“The research by Inaba (father of the world machine tools industry,
particularly the numeric control industry) took a sharper focus in March
1956 (the date is important) because of request by the then Chairman
of the Japan Machine Tools Association and President of the Machino
Milling Machine Company, one of Japan’s leading machine tool companies.
The previous fall, that is 1955, as part of the Japanese business community’s
expression of export market, a delegation that included him had been
sent to India. In a meeting with an Indian Machine Tools leader, he
was asked whether Japan could make machine tools with numerical control.
The Indians regarded numerical control as a sign of how advanced a Machine
Tools industry was and he was ashamed and distressed that Japan had
not made progress in this field. Fortunately he had attended a machine
tools show in Chicago and had seen a machine tool with a numerical control.
He replied that while Japan did not have a numerical control machine
tool, this questioner should come to the Osaka International Trade Fair
in the spring of 1958 to see what the Japanese could accomplish. The
rest, as they say, was history.”

I like to quote this example because I think its not the lack of knowledge
that as been our problem. We were perhaps the second country in the
world to have th converter at converters were just coming into being.
At that time they were the state-of-art as far as steel making was concerned.
Our problem has been with the translation of knowledge into products
and process on time. When we talk of technology it is not the capital
and labour, We are aware of the old saying “invented in United Kingdom,
innovated in United States and commercialised in Japan” For most product
and process and most technologies, that should be changed to read as
“known in India, invented in UK, innovated in the US and commercialised
in Japan”.

Our problem lies with our policies, in the barriers which prevent the
translation of this knowledge into specific products. So the focus of
what I am going to talk is really not at the knowledge level but at
a more operating, mundane, level of the translation of that knowledge
into something that consumers can buy, something that companies can
market.

S&T SO FAR

I will briefly highlight some basic problems which have characterized
our thinking on science and technology. These have prevented us from
moving in a more aggressive, product friendly, market friendly direction.
First of all, much of our technology model has been supply push dominated.
It is based on the assumption that you create an infrastructure, that
would help develop or generate technologies which would then be pushed
out into the market place which would be absorbed by industry and industry
would then translate that technology into products and processes. With
honourable exceptions, and I come to those exceptions little later,
that paradigm of technology in our country has been this model. It has
been oriented towards creating the institutions of supply rather than
looking at the instruments of demand.

SCIENTIST/SUPPLY PUSH DOMINATED

So, the first syndrome we must address is the mix between supply-push
and the demand- pull. Arising out of the supply-push fixation has been
that fact that Indian technology has been dominated by scientists. Policy
making, the administration and implementation have been dominated by
the scientists of tremendous eminence but I am afraid by scientists
whose knowledge of industry does not match their scientific expertise.
The first thing we need to look at is reorientation of our thinking.
After all, we are not pursuing scientific excellence but creating a
technological base, we have to reduce this dependence on supply- push
and the scientist-oriented model of technological growth.

OVEREMPHASIS ON FORMAL R&D

Arising out of this, there has also been over emphasis on formal research
and development.

In our discussion on technology, we seem to end up talking of investing
more in R&D, in laboratories, creating in-house R&D units. The fixation
arising out of the supply-push scientist model has been the pre-eminence
of formal white collar R&D. We measure our technology performance in
terms of how much investment we have made, how much expenditure we create,
how much allocations we make for formal research and development. That
is a narrow and a limited perspective on technology.

OBSESSION WITH FISCAL INCENTIVES

If policy makers have been obsessed with creating a structure for formal
R&D, industry has been over-concerned with fiscal incentives. If you
look at any industry document on what needs to be done to promote technological
growth, the standard solution, the standard one -point panacea, is give
us 133% weighted tax deduction and you will have technology “nirvana”
tomorrow.

FIXATION ON CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE

We have also had, both from industry as well as Government, a fixation
on creating II centres of excellence” this is, of course, born out of
the philosophy that if you can not reform the entire structure, then
try to isolate a few which you can build to world class. This creates
its own problems and I think we have suffered because of this not only
in technology but also in the social sciences. The philosophy of creating
a few centres of excellence divorced from the main stream of university,
divorce from the main stream of higher education, has created problems.
We need to take note of this.

