top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While...

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While protesters are readily caricatured as troublemakers or political pawns, Bhagwat has consciously rejected that temptation. By insisting that young demonstrators are neither anti-national nor outsiders but India’s own next generation, he has reframed the debate from one of confrontation to one of responsibility. While the protests spearheaded by Abhijit Dipke and his Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) took a notably ugly turn, leading many citizens to cast aspersions on the motivations on the protestors and their credibility, the controversy over examination leaks is nevertheless a serious and burning issue reflecting deeper anxieties among millions of young Indians about fairness, merit and opportunity. Bhagwat’s admission that “something that shouldn’t happen” had indeed happened, and that such failures indicated “a deficiency” requiring correction, was an important recognition that government institutions must be capable of introspection. Equally striking was his understanding of generational change. His observation that his own generation accepted authority while Gen Z demands logical answers was a graceful acceptance that democratic engagement has evolved. Young Indians today question institutions because they have higher expectations of them. Mature democracies do not fear such questioning, and that is what Bhagwat’s remarks implied. His approach may carry considerable political significance for the ruling BJP. India is one of the world’s youngest democracies, with more than half its population below the age of 35. By 2029, Gen Z will constitute one of the country’s most influential electoral constituencies. Alienating them through dismissive rhetoric or excessive force would have been politically costly. Bhagwat’s unequivocal expression of trust - going so far as to say that if asked to trust blindly, he would trust Gen Z - offers a markedly different message. It tells young Indians that criticism of administrative failures need not place them outside the national mainstream. In doing so, Bhagwat may also have blunted attempts by politically motivated groups to convert legitimate student grievances into a broader campaign of perpetual confrontation. Every democracy contains forces that seek to transform dissatisfaction into lasting alienation from constitutional politics. The surest antidote is not denunciation but through engagement. By recognising the legitimacy of protest while emphasising dialogue and democratic methods, Bhagwat has reduced the space for those seeking to escalate anger into indiscriminate agitation.

A Reckoning Beyond the Lab

As 2025 draws to a close, science and technology continue to shape global conversations. Artificial intelligence has become part of daily life. Space missions are more frequent and ambitious. New medicines are making their mark. Yet alongside this progress, public anxiety about technology, health, environment and data privacy has grown exponentially. Beneath the excitement and headlines lies a deeper concern that deserves reflection at the end of the year: public trust in science.


Science does not exist in isolation. Its real value emerges only when society understands, accepts and uses it wisely. Trust is the invisible link between laboratories and everyday life. When this link weakens, even strong scientific advances fail to deliver their full benefit.


Mixed Scenario

Across the world, public trust in science presents a mixed picture. In times of crisis, especially during health emergencies or natural disasters, people continue to rely on scientific advice. At the same time, scepticism has grown toward institutions, regulators, and large technology platforms. Many people trust science as a method, but question how scientific knowledge is produced, communicated, and applied.


India mirrors this global pattern. The country has achieved notable scientific successes in recent years. Space exploration, vaccine development, digital public infrastructure, and renewable energy initiatives have strengthened national confidence. Indian science has demonstrated its capacity to respond under pressure, and these achievements deserve recognition.


However, trust is not sustained by achievements alone. It is shaped by everyday experience. Citizens ask practical questions. Is the air safer to breathe? Is drinking water reliable and clean? Are new technologies tested carefully before adoption? Are medicines affordable and effective? When science appears disconnected from these concerns, trust weakens, often without loud protest.


Widening Gap

One major challenge is the widening gap between scientific complexity and public understanding. Modern science is complex by nature. Research papers are dense, data sets are large, and terminology is specialized. Complexity is unavoidable, but lack of clarity is not. Too often, findings are presented either as simplified slogans or buried in technical language. Both approaches damage trust. Oversimplification feels like promotion, while excessive jargon creates distance.


The media plays an important role in shaping perception. Science journalism has expanded, but it competes with misinformation, sensationalism, and the demand for instant attention. Early or incomplete findings are sometimes presented as major breakthroughs. Contradictory results are framed as failures rather than as part of the normal scientific process. Retractions and corrections, which reflect science correcting itself, are often portrayed as scandals. This confuses readers and weakens confidence. Social media has amplified these challenges. Direct communication between scientists and the public is a positive development. At the same time, unverified claims spread rapidly, often faster than carefully reviewed evidence. Individuals without scientific training can command large audiences, while expert voices struggle to be heard. Algorithms reward emotional responses more than accuracy, making trust fragile and easily distorted.


Another important factor is the perceived closeness between science, industry, and policy. Collaboration between researchers and industry is essential for innovation. However, when conflicts of interest are not clearly disclosed, public confidence suffers. People begin to question whether advice is driven by evidence or by economic considerations. Transparent disclosure and strong ethical frameworks are therefore essential.


The internal culture of science also influences public trust. Increasing pressure to publish frequently, secure large grants, and chase rankings has consequences. Quantity can overtake quality. Replication studies receive little attention and negative results often remain unpublished. When weak or flawed research enters public discussion, it does not remain a technical issue. It affects trust in science itself.


Education plays a central role in shaping long-term confidence. Scientific temper is not built by memorizing facts, but by understanding how knowledge is created, tested, corrected and sometimes rejected. Yet science education often emphasizes correct answers over questioning. Students learn conclusions without learning the process. This makes them vulnerable to misinformation later in life. India’s constitutional call to develop scientific temper remains highly relevant. Scientific temper does not mean blind faith in experts, nor constant suspicion. It means respect for evidence, openness to questioning, and comfort with uncertainty. Cultivating this mindset requires sustained engagement, not occasional campaigns.


Trust is also linked to inclusion. Communities that do not experience the benefits of science are less likely to trust it. When solutions ignore local realities, economic constraints or cultural practices, resistance is natural. Effective science communication treats citizens as participants rather than passive recipients.


Encouragingly, citizen science initiatives are gaining ground. Projects involving air quality monitoring, biodiversity mapping, water testing, and public health data collection have shown that participation strengthens both data quality and trust. When people contribute to knowledge creation, science becomes tangible and relatable.


Regulatory systems deserve equal attention. Transparent, competent, and independent regulators inspire confidence. Trust depends not only on outcomes, but also on clear and accountable processes.


In India, rebuilding trust will also require scientists to step beyond laboratories and journals. Engagement with schools, local communities, public forums, and regional languages can make science more accessible and humane. When scientists are visible, approachable and willing to listen, trust grows naturally, without persuasion or publicity.


At the global level, science diplomacy has become increasingly important. Challenges such as climate change, pandemics and resource scarcity require cooperation beyond borders. When scientific collaboration continues despite political tensions, it reinforces the universal value of evidence and reason. India is well placed to contribute meaningfully in this space.


Public trust in science cannot be taken for granted. It must be earned repeatedly. The future of science will depend not only on advanced technologies or larger laboratories, but on stronger relationships between science and society. As we turn the calendar, rebuilding and sustaining this trust may be the most important scientific challenge of all.


(The author is the former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, a Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay, and among the first recipients of the ANRF Prime Minister Professorship.)

Comments

bottom of page