For nearly five decades, India’s public spending on research and development has followed a consistent instinct: to preserve, implement and gradually improve what already exists. This approach brought scale and predictability. It has built respected scientific institutions, enabled major space and nuclear power missions, fostered a globally competitive pharmaceutical industry and underpinned India’s digital public infrastructure.
Also Read: Budget 2026: Relief for India’s aam aadmi lies in the fine print
However, despite these achievements, India is largely absent from the ranks of countries creating frontier technologies. We are strong adopters, integrators and scalers of innovation – but much weaker at creating foundational technologies and high-value intellectual property.
A useful way to understand this pattern is through India’s own civilizational framework of the trimurti philosophy of Brahma, the creator, Vishnu, the protector, and Maheshvara, the transformer.
Get the latest on Budget 2026 and related developments here.
Judging by Union budgets since the mid-1970s, India’s R&D ecosystem is undoubtedly Vishnu-centric. We excel in continuity. We deploy advanced technologies on a large scale. But we invest much less in Brahma-like creation, which is high-risk, long-term research that produces new platforms, materials and scientific discoveries. This imbalance is not just philosophical. It can be seen in the data.
India’s gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) has hovered around 0.6-0.7 percent of GDP for years. In comparison, Israel spends over 6 percent of GDP on R&D, South Korea over 5 percent, the United States around 3.4 percent, Germany just over 3 percent, and China around 2.5 percent and growing. These countries are not only spending more; they spend with a different intention and design.
India’s R&D allocations in the Union budget remain modest relative to total expenditure and fragmented across ministries and systems. This fragmentation encourages incrementalism and discourages risk. As a result, Indian firms and public systems have become exceptionally good at adopting innovations developed elsewhere, whether in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing or biotechnology, but less effective at creating them.
Also Read: New Infrastructure Imperative: Budget Priorities for High Growth, Low Inflation India
This is not a failure of talent. It is a failure of budgetary philosophy and institutional architecture.
Countries that lead in frontier innovation treat research and development as strategic capital, not current expenditure. The United States anchors high-risk research in multi-decade programs like DARPA and ARPA-E, insulated from annual budget cycles. The German Fraunhofer system closely links applied research with industry. China combines R&D investment with a long-term industrial strategy and has maintained high levels of funding for decades.
Despite the institutional differences, these systems share three features. They tolerate failure. They commit capital in the long term. And they organize R&D spending around national missions rather than fragmented schemes.
India’s recent budgets signal a new recognition of this reality. The announcement of a ₹1 lakh fund to support private sector-led research, development and innovation, followed by an initial allocation to operationalize it, is an important development. Expanding mission mode initiatives and challenge-based funding mechanisms also point in the right direction.
But the intention alone is not enough.
R&D budget with Vishnu dominant sustains what exists. A Brahma-oriented person builds that which does not yet exist. The difference is not just how much is spent, but how the spending is structured, managed and maintained.
Also Read: ‘Extremely dangerous time’ calls for strategic budget, warns former RBI chief Raghuram Rajan
Equally important and often neglected is the role of Maheshvara: transformation through redistribution. Without thoughtful mechanisms to terminate outdated programs, R&D budgets risk becoming a repository for legacy schemes. Resources are locked in past priorities, leaving limited fiscal space for emerging technologies.
Innovation leaders routinely cut back or merge programs that no longer serve strategic goals. Indian R&D frameworks rarely do this decisively. Rationalization of the scheme tends to be cautious and gradual, leading to fiscal inertia.
If Atmanirbhar Bharat is to move from assembly-level self-reliance to genuine intellectual sovereignty, the Union Budget must explicitly consider R&D as a strategic national infrastructure.
This requires several shifts. India needs a credible medium-term path to increase GERD to 1.2-1.5 percent of GDP by 2030. Mission-mode programs in frontier areas such as quantum technology, advanced materials, climate technology and next-generation manufacturing must be supported by funding horizons of 10-12 years, even if annual appropriations continue.
Funding tools must be designed to attract private venture capital (patient capital), not replace it, through co-investment and milestone payouts (or series venture capital funding). A formal mechanism for ending and reallocating legacy R&D schemes is necessary to free up fiscal space for future ventures. And government procurement must be used as a demand-side lever to help domestic technologies scale from the lab to the market.
India does not need to leave Vishnu. Maintenance and scale are national strengths. Without Brahma, however, India risks remaining the world’s most capable implementer of other people’s discoveries. Without Maheshwara, it risks having an expanding portfolio of legacy programs that will crowd out future innovations.
This year’s budget season presents a clear choice: continue to refine a system optimized for retention, or consciously rework it for creation. The latter is more difficult and risky. But it is the only way India can move from technological dependence to intellectual sovereignty.
The time has come for us to move intentionally, structurally and philosophically from Sthiti to Srishti.
Leave a Reply