the very high faculty-student ratio in the Maths PhD programme.  To me, this meant that the administration there was aware that very few faculty members were working hard to build up a strong PhD programme and was appreciative of their efforts.  Secondly, he mentioned that just as experimental scientists need good experimental facilities to grow, Mathematicians need more interaction with others through conferences, workshops etc. To me, this meant that this was something which the administration here supported generously [1].  In short, he said exactly those things that I was desperately waiting for IISERK administration to recognize regarding my former department.

After the first half of the conference was over, I took a small walk around their campus during lunch time.  I came to know that the new hostel was ready, the lecture hall complex was well underway (it is now functional) and the construction of faculty housing had already started.  As I walked around, I also saw the pre-fab lab complexes.  I also noticed a fleet of IISER buses and small vehicles, which plied between the two campuses.  I took one of these buses to the temporary campus at Sai Trinity building and met a friend there, who gave me a very good idea about the life of a faculty member at IISER Pune.  I received lots of inputs about the availability of decent rented apartments around the area, the safety of women in Pune and related matters.

Just before this visit to IISER Pune, I had started to think about moving to another institute.  But, I had not thought about it seriously - in fact, I was procrastinating on it because the task of planning, doing a round of several job applications/interviews as in 2010 and executing a move seemed daunting.  What's more, I was a little overwhelmed with all kinds of news/rumours about how moving in India is really difficult, how job candidates at certain new institutes were insulted by randomly formed selection committees (I read many of these stories on the comments to the pinned post on Prof. Giri's blog), delay in processing of applications etc etc.  So, even a simple thought experiment of moving would increase my (already very high) levels of cortisol!!  One could say that I was misinformed to some extent and hesitant to come out of my "comfort zone" even though it would be better for my mathematical growth.

That evening, as we waited for a car to take us back to the hotel, I was talking to a senior colleague, Dr. Nice Prof from a different institute.  We were discussing the pleasant weather at Pune.  He jokingly said, "Aap Yahaan kyun nahi aa jaate [why don't you move here]?" He had simply said out aloud what I had already started thinking, namely that IISER P would indeed be a very good place to apply to.  It had a well-staffed (and growing) Mathematics group, a non-trivial group of number theorists and good infrastructure.  What's more, it was in the IISER family - so, I was familiar with and believed in its objectives and academic structure.  But, I was not sure if they were hiring and would entertain my application - if not, it would be an awkward situation.  I thought more about it and made up my mind to ask Raghuram the next morning.  At the very worst, he would say no.  But, at least this would force me to come out of my "comfort zone" and would be my first concrete step in exploring other opportunities.  As a very wise friend pointed out, where was the need for hesitation or awkwardness?  I already had a permanent position, but was just looking for a better opportunity - this is not a crime!  I should ask and I should ask confidently.

So, I approached him the next morning and received a prompt answer, "Yes, we are hiring."  He told me about the hiring procedure, patiently answered all my questions and directed me to the FAQ page for faculty aspirants.  He also told me more about the number theory group at Pune.  So, the matter was decided: I would apply.  It did not mean that I would get the position, but I was willing to try.  I was planning to return in September for another conference and would prepare my application package by then.  But, in the next week, I felt the need to apply as soon as possible.  I contacted potential referees who agreed to write reference letters as soon as needed and sent me plenty of encouragement.  Thus, for some time, I put aside a question that always gnaws at my mind before I apply for any thing, "am I good enough for this?"  I thought, "maybe I am not, but I must apply to find out."

On a dreary Friday morning, determined to put together my application package, I woke up with a headache.  It was raining very heavily and my domestic help did not show up.  I had to request my neighbour for a ride in her car.  She too had just returned from a visit to IISERP and while we drove to campus, she was praising it.

