top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 3:26:24 pm

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city...

Seventy-six mayors ruled BMC since 1931

After four years, Mumbai to salute its first citizen Kishori Pednekar Vishwanath Mahadeshwar Snehal Ambekar Sunil Prabhu Mumbai: As the date for appointing Mumbai’s First Citizen looms closer, various political parties have adopted tough posturing to foist their own person for the coveted post of Mayor – the ‘face’ of the country’s commercial capital. Ruling Mahayuti allies Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena have vowed that the city will get a ‘Hindu Marathi’ person to head India’s richest civic body, while the Opposition Shiv Sena (UBT)-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena also harbour fond hopes of a miracle that could ensure their own person for the post. The Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) optimism stems from expectations of possible political permutations-combinations that could develop with a realignment of forces as the Supreme Court is hearing the cases involving the Shiv Sena-Nationalist Congress Party this week. Catapulted as the largest single party, the BJP hopes to install a first ever party-man as Mayor, but that may not create history. Way back in 1982-1983, a BJP leader Dr. Prabhakar Pai had served in the top post in Mumbai (then Bombay). Incidentally, Dr. Pai hailed from Udupi district of Karnataka, and his appointment came barely a couple of years after the BJP was formed (1980), capping a distinguished career as a city father, said experts. Originally a Congressman, Dr. Pai later shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party, then back to Congress briefly, founded the Janata Seva Sangh before immersing himself in social activities. Second Administrator The 2026 Mayoral elections have evoked huge interest not only among Mumbaikars but across the country as it comes after nearly four years since the BMC was governed by an Administrator. This was only the second time in the BMC history that an Administrator was named after April 1984-May 1985. On both occasions, there were election-related issues, the first time the elections got delayed for certain reasons and the second time the polling was put off owing to Ward delimitations and OBC quotas as the matter was pending in the courts. From 1931 till 2022, Mumbai has been lorded over by 76 Mayors, men and women, hailing from various regions, backgrounds, castes and communities. They included Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, even a Jew, etc., truly reflecting the cosmopolitan personality of the coastal city and India’s financial powerhouse. In 1931-1932, the Mayor was a Parsi, J. B. Boman Behram, and others from his community followed like Khurshed Framji Nariman (after whom Nariman Point is named), E. A. Bandukwala, Minoo Masani, B. N. Karanjia and other bigwigs. There were Muslims like Hoosenally Rahimtoola, Sultan M. Chinoy, the legendary Yusuf Meherally, Dr. A. U. Memon and others. The Christian community got a fair share of Mayors with Joseph A. D’Souza – who was Member of Constituent Assembly representing Bombay Province for writing-approving the Constitution of India, M. U. Mascarenhas, P. A. Dias, Simon C. Fernandes, J. Leon D’Souza, et al. A Jew Elijah Moses (1937-1938) and a Sikh M. H. Bedi (1983-1984), served as Mayors, but post-1985, for the past 40 years, nobody from any minority community occupied the august post. During the silver jubilee year of the post, Sulochana M. Modi became the first woman Mayor of Mumbai (1956), and later with tweaks in the rules, many women ruled in this post – Nirmala Samant-Prabhavalkar (1994-1995), Vishakha Raut (997-1998), Dr. Shubha Raul (March 2007-Nov. 2009), Shraddha Jadhav (Dec. 2009-March 2012), Snehal Ambedkar (Sep. 2014-March 2017). The last incumbent (before the Administrator) was a government nurse, Kishori Pednekar (Nov. 2019-March 2022) - who earned the sobriquet of ‘Florence Nightingale’ of Mumbai - as she flitted around in her full white uniform at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic, earning the admiration of the citizens. Mumbai Mayor – high-profile post The Mumbai Mayor’s post is considered a crucial step in the political ladder and many went on to become MLAs, MPs, state-central ministers, a Lok Sabha Speaker, Chief Ministers and union ministers. The formidable S. K. Patil was Mayor (1949-1952) and later served in the union cabinets of PMs Jawaharlal Nehru, Lah Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi; Dahyabhai V. Patel (1954-1955) was the son of India’s first Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel; Manohar Joshi (1976-1977) became the CM of Maharashtra, later union minister and Speaker of Lok Sabha; Chhagan Bhujbal (1985-1986 – 1990-1991) became a Deputy CM.

