Scientific temper is key in these times

Nehru's perspective on what science was and how that shaped scientific thinking in post-independence India

More than 57 years after Jawaharlal Nehru’s death, his conception of the nation’s ‘scientific temper,’ a term he coined in his book The Discovery of India, remains freshly relevant, especially in these times of doubts over vaccines, modern medicine and governance principles. Scientific temper was a framework, Nehru argued, that one should adopt to overcome bias, prejudice and irrationality. He grounded his vision of modern India in it. As India grapples with Covid-19, conflicts between the Centre and state governments, and communal and caste-based violence, revisiting Nehru’s rich legacy and how scientific thinking embodied his approach to democracy, diplomacy and the economy, is essential. It is a blot on Nehru’s legacy to see that large swathes of India possess a temper, just not a scientific one.

In a speech titled, ‘The Spirit of Science,’ Nehru explained his perspective on what science was and how that shaped scientific thinking in post-independence India. He contended that through science, “We seek the cooperation of nature, we seek to uncover the secrets of nature, to understand them and utilise them for the benefit of humanity…the active principle of science is discovery…Science does not repeat the old in better ways but creates something new to the world and to human consciousness.” In essence, by embracing a scientific mindset, pre-existing ideas are challenged and eliminated from society, potentially removing prejudices.

To Nehru, “the basic thing that science should do is to teach us to think straight, to act straight, and not to be afraid” of accepting or rejecting ideas, as long as justifications for doing so are rational and logical. He hoped that India would develop a “social and scientific consciousness,” and reject communalism and religious bigotry that had resulted in the deaths of nearly a million people during Partition. Scientific temper was not limited to just developing scientific institutes or embracing economic planning but encompassed an approach to understanding culture and society.

Scientific thinking would help unite India and help it form a common aim for itself: the elimination of poverty. This view informed his vision of modern India, which would be fulfilled through a combination of economic planning, democracy, and the development of a scientific temper through universal education. This triad could overcome the biggest challenges facing India at the time — communalism, poverty and casteism. By truly embracing ‘the spirit of science,’ the country could also learn to question authority figures and, in turn, strengthen the democratic foundations of India. This sentiment is well reflected in a 1938 speech to the National Academy of Sciences:

“We have vast problems to face and to solve. They will not be solved by the politicians alone, for they may not have the vision or the expert knowledge; they will not be solved by scientists alone, for they will not have the power to do so, or the larger outlook which takes everything into its ken. They can and will be solved by the cooperation of the two for a well-defined and definite social objective.”

This speech showed how Nehru envisioned the challenges and the approaches needed for India to become a truly independent country. As Prime Minister, he made significant strides in achieving these aims, which India must remember today to overcome its crises of Covid-19, a shrinking space for dissent, and the limits of federalism.

Under Nehru, India became a leading diplomatic power, able to punch well above its economic and military weight in global affairs. His foreign policy of non-alignment was grounded in the view that developing nations had to chart their own destiny, independent of the superpowers. It was his belief and support in science that helped build India’s scientific institutes, from the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to the IITs, ISRO, etc.

India became a beacon of democracy in the post-colonial world as it was the only former British colony to not fall to military rule or to creeping authoritarianism as Pakistan and other former colonies did. Instead, Nehru’s presence in Parliament, his willingness to follow the rules of procedure, to the extent of being reprimanded by the Speaker, demonstrated a commitment to democracy and a fear of developing a cult of personality. His ability to respond to criticism from sections of Parliament, whether it was from the Jan Sangh or Feroze Gandhi, his son-in-law, are testament to the same. Free and fair elections were organised thrice in his reign that set the template for democratic transitions ever since.

Raghuram Rajan has called Covid-19 the biggest crisis India has faced since independence. At the time of independence, India lacked the resources, clout and talent that it has today. However, even with a poorly dealt hand, the violence of Partition, 200 years of exploitative colonial rule, and a lack of robust institutions to protect free speech and democracy, India charted a destiny away from authoritarianism and communalism under Nehru’s leadership. His scientific temper was at the heart of this achievement. India must find its scientific temper again.

(The writer studies Anthropology and History at Stanford University)