LACK OF NETWQRKING/ALLIANCES

Also we have suffered because we have avoided the issue of networking
and alliances. Technological investments are beyond the scope of individual
companies but rarely do we find examples of multi-institution projects
which are build around competencies in a wide variety of areas. Infact,
if you look at the outstanding technological success in this country
whether it relates to Dr Dhawan or Dr Abdul Kalam, one of the lessons
you learn is that there were multi -institutional network systems. A
large number of institutions and people brought in their resources,
their expertise.

OVER-DEPENDENCE ON PURCHASES

The observe side of this coin is that institutions have been fixated
on the issue of technology purchases. The thinking that you find among
most of the industry is that if you liberalise the import regime for
technology, then we will somehow have a major technological advance.
From industry, there has been an over- dependence, may I say romanticization,
of the technology purchase argument namely that technology purchase
could be made if only Government liberalises the import policy regime
for embodied technology as well as disembodied technology.

45% OF S&T IN DEFENCE, SPACE AND ATOMIC ENERGY

We also have to address the rather sensitive fact that large part of
our science and technology effort goes into efforts of the Government.
Government is the major investor in science and technology. About 45%
of our science and technology effort is in the areas of defence, space
and atomic energy. This is not to say the defence, space and atomic
energy are not important but if you are looking at higher levels of
investment in industrial technology development then we have to address
this issue of relative priorities, so far as public funding of science
and technology is concerned, in a much more open manner than we have
done in the past.

There are examples from all over the world, including India, to show
that competitiveness comes not from the ability to develop the technology
but from our ability to commercialise and defuse the technology in the
quickest possible time.

There are areas Mr Bijlani mentioned where we may have no alternative
but to generate and develop our own technology. But, in a large number
of industrial areas, it is the ability to mobilise technology from whichever
source and the ability to digest the technology, commercialise it and
defuse it through the entire production system, which results in enhanced
competitiveness, and not simply by the ability to generate technology
per se which may be important I hasten to add, in some areas.

There is also the feeling that innovation is something of a breakthrough.
This is reflected in the pattern of our investments, in formal research
and development, the in-house R&D units, in separate buildings for research
which will somehow come out with breakthroughs in manufacturing processes,
of materials, or technologies that are of interest at the shop floor.
Experience teaches us that innovation is not just big bang but largely
incremental. Companies that have been successful have been those that
have invested in incremental innovations year after year, making minor
improvements in production processes which is perhaps as important as
changing technologies once in 8 or 10 years. This thinking is important
because we are fixated somehow in that we have to make a major technological
transition. One of the reasons why this happens is that there are very
few companies which invest year after year in small technological improvements
which are perhaps invisible to the external world but are very much
part of the production process. One of the lessons we learn from the
Japanese successes particularly in electronics and automotive industry,
is that innovation is as much incremental and blue -collar as much as
it is breakthrough or a major technological discontinuity in terms of
products and processes.

Finally, the problem in technology, so far as industry is concerned
is that we tend to look upon technology either as equipment, whether
it is CNC or FMS, or in terms of practice, whether it is Just-in- Time
or Kan Ban or TQM. If we look at world experience, technology is as
much hardware, as much equipment, as much practice as much as it is
the design of organisation The assembly line was an organisational revolution
in the way work flowed in the shop floor. What, after all, is Toyota’s
Just in Time, Kan Ban inventory control system which many people have
argued is the key to the success of Japanese automotive industry? Kan
Ban is a way of organising the work flow and the organisation of men,
materials, information at the shop floor level. It was not the introduction
of new equipment. But the redesign of work methods, redesign of work
flows and the redesign of organisation which resulted in this competitiveness.

COMPETITION IS A PRE-REQUISITE

I think we recognise that competition is a fundamental prerequisite.
Without competition we are not going to get companies thinking about
technology. This has been my experience over the last 4 to 5 years.
My experience is that a large number of companies have had a major change
of mind-set and they are beginning to look at technology as a key element
of their competitive strength. These companies are not just in the export
business, not just looking at global markets but also at internal markets.
Brutal internal competition is a fundamental prerequisite to getting
companies to think rationally on technology. I might say here that we
are a long way from having an internally competitive market. There are
still very many barriers to competition in this country. Unless these
barriers are removed, many of the things we are talking about will be
in the realm of theory. So a fundamental prerequisite is a strong internal
competitive focus as far as industrial markets are concerned. We all
agree that there will be a role for publicly funded technological effort
but we also agree that it must have greater clarity and focus. I will
come to that a little later.