As luck would have it, our new Int. PhD students were joining on that day and I had to meet them to assign them course work, mentors for reading courses etc.  I also had to attend a long meeting.  After that, I remember having a meal at our local tea shop and one of my colleagues remarked, "Kaneenika, you look like you have hit a wall." You bet!  After that, I jumped into preparing the application, with copious help from The FAQ page for faculty aspirants at IISER Pune.  I again wrote to Raghuram, who promptly answered all queries and reminded me to take care to"apply through proper channels."  I called up a former colleague who is now at IISER TVM and he told me exactly what to do.  I then had "the talk" with the Dean, Faculty at IISERK as we headed for another meeting.  Although surprised, he fully cooperated and mentioned that he will speak to the director as soon as possible.
By 9 pm, the application was ready and sent by email to IISERP.  In the application, I mentioned that this was an electronic copy and a hard copy would be forwarded soon through the proper channels.

On Monday morning, I handed over the printed application to Dean, Faculty.  He got the director's approval and handed me a "No Objection Certificate" by noon!  To date, I feel grateful that the higher authorities understood my need to apply and fully cooperated, even at such short notice.  Meanwhile, I also got an acknowledgement of my application from Pune.  I scanned and emailed the NOC to them.  Just as I was waiting to meet D o F to take the NOC, I made the mistake of telling a trusted colleague about this application and requested him to keep it "strictly confidential." As if!! By Tuesday noon, everyone on campus, including the tea shop owner, knew.  I have written here about the comical consequences of my indiscretion.  But, the colleague still remains one of my favourite colleagues at IISERK.

Soon, I also received an email from IISERP, inviting me to give a seminar talk and attend an interview with the selection committee, which was meeting the next Monday on the 13th of August.  I got ready for it.  Since everyone on campus knew about my application, I took advantage of it by practicing the job talk in the preceding weekend with some Maths and Physics colleagues who live on campus.
Their inputs were very helpful.  I then made other preparations for the visit [2].

I arrived at the IISER Pune guest house at Mira Mohan Apartments on Sunday late afternoon and was generously fed with bananas, Maggi noodles and a hot cup of Masala Chai by the resident care-taker, Ramji.

The seminar talk was scheduled next morning, followed by the interview in the afternoon.  As I sat waiting for the committee to call me in, I started to get nervous again.  Will it be like the interviews mentioned in the comments on Prof. Giri's blog?
Will they ask me why I want to move from IISER Kolkata? Will they talk to me in a friendly or insulting tone?

All my fears were allayed within seconds of entering the board room.  Prof. Ganesh, the director, introduced me to all the committee members and immediately put me at ease.  It was a very professional, but at the same time, friendly meeting.  I was asked about my teaching and research activities at IISERK.  They did ask me why I was interested in IISER Pune, but no one asked anything inappropriate about IISERK.  In the later half of the interview, one of the committee members asked me what kind of admin work I had done at IISER K and what kind of committees I had served in.  When I started naming the committees, one member interjected and said, "wait, name the committees that you were not in," after which everyone started laughing.  I was also encouraged to ask questions - my only question was if my PhD student could move with me.  I was told that it was possible.  I came out of the board room very happy and relieved.

IISER Pune informs candidates within a week of the interview whether their application has been successful.  The formal letter comes after BOG's approval.  I also got such an email within two days of returning to Kolkata and then waited for the formal letter.

The formal letter arrived in the end of August.  I saw it in the early morning and immediately wrote back accepting the offer.  It was a bright and sunny morning.  To celebrate the good news, I went for a run around the IISER campus and was treated to Aloo Puri by my domestic help after that.

In early September, I visited IISER Pune again for another conference.  I thanked both Raghuram and Shashi for timely processing of my application, but both of them smiled and acted as if it is routine matter :)  Dr. Nice Prof, who was also visiting for this conference, was very surprised to hear about my upcoming move, joked about it and did not believe me when I reminded him that it was his suggestion.  Just like in July, we were taken for a walk around the campus.  But, this time, I felt as if I was a host and not a visitor.

