Nonalignment 2.0: From Innovation to Confusion ?

India needs ‘NonAlignment 2.0', new policy report says

Special Correspondent (The Hindu Reported this story on 29 Feb 2012)

NonAlignment 2.0 chalks out foreign and strategic policy for India

Warning that the time for India to get its act together is now because of the favourable growth prospects, demographic profile and international environment it faces — all of which may subsequently change — a group of foreign policy experts released a report here on Tuesday, NonAlignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the 21st century, which identifies the basic principles and drivers that would make the country a leading player on the world stage while preserving its strategic autonomy and value system.
Unveiled before a packed audience of present and former National Security Advisers, Foreign Secretaries, Ambassadors and High Commissioners and policy wonks, NonAlignment 2.0 was written over 14 months of deliberations by Sunil Khilnani, Rajiv Kumar, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Lt. Gen. (retd.) Prakash Menon, Nandan Nilekani, Srinath Raghavan, Shyam Saran and Siddharth Varadarajan. National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Deputy National Security Advisers Alok Prasad and Latha Reddy also joined some of the deliberations.

As the report reiterated several times, the trends for India to extend its global role and influence are favourable but time is of essence. The basic structures suggested by the report must be quickly implemented because the “underlying factors that are propitious for our growth may not last long.” But the authors say India's big challenge will be to aim at not just being powerful but to set new standards for what the powerful must do, because in international relations, “idealism not backed by power can be self-defeating and power not backed by the power of ideas can be blind.” India's legitimacy in the world will come from its ability to stand for the highest human and universal values and at the global level, “India must remain true to its aspiration of creating a new and alternative universality.”

In a situation where the world is no longer bifurcated between two dominant powers, nonalignment today will require managing complicated coalitions and opportunities in an environment that is not structurally settled, the report say. But former NSA Brajesh Mishra, who spoke at the launch, questioned the approach of the report, especially its view that India not take sides in the rivalry between China and the U.S. China's approach was that of the Middle Kingdom, it wants to be number one, and India's priority should be to build a closer partnership with Washington.

The report deals with India's approach towards the ‘Asian theatre,' the international order, hardpower, internal security, non-conventional security issues like energy and nuclear options, the knowledge and information foundations of power as well as the state and democracy.

NSA Shivshankar Menon commended the overall thrust of the report, especially the link made between the manner in which India dealt with its internal and external challenges. West Bengal Governor and former NSA M.K. Narayanan said the report should have devoted more attention to left wing extremism and questioned some of its conclusions on the internal security front.

The report emphasises that for its strategic and foreign policy to be successful, India must sustain domestic economic growth, social inclusion and democracy. Its approach must be to secure the maximum space possible for its own economic growth in order for the country to become reasonably prosperous and equitable. Although India's competitors will put roadblocks in its path, “the foundations of India's success will depend on its developmental model.”

http://cprindia.org/workingpapers/3844-nonalignment-20-foreign-and-strategic-policy-india-twenty-first-century

------------------------------------

Between friends and rivals

Seema Sirohi (The Hindu reported this story on 10 July 2012

A U.S. critique of Nonalignment 2.0 says the report’s fundamental flaw is the gap between its realist reading of world politics and its idealistic solutions

Whether India should lean west, look east, walk straight, stand at attention in a tough neighbourhood, or be at ease with a giant, fast-paced China are important questions for policymakers. Earlier this year a group of Indian analysts made a serious attempt to provide answers in Nonalignment 2.0, charting a grand strategy while trying to plant firm feet in a shifty and shifting global environment.

The release of Nonalignment 2.0 was greeted mostly with criticism, some of it eviscerating, some breezy and some undeserved. The title itself set off fireworks, from Delhi to Washington, preventing many critics from looking beyond initial outrage and into the text, so discombobulated they were at the very thought of reviving a term they had buried with the Cold War. But the same title gave comfort to others who still believe in the magic realism of nonalignment.

Perhaps it follows that the report had no separate chapter or detailed analysis of India-U.S. relations and how the 2008 civil-nuclear agreement changed the strategic environment for India. Another country to escape all notice and acknowledgement was Israel despite the increasingly tight defence relationship.

Nonaligment 2.0 mentions the United States only in a tertiary and sometimes even in a backhanded manner, much to the quiet chagrin of India’s supporters in Washington.

