It is a pity that the Prime Minister had to announce a National Innovation Council on Monday to bring home to us that we must make continual changes in diverse spheres in order to stop marking time and move forward. The realisation should have come in the natural course. It should have sprung not from government fiat but from our experience of running economic organisations (such as farms, factories and businesses), administrative systems, or scientific or health or educational structures — in short, edifice of ev­­­ery kind in contemporary times. Clearly, this was not happening, or not happening at the needed pace. Thus, it is just as well that the government has stepped in to set up a high-level body un­der Sam Pitroda, a well-known innovator, to push the process al­o­ng. How one wishes the dynamics of our economic and social life had been robust enough to innovate constantly and to pressure go­v­ernments to bring changes in laws and procedures, and offer inc­entives and disincentives on a continual basis. Innovation, after all, is a way of life for all humans — at least for all human organisations, if they are not to stagnate and perish. In nature, this is known as adaptation, which leads on to ev­olution, without which no species could have moved to a higher stage. Innovation is thus natural to life and to living, some may argue its very essence. All great philosophies and religions underline this. Its occurrence is as true in the economic and social realm as evolution is in nature.
The industrial revolution in 18th-century Britain and subsequently in several parts of Europe was a dramatic manifestation over several decades of rapid institutional and technological change. All subsequent human progress was impossible in the absence of innovation or change in the way of doing everyday things differently in a manner that might lead to profit, in the process transforming ways of living. Typically, change or innovation follows in response to a society’s needs. It is thus that while we in India missed out on the first industrial revolution (possibly on account of our colonial status), we did not fail to catch the next train — the revolution in small chips that has made possible a leap in electronics, computers and communications technologies, allowing us to proceed to the front rank in some of these fields.
News reports indicate that the primary function of the newly-established NIC will be to evaluate policy initiatives in order to spur growth. If true, this appears misdirected. There are enough bodies already that are meant to guide policy after due analysis. If the NIC is to live up to its brief, it must find ways to raise productivity in agriculture and industry, in science, technology and in administration, by helping to arrive at new ways of doing things. Administration, in particular, should not be treated with coyness. It forms the very basis of our everyday failures in all official systems, and is the fount from which corruption proceeds in every sphere. It is a good beginning that the NIC hopes to take up the task of innovation in the sectors of small and medium industry, which account so distinctively for providing employment and netting export earnings. But a no less important task is innovation in our agriculture practices. Innovation can crucially depend on research and development. Tax breaks and other non-financial incentives need to be provided to make this happen. R&D outlays of companies are pathetic in India as compared to any other fast-paced economy. All things considered, the emphasis on innovation is to be accorded a welcome.