In retrospect, I still feel amazed at how quickly and smoothly everything worked out.
The application, interview and formal offer happened within a span of one month.
First and foremost, my referees wrote up the letters at short notice.  Secondly, the people concerned at IISER Kolkata cooperated with the move.
Finally, the application got a very good treatment at IISER Pune and when I joined, I was provided with timely help by the administration, which helped in settling down quickly [3].

This also brought back memories of my application to IISER Kolkata way back in 2010, which was also promptly processed.  Even when I had joined there, I was provided a lot of help in settling down.  I believe that this kind of efficient and polite treatment of applications of faculty aspirants and the organizational help received by them on joining goes a long way in motivating new faculty members to give their very best to their organization.




[1] Mathematics at IISER Pune has been very active in organizing international conferences in focused areas.  Next year, we will be organizing two very big Mathematics events, one of which is very closely related to my research area.  I will be writing more about them soon.   

[2] I have written before about my casual approach to dressing up.  But, for the IISER Pune interview, I thought very carefully about what to wear.  In fact, I could not decide what to wear - so, I took three different formal dresses with me to Pune, so that I could choose the best one on the day of the job visit.  As you can see, I REALLY wanted this job :-) 

[3] On the personal front, I had the keys to an apartment and a new car within a day of arrival, prompting one of my colleagues here to name me "superfast Kaneenika."

A very friendly blogger

This post is to congratulate Professor K VijayRaghavan (Director, NCBS) on being elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (pointer from the recent blog posts of Professors Abi and Rahul).

A lot has been written about his scientific accomplishments and his role in building up NCBS.  He is also active on the blogging network.

As Rahul points out,

``he is one of those scientists always willing to speak his mind, without causing controversy, and participate civilly in online discussion: he has commented occasionally (including very recently) on this and other blogs and himself blogs at Indiabioscience."

I have benefited a lot from many of his comments on this blog and have also enjoyed his amusing take on various issues [recently, in response to my (somewhat angry) post about communication troubles between senior and younger professors at N1, he suggested that they could go out together for a beer session where each can speak their mind without offending the other!]

My initial interaction with him was very funny.  He visited this blog following a link from Abi's blog and left the following comment:

Hi New Prof in New India,
I really enjoyed this post. Its wonderful for those joining new places in particular but also for those looking for faculty positions anywhere to hear about your experiences. You write politely and well and I am sure no one will take offense if you identify the places you are writing about. N1 can only become better and even more responsive! I would love to recommend N1 to others and perhaps apply myself if only I knew where it is :-)). In any case congrats and thanks to Nanopolitan for pointing me here. Keep writing.
Best wishes
Vijay
K. VijayRaghavan, Bangalore


I am not a biologist.  Being new to the scientific community in India and somewhat misled by his comment and his simple blogger profile, I assumed that he is a postdoc entering the job market and wrote the following response:

Hi Vijay,
It is a good idea to apply widely to many institutes and not write off any new ones before visiting them.
The current generation of job-seekers in India is very lucky because of the wide variety of academic jobs available and we should take full advantage of that.


However, after reading a few more comments by him on other posts, it became very obvious that my assumption was false! So, I googled him and went ``Oops! A big oops!"

Since then, I am very careful about who I am writing to and also about offering unsolicited advice :)

I conclude this post with a very thoughtful comment by him on a post I wrote long ago about struggling between academic and administrative duties [bold emphasis added]:

``Research is a full-time job. Teaching is another full-time job. Administration need never be more than 20%-time job. Counseling students ditto. So, with time-management and prioritization the question is, how many jobs do we want to do: .2, .4, 1, 1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.2, 2.4 etc. The choice we make is substantially ours and also depends on the context.