COMPANIES WILL INVEST BUT INDUSTRY TOO HAS A ROLE

We recognise that ultimately companies are going to invest in technology.
The production units have to invest in technological effort. So the
focus of my presentation is not on what individual companies are doing,
but what industry as an organised body is doing. While companies will
have a major focus on investment, industry as an organised body will
also have an important role as far as spreading the technological message
is concerned. We need to distinguish between the development of technology,
the application of technology and the diffusion and the mobilisation
of technology. There are areas in which we have no alternative but to
develop our own technology and there will be areas in which we should
not waste our time, The question is how to mobilise the technology from
whichever source it is available and put it into our production apparatus
in the quickest possible time. Then there are areas where we have to
look at the diffusion of technology.

THE HUMAN RESOURCE PARADOX

I would like to begin on industry’s role in the new technology paradigm
by discussing the human resource paradox because the important role
that CII ought to play in the area of technology is in upgrading the
base of human resource in the country. Some of the figures are well
known, but let me just go over them.

The higher education subsidy last year exceeded Rs 3000 crores. Cost
recovery is less than 18%, if we take all of higher and technical education
put together, all the Centre & the States put together. We have the
third largest manpower stock in the world. This is well known. But the
paradox is that there are shortages every where. You talk to any body,
you talk to software people and they will tell you what is preventing
India from emerging as a world software leader is shortage of manpower.
You talk to the bio-technology people they will tell you its the shortage
of bio-technologists, if you talk to pharmaceutical companies they will
tell you their biggest problem is not patent laws or govt policies but
that there are no people to do all the things that they want to do in
the changed economic environment. It is a paradox that we have the third
largest stock of scientific and technical manpower but there seems to
be a mismatch between what we produce and what industry wants. The common
refrain of all companies today is shortage of manpower.

One problem is in the proportion of enrolment in higher education. Over
the last 15 years there has been a growing proportion of enrolment in
the areas of history, physiology, commerce, law, indeed the more “worthless”
discipline, namely economics. For enrolment in science & technology
we have the figures for the last year; 25% of higher education enrolment
could be classified as related to science and technology; 20% in the
sciences and about 5% in engineering and technology. Within the 5% of
engineering and technology about 50% are in traditions civil and mechanical
engineering. So even in the technological and engineering stream, in
terms of the proportion of enrolment, there is mis-match between what
industry is demanding and what our institutions create.

EDUCATION BUDGETS ARE ALREADY BEING SQUEEZED

In the last 4 years we have had the fiscal squeeze -one of the negative
fall -out of the economic reforms is that education budget are being
squeezed. It is a mistake to look at only the Central budget for education.
That accounts for only about 15% or so of the overall education outlay
in the country. 85% of the education budget is with the State Government.

Even in nominal, not real terms, many State Governments’ education budgets
are declining. The simple reason is that education is not a ‘contractor
intensive’ sector. Those sectors which are contractor intensive e.g.
power, irrigation and so on survive the fiscal squeeze. Non contractor
intensive sectors, namely higher education, health, nutrition get the
first cut.

PUBLIC SPENDING WILL NEED TO BE RE-ORIENTED TO PRIMARY EDUCATION

Of course, we have to content with the fact that Government will one
day re-orient its spending to primary education. This is the stated
objective of economic reforms. We are implementing these reforms because
we want to invest more in primary education. Less than 30% of our total
education budget goes little preliminary education today. I mentioned
the paradox that we have such high subsidy for higher education in an
environment where half the proportion of our population is illiterate.
It would be only realistic to expect that in the years to come, the
greater public expenditure in education will be for primary education.

GREATER ROLE FOR INDUSTRY IN HIGHER & TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Under these circumstances there would be a greater role for industry
to invest in higher and technical education. We should also learn from
world experience that professional association have a very important
role in building up the technical base. This is an area which has not
received full attention in this country.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS TOO WILL HAVE INCREASED RESPONSIBILITY

We have a number of professional associations in various areas of engineering
and technology. It is not as if they are not doing it but, once the
Government squeeze on support for higher education comes into full prominence,
then the role of these professional associations -the Institution of
Engineers, the Institute of Electronics & Telecommunication Engineers
-in creating a base for skilled manpower will increase. We will have
to look at industry support for many of these professional associations
rather than seek government support which is going to decline in absolute
and proportionate terms.

