Category: science

Raman’s pronouncements..

There is a story going around on Facebook related to C.V. Raman and Nehru, and it makes a reference to Raman’s biography. It describes Raman and Nehru’s interaction in a darkened room at Raman Research Institute. Intrigued by the story, I went back and checked some of the biographies of C.V. Raman, and I could not find that story. If someone could find the exact reference, please let me know. (update on 4th March 2026: I dug up the sources further and found this anecdote in chapter 21 of C.V. Raman: A Biography, by Uma Parameswaran, Penguin Books India (2011). Unfortunately, there is no primary or secondary reference associated with the anecdote.)


Among the biographies, Venkatraman’s ‘Journey into the Light’ is comprehensive and mentions Nehru at least 70 times. It does discuss quite a bit about the interaction between these two powerful people and their differences of opinion. It also highlights their common commitment to science and technology. Raman publicly expressed his opinion on the state of science in India. His pronouncements did not go unnoticed, and the press highlighted them. Raman’s biographer, Venkatraman, addresses the issue of Raman’s criticism: “It should not be assumed that Raman was merely making a series of arbitrary and disconnected pronouncements. On the contrary, they were symptoms of a deep concern he had begun to feel about the way science was being promoted. It seemed to him that in the rush for development, scientific excellence and the objectives of science had begun to take a back seat. Sycophancy was on the rise, and ill-equipped people were being propelled into seats they were not ready to occupy. Everyone paid lip sympathy to the universities, but when it came to funding them, they were generally forgotten. What was worse, mediocrity was slowly allowed to become institutionalized. In retrospect, Raman’s utterances, though harsh, implicitly carried a warning that was unfortunately not heeded. And despite all the pious hopes of that period, the linkages between science and technology in India continue to be quite tenuous.” ([Venkataraman, 1989, p. 488])

Having said that, I should mention that almost all of his biographers mention Raman’s confrontation with a variety of people, starting from his Calcutta days till the end of his life. Subsequent scholarship in social sciences has also highlighted Raman’s issue with gender and caste. In contrast to people like Babha, Saha, and Dhawan, Raman was not an institution builder. He had his limitations, but his commitment to science and its role in society is unquestionable.

As I have written before, Raman was not an easy character to study and understand. He contained multitudes. For sure, he was an outstanding experimental physicist. His knowledge of mathematical physics, especially the classical aspect, was very good, and he utilized it extensively in his work. His scientific biographers, both Venkatraman and Ramaseshan, mention that although he had the aptitude to analyze theoretical frameworks, he was more driven by intuition and generally skimmed over the mathematical aspect of his work. This was also observed by Max Born. He also mentored some excellent scientists, such as K.S. Krishnan, Nagendra Nath, Bhagavatham, Pancharatnam, and G.N. Ramachandran, Anna Mani (one of the few women in his lab), to name a few. Probably the most important feature of Raman as an individual was his can-do spirit and his lifelong drive to do science irrespective of the situation.

My broad lesson from all this is to take the positives from the science and the scientific pursuit of a scientist, and yet, remain aware of the flaws in the character of the human being. After all, course correction is from the benefit of hindsight, and its application is in the present and the future.

Raman essay and Open-Access

I see that the essay I wrote on CV Raman and made open access (thanks to Resonance, which published it) has been used by several educators on YouTube, including some in Indian languages. Also, the Google AI overview shows the published essay as the main reference for a search related to Raman’s science communication (see slideshow below).

I am glad to see that making one’s writing open to all has positive effects. Open-access, not just for readers, but also for authors, is beneficial. Especially in India, paywalls for science are a detriment.

My worry is that open-access publishing has been mainly driven by commercial publishers that extract huge funds from the publishing authors. This defeats the purpose of open science, especially when the research of an author is publicly funded. Added to that, Indian researchers and writers cannot afford to pay huge sums for publishing articles and books.

The publication landscape (including journals and books) across the world needs an introspection. Open-access model is effective only when the readers and authors have access to that model. Otherwise, the model becomes a paywall for authors.

Humanizing Science – A Conversation with a Student

Recently, I was talking to a college student who had read some of my blogs. He was interested in knowing what it means to humanize science. I told him that there are at least three aspects to it.

First is to bring out the wonder and curiosity in a human being in the pursuit of science. The second was to emphasize human qualities such as compassion, effort, mistakes, wrong directions, greed, competition and humour in the pursuit of science. The third thing was to bring out the utilitarian perspective.

The student was able to understand the first two points but wondered why utility was important in the pursuit of humanizing science. I mentioned that the origins of curiosity and various human tendencies can also be intertwined with the ability to use ideas. Some of the great discoveries and inventions, including those in the so-called “pure science” categories, have happened in the process of addressing a question that had its origin in some form of an application.