Lets say you decide that you are passionate about research, committed to excellence in teaching and, at the same time, would like to help with committee work and student counseling. In other words you want to be a 2.4 job person. If each job takes 6 hours of work a day, we are talking about a 14 hour day and an amazing ability to partition one’s hard-drive. Not easy for the best of us. There are at least two ‘trivial’ solutions to the 14 h day problem. The first is to do all jobs badly in a 6 h day. The second is to drop research. The first trivial solution inevitably leads to the second as neglecting research is a downward spiral that makes your research eventually irrelevant. Its amazing though, that something that should take about 2.4 hours a day can lead to a crisis in one’s research and teaching. Why is this? In my view, still taking shape, the .4 job day that is taken up by counseling and committee work, particularly when done well, is an opiate that makes us feel useful. The rest of the 2 job day will be very well used even if we only used a third of that time thinking hard and working a bit (i.e. 4 hours a day). Thinking hard, consistently, is demanding on most of us ordinary folk. Rather than find ways to remedy this handicap, we do more of the opiate. Hence the downward spiral. Thus, most people don’t say no to committee work. We justify our involvement with a variety of real and virtual arguments, but we inevitably get drawn into it more than we need to, We next say that this is the cause of the demise of our research or teaching. While, it may be the other way around.
The new institutes, such as yours, have an opportunity to shake us oldies from this complacent luxury of buffaloes wallowing in our ponds and declaring that ours is the best way and but for admin work and bureaucracy we would in a better pond. The reason I say this is that there is a nontrivial, though unstable, solution to the 14 hour efficient work day. That is by keeping an institutional and individual focus on research and teaching as our primary goals with all other activities helping these. If we can manage this focus, the .4 job investment will make the 2 job goal attainable in less time. If we forget this mantra the .4 job becomes all encompassing."

Welcome new readers

Last week was very eventful for this blog.  Thanks to a very kind post by Abi@Nanopolitan, this blog got an exponential increase in readership and lots of new followers.  In fact, to be very honest, before Abi's post, I would be lucky if I got more than 10 readers a day!  As per the blog stats, now I seem to be getting a few hundred readers a day!  I am of course delighted that people are reading the blog.
So, welcome to all my new readers :-)
Many of you have also left very interesting comments and questions.
First of all, thank you for the encouraging feedback.  I am really happy that people want to read all that I write about.
Secondly, blogger seems to relegate a lot of comments to spam, which I have to correct from time to time.  That's why some of the comments appear later.
Some readers have asked me why I remain anonymous.  Some have also pointed out that it is not easy to pull off anonymity for too long in our small scientific community in India and that it is easy to figure out my identity from the hints I leave on the blog.  I agree with them.
I have absolutely no malicious intentions in remaining anonymous.  Nor do I have much to lose if my identity is discovered.  What I write here is what I openly say to my colleagues at N1.  But, at the same time, I don't see any strong and pressing reason to reveal my identity because I don't think it will make any qualitative difference to the blog.
Some readers have also written that reading the blog has helped to allay their misapprehensions about applying to new institutes.  I am delighted to hear this.  I strongly believe that an academic job seeker should explore all job opportunities with an open mind and zero prejudice.
There has also been some discussion about the contentious issue of a candidate being asked about his or her marital status during job visits.  In the North American context, it is now illegal to ask such questions during interviews.  No member of the selection committee will openly say to a candidate that being unmarried will work in his or her favour because as per the "written" law, the decision to hire a candidate is to be made solely on the basis of merit (it is not for me to comment how far this is practiced).
However, I have learnt in the last few months that conversations like this in India have to be evaluated in a different light.  People openly ask others about their personal lives and also share tidbits about their own.  Professor Giridhar's blog links to a very informative website for new faculty at IISc, which frankly advises them not to get offended at being asked such questions.
I have learnt to take myself a little less seriously and just ignore or laugh off these remarks.
I recently came to know that the prof at O2 who had asked me my marital status indeed really wanted me there and pushed my case.  Therefore, it is entirely possible that he was asking me about my personal life    with very harmless and noble intentions.  Perhaps, he really felt that he could use this information to push my case!  [I wonder what he would think if he knew that I harshly labeled him a sexist because of that!]  But I still feel that it would be best if these awkward conversations do not come up in professional settings and certainly not immediately before a candidate's job talk!!
Typical PhD student has raised an interesting question:
suppose you are an experimentalist, and require tens of various kinds of equipments (plus skilled people/technicians who can maintain those & fix problems in them) for your research. Suppose you join an institute in India, be old or new, and you are given grants to buy one big equipment for your research. Now, if you join an old institute, you have all the other kinds of equipments up & running in shape, with dedicated technicians, so that you can launch your research straight away. However, in a new institute, by the time one can procure the other kinds of equipments (worth a few million dollars in total, for example), set them up, and hire & train people to maintain them, one will have past his/her prime in research. So in this regard, could you please comment if it is not wise to join an institute with some good infra-structure ? It is certainly great to take up challenges in a new institute, and to challenge oneself in excelling things, but I was wondering if it would make more sense to join an already reputed & established institute.