FOCUS ON BASE-POLYTECHNICS, ITIs, VTCs, TOOL ROOMS

What can industry do in the area of HRD ? There is an important role
for industry in the upgradation of manpower in polytechnic, ITIs, Vocational
training centres. In tool rooms we have some good success stories. The
outstanding success in this as far as industry support for human resource
is concerned, is the German model. In vocationalisation of technical
education the industry makes a long term partnership with the trainees.

INDUSTRY SUPPORTED CENTRES IN A FEW MAJOR CLUSTERS

Without going into the German model, there are a number of success stories
within our country which need to be talked about and replicated. The
Thapar Polytechnic in Patiala is a good example. There is Walchandnagar
which used to run a successful polytechnic institute at Sangli. There
are a number of examples where industry has supported the development
of this base. I am not talking of higher education, I am talking of
the base which creates inflow of skilled manpower into industry. A number
of companies like TELCO, Bajaj and so on, have created their in-house
centres. I am not talking of in-house centre of training” because these
are for company’s own needs. I am talking about the investment in a
larger body of people, distinct from companies investing in training
for their own specific needs.

We need to focus on the polytechnics, the network of ITIs, the Tool
Rooms and so on. It is within the scope of an Industry Association,
like the CII, to take up a few Vocational Training Centres and run them,
invest in them, and bring them to some standard. One of the characteristics
of India’s development is that there is an extreme degree of specialisation.
About 50 centres account for 80% of all industrial production. Places
are linked with specific industries: pump sets at Rajkot and Coimbatore,
leather at Ranipat and Agra, for Sports goods, it is Meerut, Brass Work
at Moradabad. We need to take advantage what Michael Porter had called
the “cluster” approach. We have 50 or 60 clusters of entrepreneurship
development. Ludhiana is another good example. In these areas we need
industry supported centres of technical manpower development of the
type I mentioned earlier.

TASK IS TRAINING -NOT LAND AND BUILDINGS

Second, there is no technical training for manpower across the industry.
Companies individual training units, yes, but industry as a whole investing
in building and upgrading the manpower base -no. I would like to underscore
a point which often gets neglected. The task for industry, for CII,
is training. It is not to acquire land and buildings. The first thing
we do when we talk of institutes and training is to acquire land and
buildings. I would like to give an example. There is a national institute
for Pharmaceutical Research and Education being promoted by the industry
in Chandigarh. Its a good example of how industry is interacting with
Government and investing in human resource development, but, sadly when
I went to Chandigarh recently, I could see 200 acres of land and 3 guest
houses but no training.

This is the story of much of India’s institutional efforts. The focus
becomes acquisition of lands, auditorium, guest houses, director’s bungalow.
Every institution has a separate Directors bungalow in splendid isolation
and then we preach the virtues of equality and breaking down of hierarchies
and so on. Even in today’s context, we have not changed. For 5 years
we don’t train but spend on acquiring land and building by which time
the game is lost. What we need to do is to focus on the real task: training
of manpower. A good example is C-DoT. 10 years after it was set up,
C-DoT does not have a building of its own. It is still operating out
of Akbar Hotel. If they had reversed the priorities they would still
be setting up a campus and we would not have had the manpower development
that C-DoT has had.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS MUST UPGRADE STANDARDS

Professional associations must upgrade their standard to international
quality. We are witnessing this in the commerce arid financial fields.
We need to see this in technology and engineering where we aspire for
international certification. We have started with ISO 9000. It is important
that the standard of certification of the professional associations
is also upgraded. A good example is NIIT whose standard is being recognised
in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. This
is a good example of an industry fund, industry supported initiative
purely in the area of manpower development but with international standard.

SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THE NEEDY SO THAT COST-RECOVERY BECOMES POSSIBLE

In the US system, cost recovery is possible because industry undertakes
the right to these institutions of higher learning. If you take even
the IlTs -and there are two distinguished Professors and Directors of
IITs with us today -they will bear me out -there are very few examples
of industry support on a long term basis. One reason why cost recovery
is difficult in higher education is because students can’t afford it.
If we have a liberal system of scholarship, funded by Government as
well as industry, and are able to increase the fees, we can have a reasonable
cost recovery. Then this extra ordinary subsidy on higher education
can be reduced so that more investment can go primary education. Endowments
is a standard, time-tested, way of supporting higher education. It has
been tried in other countries.

