The Republic of Reason

India’s Constitution tied freedom of thought to freedom of rule. The test is whether both can endure together.

As India turns 79, it is worth recalling that Article 51A(h) of the Constitution, added in the 42nd Amendment of 1976, calls upon every citizen “to develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” This is no mere symbolic statement. It places a real responsibility on each of us to think critically, question openly and value evidence. In India, political freedom was never meant to stand apart from intellectual freedom. Our founding fathers linked self-rule with the liberation of the mind and the advancement of knowledge, knowing that true independence is measured not only by land or economy but by the ability to think and innovate without fear.

Science thrives best where there is freedom. Its method depends on questioning, testing, and rejecting old ideas when evidence demands it. A scientific claim that cannot be challenged is not science but dogma. In a democracy, the right to question and dissent is not only protected by law but also valued as part of the culture. Scientists can present radical ideas, publish their work for peer review and debate openly, knowing their worth will be judged by the strength of evidence rather than by status or influence.

History shows that science and freedom often grow together. The European Enlightenment, which triggered great advances in science and technology, flourished alongside political freedoms, open debate, and the printing press. The United States combined democratic ideals with scientific ambition, producing breakthroughs from electricity to the internet. Ancient India also had great centres like Nalanda and Takshashila, where scholars from across the world exchanged ideas in an atmosphere of intellectual openness.

While even authoritarian states have produced scientific achievements, they have struggled owing to lack of openness. The Soviet Union made giant leaps in space exploration and physics but damaged its biology for decades by enforcing the politically favoured but false ideas of Trofim Lysenko, who rejected genetics and promoted unscientific farming methods.

This led to failed crops, food shortages and the suppression of genuine genetic research. China has made rapid progress in fields like renewable energy, high-speed rail, and artificial intelligence, yet restrictions on free debate can slow its scientific self-correction. North Korea, despite an educated population, has isolated itself from the global scientific community and fallen far behind.

India’s own freedom struggle illustrates the deep link between liberty and scientific progress. Colonial rule restricted local institutions and kept higher education under tight control. Yet leaders of the nationalist movement saw science as a tool for dignity and self-reliance. Pioneers like Jagadish Chandra Bose, C. V. Raman and Meghnad Saha produced original research despite limited resources, proving that creativity can survive under constraint but flourishes in freedom.

After independence, leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Homi Bhabha tied sovereignty to building scientific institutions, turning the constitutional call for a scientific temper into national programmes that expanded research and lifted aspirations.

In recent years, achievements like Chandrayaan-3’s Moon landing and the development of indigenous COVID-19 vaccines have shown how a democracy can unite skill, public trust, and teamwork to achieve global milestones. These successes depended not only on resources but also on the willingness to invite feedback, cooperate internationally and face independent scrutiny was as important as technical skill.

Science is not just a beneficiary of democracy; it strengthens it. Scientific literacy helps voters demand evidence-based decisions and hold leaders accountable. When science is ignored or twisted for political gain, democracy weakens. The pandemic demonstrated this as countries (New Zealand, South Korea) that communicated science openly and acted quickly often did better than those where misinformation eroded trust.

Even in democracies, research is not immune to pressure. Funding tends to follow political fashion, institutions risk interference and dissenting voices can be muffled. The threat lies less in outright censorship than in the quiet narrowing of inquiry. Scientific freedom means testing both orthodoxy and heresy.

Science rests on the premise that no theory is sacred; democracy on the principle that no leader is untouchable. Both thrive on feedback and open debate. In science, no experiment is definitive; in democracy, no election settles governance. Their resilience comes from humility before facts.

Of course, science and democracy are not the same. Science seeks truth regardless of public opinion, while democracy reflects the will of the people. Tensions arise when expert advice clashes with popular sentiment. A mature democracy handles this by respecting expertise without silencing participation. It treats scientific evidence as a public good, not a political weapon, and recognises that credibility comes from openness, not control.

The future will depend on how well we preserve this partnership. Authoritarian systems may act faster, but without checks, transparency and the creativity that freedom allows, their solutions can be brittle. Democracies can harness diverse talents if they protect the freedoms that make such diversity possible. India’s current debates over AI and renewable energy show how science can guide democracy, but only if both leaders and citizens put evidence before expedience.

Protecting this balance is not only the work of scientists but citizens as well. Scientists must engage with society openly, explain their work in clear language and be honest about uncertainty. Trust is the common currency of both science and democracy. When freedom and democracy are joined with responsibility and self-discipline, they can drive extraordinary progress.

As we step into the eightieth year of our independence, safeguarding science, freedom, and democracy is not just policy but part of our national character. Freedom and democracy give science its wings, and science gives them their direction. By defending them, we keep independence alive not just as a memory but as a living commitment to govern wisely and seek the truth fearlessly.

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