This when for at least the past decade and through two prime ministers, a string of superlatives upon hyperbole — “the defining partnership of the 21st century,” “natural partners,” “engaged democracies” — has described the growing relationship. One of the authors, explaining the missing link to Washingtonians, recently said the U.S. was “a running thread” in the document, an assumed presence. It didn’t wash.

Analysis

It is no surprise then that the most detailed critique of Nonalignment 2.0 yet should come from Washington. Ashley Tellis, one of the most respected strategic thinkers and a key voice on India-U.S. relations, gives Nonalignment 2.0 the thorough attention it deserves minus the acidity of an ideological takedown. But a takedown it is, albeit a considered one. Tellis assesses its prescriptions in almost as much detail as the writers do in laying out their premise. And then goes about systematically countering each one of the national security recommendations.

Nonalignment Redux: Perils of Old Wine in New Skins, to be released early July by the Carnegie Endowment, may raise tempers but it shouldn't be ignored. Tellis is all praise for the document’s strong advocacy of economic liberalisation for India and greater integration with the world. Its declaration that globalisation presents more opportunities than risks is music to his ears. The enthusiasm for an open economy is surely a huge leap forward from nonalignment 1.0, and has enormous implications.

The second track of argument in Nonalignment 2.0 is strengthening of Indian democracy as a “strategic” task for a nation burdened by rising aspirations and ineffective delivery systems. Tellis finds an “honest and penetrating assessment” of India’s democratic condition but evasion in the answers. While Nonalignment 2.0 endorses the current government’s effort to create “a rights-based welfare state” where citizens are provided all basic needs, it does not address the question of costs. The price tag “could actually end up undermining the larger economic growth that is critical for India’s success,” according to Tellis.

The third and perhaps the most important strand in Nonalignment 2.0 is the discussion of national security into which the previous two streams flow. And on this Tellis’ hammer comes down hard and repeatedly. For him the report’s fundamental flaw lies in the gap between its realist reading of world politics and its idealist solutions. He finds the report’s embrace of nonalignment as the best organising principle for India’s relations with the world as “misconceived and downright dangerous” even when disguised as strategic autonomy.

All countries want to preserve their physical security and autonomy of decision-making to the extent possible so India’s quest for “strategic autonomy” is not unique, he says. The desired end is the same for all. Tellis contends that the original idea of nonalignment was about the “means” to get there by staying clear of both blocs. It was a method for the madness of the Cold War. Nonalignment 2.0, however, “conflates the ends and means” of nonalignment and resurrects the concept with “avoidance of sharp choices.” That in short means not choosing the U.S.

China factor

Ironically, even though the report regards China as the greatest challenge for India and agrees there is a meeting of minds with the U.S. on this perception, it advises against a closer partnership with Washington. “By so doing, Nonalignment 2.0 fails to appreciate the central paradox of our times: Strategic autonomy is best achieved through a set of deep strategic partnerships among friends and allies,” Tellis concludes. Contrary to the report’s assumptions, India may not have the luxury of choices the authors envision and even if it does, all partners are not created equal. India can’t afford “allying with none” given the differential of power with China and the report’s own analysis.

The “faulty” conclusions, according to Tellis, may be because the authors begin with a faulty premise. The key question should be whether India needs partners to realise its political aims and who best fits that purpose. Instead, Nonalignment 2.0 frames India’s primary challenge as its ability to leverage the interests of various rivals seeking its hand. In that it exaggerates India’s geopolitical importance and bargaining capacity. Tellis finds this “solipsism” dangerous because it presumes that the U.S. needs India more than India might in case of an eventuality vis-à-vis China. He finds it counterproductive because the smugness prevents genuine cooperation with the US.

India would be better served by “a sturdy ring” of relationships with countries near and far because it would create “objective constraint on China’s misuse of power,” according to Tellis. But Nonalignment 2.0 walks gingerly around China, saying India should not get into relationships that go beyond “a certain threat threshold in Chinese perceptions.” The worry whether the U.S. would come to India’s rescue in case of a Sino-Indian conflict is genuine but it would be real only if India “chooses a priori” not to develop a meaningful partnership with the U.S. The U.S. then would have no incentive to take on China for India.

But interestingly, the U.S. is not seeking an alliance against China despite the persistent commentary to that effect, because “strategic coordination” and a deep partnership would suffice, Tellis says. Finally, the question is would India realise its power and potential when the U.S. is preeminent or another country? Washington is a cheerleader for a stronger India while China busily strings pearls around.