India’s Choice: Compete with China or Create Differently

China’s dramatic rise as a scientific powerhouse has sparked frequent comparisons with India, often leading to calls for increased public spending on research. The disparity is clear. China’s gross R&D expenditure crossed USD 440 billion in 2022 (about 2.55 percent of its GDP) while India’s remains around USD 17 billion, or just over 0.65 percent of GDP. China filed over 85,000 international patents in 2023, compared to approximately 2,000 from India. These figures fuel the belief that India must scale up its investment in science and technology to remain globally competitive.


However, numbers alone do not capture the deeper contrasts between the two countries. China’s scientific surge is the result of tightly coordinated, state-led planning. Mission-mode programs like ‘Made in China 2025’ and the ‘14th Five-Year Plan’ have focused on artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and clean energy. Universities and research institutions are aligned with national strategic goals, and translational research is both encouraged and incentivized through well-integrated public-private mechanisms.


India, by contrast, faces systemic fragmentation. Research institutions often function in silos, industry linkages are weak, and bureaucratic delays hamper innovation. While Technology Transfer Offices are slowly expanding, they lack the agility seen in other innovation-driven economies. Many Indian scientists remain focused on publication counts rather than solving real-world problems. The recently operational Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) holds promise in addressing these gaps, but its impact will depend on sustained engagement and reform-minded implementation.


China’s system, however, comes at a steep cost. Academic freedom is constrained by political oversight. The restructuring of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2023 and the enforcement of ideological conformity across universities are reminders that research there is tightly controlled. While scientists have access to massive funding, their intellectual autonomy is limited. In contrast, Indian researchers, despite working with fewer resources, enjoy considerably greater freedom to choose their research directions, critique policies, and explore basic science without state interference.


That said, this freedom is occasionally interpreted in ways that risk detachment from societal needs. Under the banner of “curiosity-driven research,” some scientists pursue topics with little regard for long-term societal benefit. While open-ended inquiry is vital for scientific advancement, it should not become a pretext for disengagement from pressing public challenges. Scientific freedom must be balanced with responsibility. It is also worth appreciating that the Indian government does not impose ideological or programmatic diktats - a liberty rare in many parts of the world and one that should not be taken for granted.


Research integrity is another domain where both countries face serious challenges. China leads the world in retracted research papers. According to Retraction Watch, it accounts for over 30% of all retractions globally. Many are due to plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ghost authorship. A Nature analysis from 2021 noted that nearly 500 Chinese papers are withdrawn annually. The intense pressure to publish for promotions and rewards has led to the proliferation of paper mills and academic fraud.


India is not immune. It ranks among the top 20 countries in terms of retractions, with many cases flagged on platforms like PubPeer. Concerns include plagiarized text, duplicate images, and questionable authorship. The problem is compounded by the persistence of predatory journals, some of which were once even endorsed by regulatory bodies. While India has taken steps to weed out such journals, enforcement remains inconsistent. In both countries, the “publish or perish” culture incentivizes quantity over quality, eroding public trust in scientific literature.


These concerns raise deeper questions about how science is assessed, funded, and rewarded. If India is to strengthen its global position, it must not only spend more, but spend wisely. That means building trust-based funding systems, fostering industry-academia collaboration, supporting long-term research with measurable outcomes, and creating robust checks for ethical conduct. Simultaneously, India must reform the way it evaluates scientific work—moving beyond publication counts and impact factors to reward innovation, reproducibility, and societal relevance.


Would Indian scientists prefer the Chinese model in exchange for more funding? Most would argue that true innovation requires intellectual freedom. The ability to ask inconvenient questions, challenge prevailing norms, and explore unconventional ideas has always driven breakthroughs. India’s pluralistic, democratic, and culturally diverse ecosystem, despite its imperfections, offers a more humane and open foundation for scientific progress.


That said, India cannot afford inertia. Without structural reforms, efficient governance, and accountable institutions, it risks losing talent to systems that offer better infrastructure even if they come with restrictions. India must enhance its public science ecosystem while also incentivizing private sector R&D. Ethical research conduct, transparent peer review, and data openness should become institutional norms, not afterthoughts.


Rather than comparing itself to China or any other country, India would do well to build its own scientific path rooted in autonomy, integrity, and long-term value. Learning from others is both necessary and wise, but replicating foreign models without reflection is not. India’s strength lies in its ability to create differently, not merely compete. The real choice is not between catching up and falling behind, but between replication and reinvention. India has the opportunity to choose wisely.


(Disclaimer: This article is not a criticism of China or any other country. It is a reminder to Indian scientists to make the most of the financial and institutional support available in India and to ensure that their research leads to meaningful outcomes for society)


(The author is the former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page