Critical technologies are redefining global power, but India’s research profile reveals a telling imbalance. India accounts for only 2.5 per cent of the most highly cited papers and only 2 per cent of scientists in the global top 2 per cent of most-cited researchers (Stanford–Elsevier report). China not only dominates 37 of 44 critical technologies (ASPI) but also converts this into sovereign strength through aggressive talent recruitment.
India ranks in the top five in 29 technologies but lacks the ecosystem to deliver consistent global breakthroughs. This has been coupled with explicit and implicit restrictions on high-technology exports and transfers from the US and China. The gap for India lies not in numbers or talent, but in quality, driven by a strategy to attract, embed, and retain top-tier researchers.
Global dynamics have created a narrow window of opportunity. The Trump administration has announced budget cuts upwards of 50 per cent for federal science grant-making bodies such as the National Science Foundation and NASA. In the US, only 15 per cent of STEM PhDs secure tenure track jobs within five years, down from 25 per cent two decades ago. Tightened visa regimes have left many Indian-origin PhDs and postdoctoral fellows stranded.
Some of them have been working in critical technology areas. Global powers are acting fast to make the most of the opportunity. The “Choose Europe for Science” conference at the Sorbonne underscored Europe’s intent to attract global researchers, with President Emmanuel Macron announcing a €100 million France 2030 fund.
China offers a striking precedent. Through its Young Thousand Talents Program (2011–17), it recruited 3,500 early-career scientists with substantial incentives, contributing to its rise from housing one to eight of the world’s top 10 institutions in the Nature Index by 2024. In advanced aircraft engines, including hypersonics, China now produces four times more high-impact research than the US, with seven of the world’s top 10 institutes.
Thus, India must urgently attract global talent in critical technologies, especially at a time when external factors have created a glut of highly trained researchers seeking opportunities. If credible pathways are not offered soon, these scientists will be absorbed elsewhere. Scientific careers are inherently time-sensitive, and a delay would mean losing an entire cohort capable of driving breakthroughs in semiconductors, propulsion, synthetic biology, and quantum communication — domains that will define strategic autonomy in the decades ahead.
The good news is that through the Anusandhan National Research Foundation and the Rs 1 lakh crore Research and Development Innovation Fund, the government has, for the first time in decades, committed large-scale, mission-oriented investments in science. This has been coupled with rapid Ease of Doing Science measures. The only significant missing piece is to attract top talent and get maximum bang for the buck.
Despite multiple fellowship schemes, India has not been very successful in attracting and retaining global academic talent. Compensation remains uncompetitive compared to global benchmarks, world-class laboratories and sustained research grants are often absent, and there are no clear pathways for long-term absorption or career progression. Most importantly, recruitment has not been tied to mission-oriented research streams in areas where India must develop sovereign capability, leaving efforts fragmented. This time, we must not make the mistakes of the past.
A viable solution is the establishment of a limited number of Focused Research Organisations (FROs) – like India Urban Data Exchange at the Indian Institute of Science – in frontier domains where India must build sovereign capabilities, strategically embedded within Institutes of National Importance that already possess demonstrable expertise in the relevant technology verticals. This model should aim to attract at least 500 top class researchers in the next five years to build critical mass.
Much of the talent must be early career (postdocs and incoming professors), who will be easier to attract and create a long-term pipeline of excellence. Provisions must allow existing Indian academics with proven track records in the relevant domain to be integrated into these FROs, either through joint appointments, rotational leadership roles or competitive project-based entry.
To ensure both technological depth and translational outcomes, these FROs should be structured as Section 8 companies with at least 51 per cent participation from industry, creating a true public–private–academy partnership. Crucially, they must be designed as permanent institutional structures rather than ad hoc schemes, providing long-term continuity, predictable funding, and clear pathways for global talent absorption, thereby embedding them firmly into India’s strategic research and innovation architecture.
For instance, IIT Delhi — having recently, in collaboration with DRDO, achieved a milestone in quantum entanglement-based free-space quantum secure communication over distances exceeding 1 km — stands out as a natural anchor for a national FRO on quantum communication. This model has four distinct design principles.
First, it resolves the issue of inadequate compensation for globally attracted faculty by pooling industry resources with state support, thereby ensuring internationally competitive salaries and sustained research funding. Second, it embeds strategic direction. Rather than spreading efforts thinly across institutions and domains, FROs create laser-sharp focus in select areas where sovereign capability is critical. Third, it fosters a hybrid ecosystem where global expertise, indigenous knowledge, and industry resources converge, ensuring that the FROs serve as enduring nodes of sovereign capability-building rather than isolated enclaves of imported talent. Finally, by establishing permanent, mission-driven structures with long-term continuity, FROs overcome the short-termism of ad hoc schemes and provide a predictable, credible pathway for talent absorption, innovation, and eventual translation into sovereign technological strength.
Delays in building such institutional mechanisms carry irreversible costs. Our calculations indicate that state investment in such an initiative will be very modest but lead to outsized impact. Without timely intervention, India risks ceding ground in domains that will shape future strategic autonomy and economic competitiveness. The choice, therefore, is not between acting now or later, but between creating pathways for sovereign capability and reconciling with long-term dependence.
Gopalakrishnan is co-founder, Infosys, and chair, IISc Council, and Dhawan is founder-CEO of The Convergence Foundation and co-founder of Foundation for Advancing Science and Technology