Tellis’ assessment is organic food for thought and it should widen the debate.

(Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based journalist.)

“Of crisis, hope and paradigm shifts: Emperor of All Maladies!”

                       

                  It is indeed beyond superlative degree of fashion and the spirit of passion that the word crisis is being increasingly used in organizing academic, chambers of commerce or government conferences. Then we start to believe that crisis is there to stay forever. Of course there are many types of crisis facing our daily lives. Huge challenges of food security, governance reforms, poverty, education & employment opportunities, infrastructure development, and health care facilities are all the impending challenges and the failure to respond to those is already translating into one of the biggest crises of our country in the making. The audacity with which we embrace vision documents being circulated every now and then in those conferences merely touches the inner core of crisis i.e. what were the reasons for it. And suppose if someone advises to forget causality and respect uncertainty then he/she would be lectured by people in rational think tanks to shut up because it will add chaos and confusion to the process of scenario building about their strategic equations. 

SIDHARTHA MUKHERJEE

              Perception of crisis is undeniably related to our projection of hope  about life we are living. Recently when asked about what it means to die at early age due to cancer, Siddhartha Mukherjee¹ uttered, “Question of what exists and how life should be beyond certain time extends forever; you should rather figure out what to do because our lives are stitched together through memories. Thus question of beyond is abstract question, rather ask question what is now, what is next, what u want... Hope is negotiable; there are no archetypal/standard/classic hopes. Why then the hope should be absolute? People`s hope change over time and surely hope is negotiable.” Then he continues to say that why we are spending millions of rupees on military when we direly need investment in life saving drugs to prevent or to cure cancer.²  

The economist William Baumol calls this "a touch of madness." You can see that venture capitalists do better than entrepreneurs, but publishers do better than writers, dealers do better than artists, and science does better than scientists (about 50 percent of scientific and scholarly papers, costing months, sometimes years, of effort, are never truly read). The person involved in such gambles is paid in a currency other than material success: hope. As a matter of fact, your happiness depends far more on the number of instances of positive feelings, what psychologists call "positive affect," than on their intensity when they hit. In other words, good news is good news first; how good matters rather little. ³

PAUL FORMAN

THOMAS KUHN

     

This reminded me of three persons and one book. First Steve Jobs; who died due to curable cancer. He, in later life transformed crisis in his life into assets, turning the frustration of professional failure into something crucible of creativity. Secondly Thomas Kuhn who also died because of lung cancer and is remembered for legendary work on scientific revolutions through abrupt changes in paradigms of knowledge determining the extension or contraction of subject boundaries. Paradigm is explanatory model which comprises scientific concepts, methods, facts and assumptions. Kuhn theorized that instead of altering ways of thought gradually and progressively, dramatic paradigm shift in scientific beliefs could occur with unexpected suddenness. This shift from intellectual framework to another could result by accumulation of awkward facts that fit poorly with an existing theory when body of ill-fitting facts was two weighty to reconcile with the orthodox world-view. Thus a new framework would be developed to replace it and consensus would tip towards new position. If new world view were radical enough, the old one might even become incomprehensible and incommensurable in the words of Kuhn. ⁴

          

              Thirdly, I am reminded of one book which recently I came across. The book I tumbled upon was about how scientific feuds contributed to the evolution of knowledge system in modern times.⁵ It expresses the process of scientific enquiry in following words: “Nature of science means that conflict is built into its DNA. Since in its purest form is a process of trial and error: hypotheses are formed through observation and experiment, and then these hypotheses are tested with further observation and experiments. If they are supported they become theories—true models of how world works, perhaps even laws of nature—but even most solid theory can be revised or overturned of new evidence comes to light. This ideal of scientific method has lead some theorist of science to apply Darwinian ideas of natural selection to science itself; ideas are engaged in a constant battle for survival in which only fittest will prosper.”

           Fourthly, this all discussion about crisis and hope also reminds us of great thinker Paul Forman and his thesis. Paul Forman is an historian of science and a curator of the Division of Medicine and Science at the National Museum of American History. Let us keep in mind classical, rational way of investigating science and then reflect on how Forman introduces his thesis about peculiar German connection to the dynamics of quantum mechanics discovery in 1920s and 30s. 

