In April, 1992, Indian Parliament created a history of sorts when in about five minutes the Lok Sabha voted without discussion demands for grants relating to 35 ministries and other heads, amounting to a little over Rs. 233,000 crore. The Speaker applied the guillotine on the discussion of the heavy weight ministries which included defence, atomic energy, space, steel, industry, civil aviation, electronics, energy, power, ocean development, chemical and fertilisers, communication and non-conventional energy sources. The ministry with the highest demands for grants approved without parliamentary scrutiny was defence with Rs. 17,500 crore.

Only a few days before the guillotine was exercised, the public accounts committee had criticised various scientific ministries, including defence and atomic energy. The Department of Space, in its Performance Budget, 1992-93 had claimed that the cryogenic technology for GSLV project 'has been obtained from Russian sources .... and GSLV is going on at a very fast pace'. It is therefore surprising that the Lok Sabha in its wisdom, decided to guillotine the discussion on these ministries. At best this is the success story of the bureaucracy which now governs the government. Has the officialdom now bypassed the provisions of participation in the policy decision making process?

Unchecked by the Parliament, the scientific bureaucracy, have usurped the policy decision making. From 1980 to 1989, several new ministerial level scientific departments were established costing a few thousand crore but without parliamentary consultation. The departments were established without necessary feasibility studies related to industrial and economic demands. Instead of introducing there topics as fields of research and studies in universities and technical institutes, national resources were diverted to build administrative setups. Establishment of these central departments were not discussed by the Parliament. Since no document justifying formation of independent departments has been made public, impression is created that if at all they were created for any scientific urgency.

Without proper accountability in the S&T organisations, inefficiency and nepotism may always gain the upper hand. The criticism is not directed at our national efforts for basic research, nor does one object funding new areas of research. On the contrary, technological advancement is crucial for our national development. But criticism must be directed less against specific projects than against the lack of democratic accountability inherent in our national science policy system. According to a parliamentary study carried out by a team of researchers led by Nirmal Haritash at NISTADS, less than 5% parliamentary questions deal with S&T issues. Another study conducted by C.P. Jayalakshmi at Energy and Environment Group, concludes that less than 3% print-space is given to science & technology by our national newspapers. Though the studies were carried out about 15 years back, but the situation has not changed much either.

The NISTADS study confirmed that 94% Members of Parliament believe that there is not much public pressure for raising S&T issues in the Parliament. But 87% MPs admitted that they hesitate in raising S&T issues in the Parliament due to their inadequate understanding of S&T issues.

In order to encourage greater coverage of Science Policy, it is also necessary that the MPs have better liaison with the scientific workers and should periodically visit scientific institutions. It is therefore suggested that Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology may formulate a strategy to bring greater awareness of S&T issues among MPs. In order to keep the MPs abreast of Science Policy issues, a Science Digest, prepared by Parliamentary Secretariate may also cover well researched articles and features, etc., with the help of scientists and science media. It is also suggested that the scientific societies may be invited periodically to discuss science issues with the MPs. Periodic meeting with independent science resource persons and science policy analysts should be arranged so that they may address MPs on scientific issues and provide them with updated studies and reports on the specific topics of interest which may be due for discussion in the Parliament.