The current facilities at N1 are sufficient for my experimental and computational requirements - so, I have not seriously considered this issue.   I would like to think about this question some more, talk to my colleagues who have much bigger lab requirements and address this question in a future post.  Meanwhile, feedback from readers about this question is most welcome.

To have or to be

Most of us will agree that an established group in one's research area is a highly desirable attribute in a school where one hopes to work.  If such a group does not exist, it helps if the department concerned has a few senior professors with productive research programs.  These people, apart from maintaining a research-oriented and intellectually vibrant atmosphere, also provide leadership and much-needed guidance to the new entrants.

When you join a baby department of a very new institute, the presence of such people may not always be possible.  In my subfield, for example, there are only three research institutes in India with groups of  > 1 people.  As these places do not have undergraduate programs and I am a strong believer of the IIT/IISER/North American model of departments with both undergraduate and graduate programs, I did not have the luxury of joining an institute with readily available research collaborators.  Most of my colleagues are in a similar situation.  The institute provides us with all the professional support we need, but because it is itself very new, it cannot give us previously formed research groups.  In fact, it expects us, the newbies to get our research programs going and build the groups that we want.  In other words, it wants us to be what we cannot have.  

People looking at academic careers in India would want to keep this in mind and think about this issue carefully.  

For precisely these reasons, when I decided to join my current institute (following previous notation, let's continue to call it N1), I met with mild disapproval from some friends and colleagues and stern warnings from some senior colleagues from the O institutes that I was ruining my future (in general, people in India can be very direct in expressing their opinions and do not sugarcoat their words, especially when they talk to people younger to them, male or female.)   I respect their point of view (without agreeing with their forecast for my future).  Fortunately, the people whose opinions mattered the most, like my former PhD advisor and senior, experienced mentors through grad school and postdocs, encouraged me in taking this step. 

I have already explained in a previous post the various reasons why N1 was attractive to me: a highly supportive and dynamic leadership provided by the director and deans, efficient administration, friendly colleagues, absence of the politics imposed by the old boys network, flexibility to travel, but most importantly, the desire to build something from fresh along with other like-minded people.  

As my colleagues and I settle down into our new jobs, we have to grapple with the challenges and take concrete steps to "convert dreams into reality".  Before building up the department, we have to build up our own research programs and put them on a firm basis.  In this context, I've had to deal with the following issues (and I expect that a lot of people would have similar issues in this situation):

1) When I joined, I was in the middle of pursuing a research project, which was progressing slowly but surely.  This project was independent of my PhD work .  I personally saw this project as an important step in severing the umbilical cord with my PhD supervisor.  Within the first two months of joining N1, I seemed to have reached a dead end in this project and did not know how to proceed.  It felt like my mind was unable to think beyond a few ideas that really weren't going far.  I sorely felt the need to talk to someone in my research field and discuss this, but that was not a possibility.  Fortunately, I was able to take an entire semester off to visit a university in North America where I got a chance to discuss this with an expert in this field.  This has been immensely helpful, we have made a lot of progress on this project and we will be soon submitting our paper. 