                He says: “In the aftermath of Germany`s defeat the dominant intellectual tendency in the Wiemer academic was a neo-romantic, existentialist ‘philosophy of life’, reveling in crisis and characterized by antagonism towards analytic rationality generally and towards the exact sciences and their technical implications particularly. Implicitly or explicitly, the scientist was the whipping boy of the incessant exhortations to spiritual renewal, while the concept-or the mere word-‘causality’ symbolized all that odious in scientific enterprise.” ⁶ Further, a sense of spiralling social crisis affected all aspects of life, including science. It particularly inspired widespread discussion about the ‘crisis in science’, which encouraged some scientists to question the conceptual foundations of their respective disciplines.

               In a way Germany sought to build future out of its past by rejecting utilitarian standards of her conquerors, to re-establish itself on the cultural level as the leader of a new Europe. Mathematical education in schools was replaced by intuitive ways and cultural methods. Weiman Hendry, another historian, sheds more light on the nuances of the debate started by Forman.⁷ Weimar says that, “We are often reminded that history of ideas is rarely straightforward. For while there were indeed many attacks upon mathematics and physics from outside these disciplines, these were in all cases attacks upon their value, rather than upon their content. (In Germany) Causal approach to social sciences was attacked as being inapplicable to their particular subject matter.” 

           Physics and causality were being attacked by equating both to each other. Those were the times when Einstein declared through correspondence with the peer scientists his reluctance to give up the rationality of science in these words, “…business of causality causes me a lot of trouble too; but would be very unhappy to renounce causality.”

The legendary work of Forman has been under constant review and discussion in recent times.⁸ Scholars say, “Forman`s thesis has remained at the heart of debates about the historical relationship between science and culture ever since. His work placed at the centre of a broader discussion the argument that the cultural values (especially individuality and clearness) prevalent in a given place and time could influence the results of discipline-bound research, i.e. the very content of scientific knowledge. This idea, if still controversial, has since become commonly used in cultural studies of science, but at the time of its introduction it created uproar as it explicitly contradicted generally accepted and beliefs about science. Yet tectonic shifts were already underway, if not always visible, that would eventually put those very beliefs into question. 

The Forman study both reflected and forwarded these shifts in our general perspectives on the nature and practice of science. Despite some heated objections to its findings, Forman’s work has fundamentally changed directions of research in the history, sociology and philosophy of science and established itself as a classic in this group of fields, sometimes collectively called science studies.” ⁹

 

Thus Forman thesis played an important role in the spread of the sociology of scientific knowledge in the 1980s. Many of the pioneers of the new sociological approach referred to the case of quantum acausality as the single most powerful demonstration of the far-reaching influence of social factors on the hard theoretical core of scientific knowledge. ¹⁰

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mukherjee, S. (2010). The emperor of all maladies: A biography of cancer. New York: Scribner

2 Transcripts of Tehelka Conference ‘Think Fest’, Goa, India, November 2011

3 Taleb, N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House

4 Johnston, Sean (2009), History of Science A Beginner's Guide, One World Publishers, ISBN 9781851686810

5 Levy, J. (2010). Scientific feuds: From Galileo to the Human Genome Project. London: New Holland.

6 Forman, P. (1971) ‘Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment’, s.l.:s.n.1971. Print

7 Hendry, J. Weimar (1980), Culture and Quantum Causality, History of Science, Vol. 18, p. 155-180

8 Forman, P., Carson, C., Kozhevnikov, A. B., & Trischler, H. (2011). Weimar culture and quantum mechanics: Selected papers by Paul Forman and contemporary perspectives on the Forman thesis. London: Imperial College Press

9 C. Carson, A. Kojevnikov and H. Trischler (2011), ‘The Forman Thesis: 40 Years After’, Weimar culture and quantum mechanics: Selected papers by Paul Forman and contemporary perspectives on the Forman thesis. London: Imperial College Press

10 Entering the field as trained historians of science, Thomas Kuhn, John L. Heilbron, Paul Forman and Lini Allen embarked in 1961 upon the ambitious project of the Archive for the History of Quantum Physics (AHQP) — not an archive in the usual sense but a comprehensive effort to locate and catalogue an international body of manuscripts and correspondence of several hundred quantum scientists active between approximately 1900 and 1935. Taking a proactive approach to sources, the AHQP project microfilmed many crucial collections, bringing them closer to researchers. It also pioneered the technique of oral history in the history of science by recording interviews with about 100 physicists, including Niels Bohr, Max Born and Werner Heisenberg.