Some of the remarkable ideas in science have emerged in the process of applying another idea. Two great examples came into my mind: the invention of LASERs, and pasteurization.

I mentioned that economics has had a major role in influencing human ideas – directly or indirectly. As we conversed, I told the student that there is sometimes a tendency among young people who are motivated to do science to look down upon ideas that may have application and utility. I said that this needs a change in the mindset, and one way to do so is to study the history, philosophy and economics of science. I said that there are umpteen examples in history where applications have led to great ideas, both experimental and theoretical in nature, including mathematics.

Further, the student asked me for a few references, and I suggested a few sources. Specifically, I quoted to him what Einstein had said:

 “….So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth..”

The student was pleasantly surprised and asked me how this is connected to economics. I mentioned that physicists like Marie Curie, Einstein and Feynman did think of applications and referred to the famous lecture by Feynman titled “There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (1959).

To give a gist of his thinking, I showed what Feynman had to say on miniaturization:

“There may even be an economic point to this business of making things very small. Let me remind you of some of the problems of computing machines. In computers we have to store an enormous amount of information. The kind of writing that I was mentioning before, in which I had everything down as a distribution of metal, is permanent. Much more interesting to a computer is a way of writing, erasing, and writing something else. (This is usually because we don’t want to waste the material on which we have just written. Yet if we could write it in a very small space, it wouldn’t make any difference; it could just be thrown away after it was read. It doesn’t cost very much for the material).”

I mentioned that this line of thinking on minaturization is now a major area of physics and has reached the quantum limit. The student was excited and left after noting the references.

On reflecting on the conversation, now I think that there is plenty of room to humanize science.

Why is astronomy interesting? Chandra likes Wigner’s answer

The questions “Why is astronomy interesting; and what is the case for astronomy?” have intrigued me; I have often discussed these questions with my friends and associates. Granted that physical science, as a whole, is worth pursuing, the question is what the particular case for astronomy is? My own answer has been this: Physical science deals with the entire range of natural phenomena; and nature exhibits different patterns at different levels; and the patterns of the largest scales are those of astronomy. (Thus Jeans’ criterion of gravitational instability is something which we cannot experience except when the scale is astronomical.) Of the many other answers to my questions, I find the following of Wigner most profound: “The study of laboratory physics can only tell us what the basic laws of nature are; only astronomy can tell us what the initial conditions for those laws are.”

from A Scientific Autobiography: S. Chandrasekhar (2011) by edited by Kameshwar C. Wali 

‘We’gnana !

Recently, I saw the following tweet from the well-known historian William Dalrymple.

Congrats to the listed authors, who deserve rewards (and the money) for their effort.

I have 3 adjacent points to make:

1) India badly needs to read (and write) more on science and technology. Here, I am not referring to textbooks, but some popular-level science books (at least). Generally, educated Indians are exposed to science only through their textbooks, which are mostly dull, or, in this era, YouTube videos, which have a low signal-to-noise ratio. Good quality science & tech books at a popular level can add intellectual value, excitement, and expand scientific thinking via reading, not just in students, but also in adults.

2) In India, most of the non-fiction literature is dominated by the social sciences, particularly history (as seen in the best-seller list). I have no problem with that, but non-fiction as a genre is a broad tree. Indian readers (and publishers) can and should broaden this scope and explore other branches of the tree. Modern science books (authentic ones), especially written in the Indian context, are badly in need. I hope trade publishers are reading this!

3) Most of the public and social media discourse in India does not emphasize (or underplays) the scientific viewpoint. Scientific literature and scientific discourse should become a central part of our culture. Good books have a major role to play. Remember what Sagan’s Cosmos did to American scientific outlook, and indirectly to its economic progress. The recent Nobel in economics, especially through the work of Joel Mokyr, further reinforces the connection between science, economics and human progress. This realization should be bottom-up, down to individual families and public places.

One of the great scientists, James Maxwell, is attributed to have said: “Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of today a connected portion of the work of life and an embodiment of the work of Eternity.…“

Science, with its rich, global history and philosophy, in the form of good books, can connect India (and the world) to the ‘work of eternity’, and make us look forward.

Embedding science within culture, in a humane way, can lead to progress. Science books have a central role to play in this.

विज्ञान (Vignana) should transform to ‘We’gnana !

Ability to Wonder

More than 25 years ago, Prof. G. Srinivasan (RRI, Bengaluru), in an astrophysics class, narrated something that has stuck in my mind. 

I am paraphrasing here. 

He told us about a conversation he had with Prof. Jocelyn Bell, the discoverer of pulsars (rotating neutron stars). 

When Jocelyn was asked: What is the most important quality to do scientific research? 

She replied: ‘ability to wonder’.