N1 allowed me to take this "sabbatical" within a few months of joining and supported me in many ways ( my application for leave was promptly approved and I was also allowed to retain my house on campus).

However, it is not possible to hop over to North America frequently and for long intervals.  Once I return, I will have to actively form collaborations within India.  This might result in generating more visitors to N1 or hiring a postdoctoral fellow, which will also be good for the department.  Another way to avoid research deadlocks would be to expand my research interests a little and find common ground with other members in the department.  The institute seems to encourage this approach. 

2) On joining N1, I did not intend taking on a PhD student for the next two to three years.  This is clearly a very serious responsibility and I wanted to wait until my research program had developed more.  However, an interesting turn of events left me with no option but to accept a student much earlier than I thought I would.  Our department received a lot of PhD applications and the administration made it clear that since research was an integral objective of the institute, we had to start a graduate program without delay.  We ended up interviewing a large number of candidates, out of whom we shortlisted three. Let's call them A1, A2 and A3 in order of their scores.  The performance of these three students was good and it would have been cruel to turn down their application (not to mention that the administration would have seriously frowned upon us).  The research interests of A2 and A3  matched with colleagues who were ready to supervise students.  A1 was interested in my area.  The scores made it impossible for us to admit A2 and A3 without also admitting A1.  How can you reject a student whose past academic performance has been excellent, who has great reference letters and who does well in the interview?  Refusing him admission just did not seem right.

I consulted my former PhD advisor and other senior mentors who all unanimously told me that I should not shy away from supervising this student.  This student will start working with me in the coming semester.  I have a couple of projects in mind for him, but will wait to decide which one would be more suitable.  This is the story of my first "unplanned" grad student.

Moral of the story: in a country which has many more qualified and interested students than faculty willing or available to supervise them, newbies have to be ready to start supervising graduate students sooner than they had planned.  

3) While in North America, I was pretty visible on the conference circuit.  I had the good fortune of working with very nice people who not only taught be great science but also gave me the opportunity and necessary funding to attend a lot of conferences and talk about my work.  It was also much easier to travel to conferences within the same continent.  Now, back in India, I feel a bit concerned that it may not be as painless to attend international conferences.  In fact, my fear is that my geographical location will make it less probable for me to be invited to talk at these conferences and interact with potential collaborators.  

On the other hand, thanks to generous research funding by the Indian government, institutes now have more opportunities and resources to host international conferences within India.  

People planning to start academic careers in India should keep these issues in mind.  Joining a new institute is not for the faint-hearted.  We may not have all the resources that one takes for granted in an established set up.  However, this lack of resources is temporary and will not last long because funding is not the problem.  One simply needs to take the initiative to ask the management for things they need for their academic growth and work patiently along with the management to get what they need.  With some careful planning and a positive outlook on the part of its employees, there is no limit to the growth of an institute. 

But, not all people fit into or are willing to join such a set up.  I have some friends who would be very unhappy being in a place like N1.  They either already have positions in O type institutes, where they are doing very good work,  or are looking for such positions.

At the end of the day, we will be productive and will contribute our best to a department only if we are happy there.  The choice has to be made carefully but firmly, because once the decision is taken, there will be no time to look back.

On training students

A commenter on my previous blog entry enquired about the quality of graduate students in India,  a question which is fundamentally important for those planning a research-based academic career in India.
This issue merits a separate post.
Note for the reader: My take on this issue is entirely research institute/IIX* institute centric.  Also, much of what I say is based on personal experience and perception and is not necessarily backed up by statistical data.

First, let us briefly look at the different ways in which students in India aspiring to be scientists enter graduate study.