"Idea of Research University: Looking Beyond Humboldt and Heidelberg"

 Typically Research universities draw their inspiration from German Humboldtian model where research and teaching to undergraduates co-existed since its inception. This was greatly complemented by history of other German universities e.g. Heidelberg. In modern times, role of Research University is indisputably crucial in developing fundamental investigation of basic science, nation’s economic progress, advancement of technological frontiers in which direction its industries are moving ahead to evolve new products, processes and markets. Also, Idea of Research University stems from firm belief in core democratic values of freedom of expression, liberal culture of dissent, equality, justice and scope for normative debate. Many centuries old universities in Britain, Italy, France, Russia, Scandinavian countries and lately USA also reflect these values as mentioned above. ¹

How does the Research University evolve? What are the geo-political, economic, cultural reasons because of which establishment of research university is possible? Under which conditions it is possible to develop network and milieu of scholars for deeper interaction for enhancing the quality of debates and strengthening the scope for cumulative theorization in particular area of studies? How does an overall spatial dimension of the place help it to cultivate itself into a classic research university which then continues to transform into an institution which consolidates the position as a centre of excellence with reputation! Thereafter this reputation of being excellent acts as a magnet for scholars, funds, students, industries, and different socio-political movements and so on. This question needs further probing in the Indian situation.

Let us discuss Heidelberg in this context. Heidelberg, as a Geography of Science. Science has geography. We cannot separate the aspects of laboratory practices from the geographical dimensions in which university is situated. How science is communicated within practitioners and communities? What were the differences between scientific practices and procedures operated during the evolution of Research University over the time? How local milieu affects the character of the interactions in the university? What is the quality of knowledge environment prevalent in particular university? There may be ups and downs in scientific achievements in its history. What makes the environment attractive to the scholars? There are n number of questions should be asked when we discuss what makes an institution a great research university.

Great universities of Europe e.g. Prague, Vienna and Heidelberg emerged and excelled under the influence powerful political thrones. In Heidelberg, the great philosopher Martin Luther debated theology. Likewise, since many centuries Heidelberg was hub of intellectuals, Professors, experts, diplomats, artists, scientist etc. During its history, since 1386 A.D. (year of foundation), Heidelberg witnessed religious conservative debates, wars, economic crisis, and stagnation of research, regimentation of teaching system but attraction to come there to study and teach remained enduring.

In 1803, initiatives to arrest the decline made possible the restoration of the legacy of the university. In this year, the university was reestablished as a state-owned institution by Karl Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden, to whom the part of the Palatinate situated on the right bank of the Rhine was allotted. Since then, the university bears the name of Grand Duke and Ruprecht I. Karl Friedrich who divided the university into five faculties and placed himself at its head as rector, as did also his successors. Those were the times during which romanticism found expression in Heidelberg through speech, poetry, and art.

In 1803, the state of Baden-Württemberg where the university is situated spent more money on it compared to any other region in Germany. It had successful recruitment policy, open minded liberal atmosphere. University gifted the world renowned scientists and thinkers like Robert Bunsen, Hermann von Helmholtz, Gustav Kirchhoff and Max Weber, Talcott Parsons who later inspired generations to alter the course of philosophy, sociology, basic sciences, applied research and innovation. ²

Intellectual atmosphere in Heidelberg was marked by autonomy and it was not merely school of training but a sweet home with pleasant natural ambience of hills, forests and river by its side for scientists to mingle with each other. In the later decades of Heidelberg since its revival, it is free from religious supervision, political interference and is powerfully driven by commitment towards advancement of knowledge

Up to 1920s, Heidelberg became highly advanced in its research and demanding due to opportunities it awarded to scholars around the world. Why spatial mobility was crucially important for success of Heidelberg? Mobility makes a point in continuously ushering in new knowledge environments, new paradigms of learning and new frameworks of research skills-methodologies. Mobility inspires new ways of thinking. In effect, creative and innovative concepts coming out of generation of new thoughts nurture the scientific research and gives courage to contradict common paradigms of thinking. Several universities have great wealth of experience and funds. But if they do not offer mobility of opportunities and mobility of thinking filled with a sense of emotional attachment to their scholars then it cannot evolve into a legendary research university like Heidelberg. To illustrate this consider this; In 1849, Heidelberg University awarded James W.C. Pennington an honorary doctorate of divinity. Pennington was first African-American to take classes in major universities like Yale, wrote The Origin and History of the Colored People in 1841. This has been called the first history of African Americans, and a slave narrative in 1849, The Fugitive Blacksmith.