The message I want to convey is that the focus is not on mere consultancy.
We are talking of longer term support for development of people and
of teaching skills. I feel the really important role for CII is in the
area of creating and upgrading human resources, and of supporting the
development of human resource in institutions.

INDUSTRY & NETWORKING

Let me get on to another second important aspect of industry support:
the area of networking. Investments in technology are of a magnitude
that individual units cannot afford but there are a number of centres
and areas which have people who should need to be brought together.
The success of Space and Defence is the ability to network across a
wide spectrum of institutions and people, have project managers, create
multi-institution linkages in the context of specific problems. We need
industry to look at this, particularly in generic areas, in areas of
pre-competitive technology development.

INTERNATIONAL NETWORKING

Domestic networking is important but equally important is the area of
international networking. We have had for many years the UNDP funded
TOKTEN programme to transfer knowledge through expatriate nationals.
Industry should have its own version of a TOKTEN programme to attract
six top technologists working in industry abroad and expose them to
Indian industry. The idea is not to simply expose them to laboratories
or institutions or government departments, but to expose them to industry.
We need an industry-supported initiative to attract these people. In
many areas, we have lost the best part of generation to United States
and other advanced countries. It is now in industry’s own interest to
bring them back perhaps on short term basis. In a number of areas this
networking becomes feasible if it is supported by industry association.

OVERSEAS FUNDING/ACQUISITIONS-JAPANESE EXAMPLE

We have talked of acquiring overseas companies. Japanese companies routinely
fund research projects in Institutions of advanced learning in the United
States in areas Which they see are important to Japan 5 years from now.
There is no reason why companies which are at cutting edge of technology
can’t make use of this network. We have much more flexibility on the
current as well the capital account. Acquiring overseas companies is
not the only window for acquiring technology from overseas. We underwrite
and support technology effort where it exists overseas.

PROACTIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM IN THREAT AREAS

The key in the new technological paradigm is ‘information -particularly
in threat areas. We need information with data bases. Today our system
is such that we respond where there is a crisis. When the Germans banazo
dyes, then we say world is prohibiting India from exporting. I think
what we need from industry association is an information system, as
part of the global scanning process, a system that gives information
on a proactive basis. Most of this information is available so that
Indian industry can take advance action rather than be forced to respond
to crisis as and when they arise.

INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY JOINT VENTURES

The third area where Industry has a role to play is in the area of technology
oriented joint ventures. So far we have sold India as a low wage island.
We should stop doing that. We should sell our base of skilled manpower.
Our skilled manpower is available at low wages internationally. The
proportion of labour cost is coming down dramatically. Today there is
perhaps no industry in which labour cost exceeds 18%. Even in textile
industry, the high end of labour costs contribution does not exceed
15-16%. Labour cost advantage is fast being eroded even in traditional
areas.

We need to aggressively market India as a major R&D destination. Recently,
Dupont and NCL had agreement in the area of agro chemicals. Few years
ago we had Astra -IDL joint venture in pharmaceuticals. Of course the
catch is our weak patent laws. If we continue with the present patent
regime, this is not going to happen at the rate which we hope it should
happen. The change in the patent laws and patent administration is very
important.

INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION SERVICES

A fourth area for industry initiative is technology extension services.
We need a focused approach to provide services to small and medium industry.
One of the lessons we have learnt is that the entrepreneurs knowledge
of technology is far more contemporaneous and upto date than the Government
departments. We cannot expect Government Department to do this on a
large scale. These institutions need to be upgraded before they can
provide service to entrepreneurs. We need industry -run extension centre.

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SEGMENTS -SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE

To establish the link between small, medium and large industry, we need
to have cluster approach towards some of the basic standards e.g. testing,
design, manufacturing may be decentralised but some of these technology
relates activities could be centralized. The NIFT (National Instt of
Fashion Technology) is a good example where industry is dispersed, but
the design and quality control standards centralised. A number of companies
are doing this but it has to be done at a much more aggressive manner.

INDUSTRY & CONSORTIA

The sixth area for industry activity is in the building of consortiums.
One of the most discussed example of technology consortium is not in
a developing country but in the developed free market economy of the
United States -SEMA Tech -the Semi Conductors Consortium, set up by
American companies who are normally competing but who decided they need
to pool their resources together, get funding from Government to develop
cutting-edge technology and meet the Japanese threat. This is a good
example competitors have got together. The Govt has to come forward
and invest in certain generic areas which are of importance not just
to one company, but to industry as a whole.