1) Right after high school, students enroll in one of the very strong 5 year Integrated MSc programs offered by the IITs, at the end of which they get a Bachelor's and Master's degree in their field of specialization.  The entrance exam for IITs, the famous JEE is very competitive and the strong and challenging course work at IITs adequately prepares students for pursuing a PhD**.  However, most students, after getting this degree typically go to top-tier research universities in North America or Europe for their PhD.  Starting 2006, the IISERs have also been offering integrated MS programs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Earth Sciences.  ***

2) After getting a Bachelor's degree from one of the universities in India, students can join one of the IITs for a Master's program.  MSc programs offered by IITs are fairly strong.  Typically, students in these programs are enthusiastic and sincere.  However, their undergraduate preparation may not have been as strong as those of undergraduates at IITs **** and they have to essentially unlearn and relearn most of what they did in their undergraduate programs.  After MSc, many students pursue PhD abroad, but many also stay back and join one of the IIX institutes or research institutes for a PhD.  

3) After obtaining a Master's degree in one of the universities, students can apply directly for a PhD program at the institutes under consideration.  To be eligible for applying for a PhD program  in these institutes, candidates usually have to take the UGC/CSIR National Eligibility Test and qualify for a Junior Research Fellowship.  There are also other equivalent exams which are recognized by different institutes, for example JEST.  After this, most institutes will hold their own entrance exams or interviews for selecting their students. 

In the current scenario, a faculty member at a research/IIX institute in India will most probably supervise graduate students coming in from Categories 2 or 3 above.  One common underlying factor in supervising these students is that their previous university education may not have adequately prepared them for higher research.  Many of my colleagues, ranging from those at the top-notch institutes to those at the newer ones have agreed to this issue.   The deficiencies in undergraduate education in Indian universities is now a nationally recognized problem and one of the most important issues being addressed by higher bodies like the Indian Academy of Sciences.  

I have not yet supervised a PhD student.  However, as I look forward to supervising my first student in the coming semester,  I have been thinking a lot about these issues.  I have observed over the years the approach of my colleagues and erstwhile professors towards student supervision. Their approach would roughly fall into one of the two categories:

a) The visionary educator's approach: Recognize and accept this problem as it is.  To get around it, set very high standards for your students from Day 1, convince them that it is their responsibility to overcome the deficiencies in their preparation and extend full support to them in their endeavour to do so.   

b) The deadwood jerk's approach: Recognize this problem.  To get around it, either refuse to supervise students or torture the one student you have chosen to supervise by continuously reminding him or her about his or her lack of preparation, until the student quits.  If you happen to teach a graduate course, remind your hapless students all the time about how they are no match for the creamy layer who goes abroad.  Spend a few hours in your institute tea shop everyday complaining to colleagues about the mediocrity of students and everything else that is wrong with India.  After all, this is a perfect way to hide your own lack of productivity.

Many of my Indian readers will most probably identify at least one colleague/former instructor known to them who follows the second approach.   However, (fortunately) a new faculty member at a science institute in India today (especially at one of the new ones) does not have the option of following in those footsteps.  We are expected to actively supervise PhD students and train scientists urgently needed in a rapidly expanding knowledge-based economy and in a country where even institutes of the stature of IITs are struggling with a huge faculty shortage.

I strongly believe that students in categories 2 and 3 above are eager, willing and sincere, but may have been conditioned by a system over which they had little control.  It is to their credit that instead of succumbing to negativity and exhaustion, they have retained a desire to do science and if they have come this far, there is no reason why they won't go further if provided with encouragement, guidance and the necessary resources.


Footnotes
* IIX is a generic term which refers to IITs, IISc, IISERs etc.  I also include the Indian Statistical Institutes in this category.

** There's also the famous and competitive BStat program offered by the Indian Statistical Institute, whose graduates pursue research careers in the mathematical and statistical sciences in large numbers.

*** The first batch of the IISERs will graduate in 2011.  It is not clear yet what future course of action these students intend to take, but I will be writing about it in detail later.

****They are continuously reminded of this fact by their instructors, though I really don't see why students are to blame for this.