In modern times, especially in the era of post Second World War, three models of universities have been in much debate, practice and policy making. Massive investments in public research universities by USA, Grandes Ecoles of France (teaching only; while research by CNRS, INSERM etc.) and German Humboldtian pattern have been three predominant models since many decades. This was also the period of starting of linear progression model where first basics research is consolidated to move towards applied research and thus ushering in the phase of technology and prototype development. This model was successfully popularized due to legacy of Nuclear Energy Research Laboratories of USA. While during all recent years, notion of knowledge economy is being increasingly amalgamated into our consciousness, Research University is the central theme of that notion in post-industrial society. Thus in this era compared to pre-war age universities are larger, more complex and more segmented organizations. ³

Lately, Humboldtian model also has been criticized and scholars are looking for alternative model to Pre & Post Humboldtian system. Schimank & Winnes review two existing main trends. “First, the Humboldtian and the pre-Humboldtian pattern are increasingly criticized for their deficits. Thus, there is some movement towards an emerging post-Humboldtian pattern. Second, however, this new pattern is not stabilised anywhere yet, particularly because it is in the interest of professors to maintain or establish the Humboldtian pattern.” ⁴

We need to look Indian universities and ask further question to contribute in this debate. The possible questions to be investigated may be as following: ⁵

1. Are science and universities becoming more closely linked to societal needs?
2. What is the driving force of research in Indian Universities; Advancement of fundamental knowledge or applied research or commercialization?
3. What are the changing norms of social contract universities are supposed to adhere to in the society and country in which it operates?
4. In Post-Industrial Society, will ‘Institution of University’ survive?

Scientific world is witnessing multiplying sites of knowledge production where scientific knowledge is being subjected to more open public scrutiny through the means and efforts to facilitate interdisciplinary inquiry questioning the increasing specialisation. When the contemporary norms of 'Research University' are transforming themselves from their historical roots inspired by Humboldt, Hieldelberg; later altered and shaped by Vannever Bush`s 'Science-The Endless Frontier'.⁶ In contemporary times, rapid migration beyond transition from mode-1 (basic research) to mode-2 (applied research) knowledge production needs further detailed study in sectoral as well as regional contexts.⁷ This is especially true when boundaries between science, society and science, industry and government are becoming blurred. ⁸

 

A lot of attention has already been given to role of universities in dynamics of innovation from the point of view of ‘Research Ecosystem’ existing in the western world. Mowery & Sampat, who have done extensive work on this subject, say: “Scholarship on the role of universities in the innovation process, as opposed to their role in basic research, has grown rapidly since 1970. One important theme in this research is the re-conceptualization of universities as important institutional actors in national and regional systems of innovation. Rather than ‘ivory towers’ devoted to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a growing number of industrial-economy and developing-economy governments seek to use universities as instruments for knowledge based economic development and change.” ⁹

 

In India, idea of Research University is comparatively very new. The classic cases may be Indian Institute of Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Indian Statistical Institute, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science and likewise. Recent media discourse tracking status of S&T in India talks about shifting the focus of debate ‘From Centers of Excellence to Centres of Relevance’. Investigating questions discussed above and probing beyond this debate will empower us to understand the evolutionary undercurrents regarding where Idea of Research University in India is headed. ¹⁰ 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

REFERENCES

1 Clark, Burton R. The Research Foundations of Graduate Education: Germany, Britain, France, United States, Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Internet resource

2 http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/md/zentral/universitaet/geschichte/hd_nobelpreis_gb_2010.pdf

3 Geiger, Roger L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War Ii. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print.

4 Schimank, Uwe, and Markus Winnes. "Beyond Humboldt? the Relationship between Teaching and Research in European University Systems." Science & Public Policy. (2000): 397-408. Print.

5 Martin, Ben, The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University; in Geuna, Aldo, Ammon J. Salter, and W E. Steinmueller. Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub, 2003. Print

6 Bush, Vannevar. Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President. Washington, D. C: Govt. Print. Off, 1945. Print

7 Gibbons et al. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, SAGE, London

8 Nowotany, H, Scott, P & Gibbons, M(2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge

9 Mowery, David C, and Bhaven N. Sampat. "8. Universities in National Innovation Systems." (2006). Oxford Handbooks Online Print.

10 India Needs Swadeshi S&T, Sudheendra Kulkarni, 8^th January 2012, The Sunday Indian Express, New Delhi Edition