Answer

Introduction

With over 800 million people below 35, the country has vast youth potential, but without a strong innovation ecosystem this human capital fuels global firms instead of domestic tech leadership. Converting numbers into high-impact research is key to shifting from a labour-led to an innovation-led economy.

Body

Structural Reasons for Low R&D Intensity

• Sub-Optimal Funding: India’s Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) has stagnated at 0.64% of GDP, significantly lower than the 2-3% spent by technological leaders like the US or South Korea.
  Eg: India’s R&D spend as a percentage of GDP hit a multi-decade low, while China spends ~2.4% and Israel over 5%.
• Private Sector Hesitancy: Unlike advanced economies where industry finances 70% of R&D, in India, the government remains the dominant funder, contributing nearly 60% of total expenditure.
  Eg: Huawei’s annual R&D spending ($23.4 billion) alone exceeds India’s total national R&D outlay.
• Strategic Sector Concentration: A disproportionate share of public R&D is locked in strategic sectors like Defence, Space, and Atomic Energy, leaving minimal resources for civilian industrial innovation.
• Weak Higher Education Base: Most of India’s 40,000+ colleges are purely teaching-centric, with less than 1% actively engaging in high-quality research or doctoral training.

Systemic Reasons for Low R&D Intensity

• Bureaucratic Accountability Gaps: Rigid funding rules prioritize “utilization certificates” and process compliance over scientific breakthroughs, discouraging high-risk, “blue-sky” research.
• Weak Patent Commercialization: While filing numbers have grown, the “quality and enforcement” of IP remains weak, with many patents from smaller colleges remaining unlicensed.
  Eg: In the context of the total 3.55 million patent applications filed globally in 2023, India’s share is still low, at approximately 1.8% of the global total.
• Academia-Industry Disconnect: In the U.S., firms fund university students to turn ideas into products, helping research cross the “valley of death”.
  Eg: India lacks this culture, a lab-made sensor often remains a thesis instead of becoming a startup product.
• Persistent Brain Drain: Ambitious researchers migrate abroad due to funding uncertainty, bureaucratic delays, and a lack of world-class deep-tech infrastructure at home.
  

Policy and Institutional Reforms

• Operationalizing the ANRF: The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) must act as a strategic body to bridge the gap between academia, industry, and government labs.
  Eg: Launch of the ‘PAIR’ (Partnerships for Accelerated Innovation and Research) program to link top-tier hubs with spoke institutions.
• Catalytic Private Funding: Effective deployment of the ₹1-lakh-crore RDI Fund to provide long-term, low-cost financing for private-sector-led innovation in sunrise sectors.
  Eg: The Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Scheme launched in late 2025 targets deep-tech areas like semiconductors and AI.
• Ease of Doing Research: Removing multi-layered approvals and granting Principal Investigators (PIs) greater financial autonomy to reduce the “bureaucratic chokehold” on science.
  Eg: Recent DST reforms aim to simplify grant disbursals through digital portals and faster regulatory pathways.
• Strengthening IP Ecosystem: Doubling the number of patent examiners and creating national tech-transfer networks to ensure that lab innovations reach the marketplace.
  Eg: India has become the 6th largest patent filer, but needs better “Business Sophistication” to convert these into market-ready products.

Conclusion

India’s demographic dividend is a time-bound opportunity that requires an immediate shift from incremental “Jugaad” to frontier innovation. By aligning the ANRF’s strategic direction with private capital and university research, India can secure its technological sovereignty. Transitioning to a 2% GERD target is no longer a choice but a necessity for achieving “Viksit Bharat” by 2047.

DOWNLOAD PDF