COOPERATIVE FUNDING BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT

Technology financing is an important area we have not talked about.
There are critical gaps in resources in specific areas e.g. prototype
development or the first demonstration plant. Who will put up the money,
for example for the first desalination plant for Madras city? For the
last 5 years, we have been going round in circles. There is lot of money
for membrane research for people going abroad and buying membranes,
for setting up desalination plant some where else in the world. But
for the first desalination plant for Madras city to demonstrate application
of membrane, there has been no funding. The critical gap is the first
demonstration.

It is difficult to get the finances for these technologies. Unless you
demonstrate these technologies on a commercial scale, you are not going
to see proliferation and diffusion of technology.

VENTURE CAPITAL FOCUS

We need greater focus on venture capital. Large number of Govt regulations
are imposed by Ministry of Finance on the growth of venture capital.
We need to look at some of these regulations and expand the supply of
venture capital to make it attractive for these companies to support
many of the technological activities.

One institution not talked about in technology is the OTCEI. It is important.
OTCEI was set up to promote technology ventures, to provide financing
for technology ventures. Unfortunately, every body goes to the Bombay
Stock Exchange because there is a rule that above 3 crores equity you
can go to the Bombay Stock Exchange. This has created a problem where
the institution which was created for specifically promoting small entrepreneurs
for promoting technology oriented ventures has only about 45 or 50 companies
in its portfolio.

INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY SPIN -OFFs

Finally, there is the area of spin off. Almost half our science and
technology efforts goes into Defence, Atomic energy and Space. These
are enclaves of expertise. Industry has an important role to play in
identifying some of the spin-offs. We need a mechanism by which industry
associations work and interact on a continued basis with these bulk’
demander’ of technology. DGTD was suppose to do this, but with its abolition,
we don’t have this any more.

INDUSTRY & STANDARDS

There is also the issue of standards when we talk of technology development.
This may not seem a fashionable topic in a market economy but standards
have an important role to play. It is not that standards are always
mandated by the Government. It is a mix between market mandating standard
and Government and Industry working towards imposing some of the standards.
With the Uruguay round, the issue of statutory standards of testing
and upgradation of the standards to international levels becomes important.

INDUSTRY & GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY SCAN

There is an important role for CII in the area of technology scan. Contrary
to most public opinion, much of the information on technology is in
the public domain. What we need for industry association is a continuing
link with Universities, Foundations, on-line databases, individuals,
people in the various institutions who have retired. Technology is ultimately
embodied in people and to the extent we build networks with people,
we create technology scan. We need our intelligence gathering system.
One example is how Pakistan assembled the bomb. It was an example of
how they broke old rules and regulations but some’ how got technological
expertise and knowledge from a diverse set of sources and met their
objective.

INDUSTRY VALUES & TECHNOLOGY

Finally, when I talk of industries association, we must address the
issue of values. What value does industry place on technology ? How
many CEOs today are from the technology stream. I did an exercise recently
and could name only 14 chief executives out of 350 of India’s leading
companies who could be called Technologists. What is the premium placed
on technology ? Less than 4% of the nominees of financial institutions
come from technological and engineering back ground. It boils down to
what value we place on a MBA V s M. Tech, the value we place on the
importance of technology as an element of competitive strength and as
part of our corporate vision.

TRADITIONAL INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY

One of the myths unfortunately the planning commission did much to propagate
in 1985-86 was that there are sun-set and sun-rise industries. I am
glad Mr Bijlani gave the example of textiles earlier because, if you
look at where the technological efforts are going to be in the years
ahead, it is really in these industries which we traditionally call
sun set industries. Our technological discussion gets fixed on so-called
“high-tech” industries. We need to look at some of these industries
in which our competitive strength lies -textiles, agro processing, jute
fibres, natural fibres. This is where we need major technological inputs.
These are some areas for publicly funded research and development.

CONSUMER GOODS INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY

Another problem is that we tend to look at technology, largely in terms
of capital goods. Capital goods is important for technological development,
but the impetus for innovation also comes from consumer goods. If we
have a consumer goods industry that is protected, we are not going to
get technological inputs in terms of reducing costs and improving performances.
The artificial distinction we have maintained between the consumer,
capital, intermediate and basic goods has created the mistaken belief
that technology is important for one and not for other. There are areas
of consumer goods Where technology inputs are of great significance
as far as industry is concerned.

SCALE & TECHNOLOGY

We have also tended to think that bigger the plant, more cost effective
the technology. For many years, the belief has been that bigger the
fertiliser plants, the more cost effective and energy efficient they
are. Advances in technology have made mockery of economy of scale in
production. Today we have ammonia plants of 400 tonnes per day which
is as cost effective and energy efficient as 1500 tonnes per day. World-wide,
technology is coming from small and medium industries, not from large
corporations. It is entrepreneur driven, research driven. For the technological
stream to come out into the production process, we need to recognise
that technology is making small-scale more cost effective though not
“small” and “medium” as defined by us.

INDUSTRY INITIATIVES

So, let me end by throwing some ideas we can discuss. You have talked
about the Technology Summit. The Summit can be a forum where we can
draw the best of people, the best of technological talent, not just
from India but from all over the world. Can CII invite 6 outstanding
international technologists to come to India for 3 to 4 months to talk
to Indian industry on what is happening in the world. We need to integrate
them with the main stream of industrial activity. The top man in CFC
research in Dupont who has been given leave of absence just to think
of what the future of the world would be without CFC, is a chemical
technologists of Indian origin. This is one example of such people working
industry, who can come to enthuse, motivate and also share what they
have been able to gain. This is a fantastic way of getting people back
because they are not going to come over permanently.

There is a role for industry to adopt polytechnics and ITIs for turn
around. One could take in, an industrial cluster, a polytechnic and
an ITI and provide a major up gradation in terms of manpower and equipment.

One specific venture with a consortium approach in which competitors
could get together on a cooperative basis with Govt, could be in the
areas of generic technologies. These could be micro electronics, bio-technology,
areas of national importance. It is important for an initiative to come
from industry association. We also need to look at whether we can have
these R&D type of joint ventures in specific areas like materials. I
hope today the economic environment has changed sufficiently for industry
to take the initiative.

How about CII Technology Awards jiJr outstanding achievers in the field
of technology development and application, both in the area ofhuman
resource as well as in the corporate world? I think these awards are
important to demonstrate that this is an important area of activity
and that these people are being recognised for their contribution.

There is also a role for science popularization. Ultimately, we are
talking of building of scientific temper, of creating of awareness of
science. My experience with television over last year and a half shows
that a number of Indian companies want to sponsor soap operas but I
can’t get a company to sponsor a 13 part serial on what India’s technological
tradition was or India’s science needs are or a programme for popularising
science. We are not talking of building awareness of technologists and
scientists sitting in laboratories or corporate officers, but of young
people -training them, making science exciting in their lives. I am
afraid there have been very few takers from industry for such initiatives.

It is not my intention talk about what CSIR ought to be doing or what
DRDO or what Govt ought to be doing, or what individual companies ought
to be doing, but the focus here is on what CII as an association can
do to get people together thinking along these areas.

Let me end by saying that I hope we have four or five concrete initiatives
in the area of technology. This is the third brainstorming session technology
I have attended in the last 4 years and we have now got a cross section
of people from Govt, from Industry. I hope we will have a few mundane
but very specific things to show that technology is just as important
as excise as customs as taxation. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr Chairman. ]airam is right. We need something to show. I
think under your leadership we should be able to commit atleast four
concrete initiatives. Each of the points raised by Jairam in his presentation
merits serious follow up. Industry needs to focus more clearly and I
think, by and large, there is agreement on the points he mentioned.
It is a question of networking within industry. A lot of companies are
doing work but we have not been able to pool our resources in these
areas. Technology will have to be the focus area for Chief Executives.
Like we did 8 years ago on quality, CEOs would have to buy into the
fact that technology is crucial in their organisation and demonstrate
their commitment .

Mr Bijlani

We have a draft workplan for the rest 12 months which we want to define.
Would you like to share your perspective as a Chief Executive on one
or two areas which you think should engage the attention of CII ? You
just said, you want to see technology discussed at the Board level and
engage Chief Executives attention. Are there some specific areas that
appeal to you from the points Jairam raised ?

Mr Avininder Singh