Sharmila Ganesan Ram
About the need for nuance when researching historically important scientists and engineers such as Visvesvaraya
Six years ago, your first book, ‘The Birth of an Indian Profession’, examined the history of engineers in India between 1900 and 1947. How did the role of engineers evolve during these inter-war years?
In those years, a new type of engineer rose to prominence, namely engineers working in large-scale industries. (Previously this profession was dominated by engineers working in public works, railways and the military.) Not only that, the presence of engineers was also increasing. Indian Engineers In contrast to the expatriate British engineers. A good example of the new type of engineer would be P N Mathur, who was a metallurgist and worked for Ford in the US before joining the Tata Iron and Steel Company in the 1920s.
Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya was one of the most famous Indian engineers of the 20th century. What made you choose him as the subject of your new biography ‘Engineering a Nation’?
Like most of us, I too have heard Visvesvaraya growing up. While researching my first book, I learned many important things about him and realized what an extraordinary person he was. I was intrigued by the question of what made him so influential and great. What was the historical context in which he worked? How were his engineering expertise and his views on economic development shaped and developed? To try to understand some of these things, I decided to research his life and career.
The book argues that exploring Visvesvaraya’s life is tantamount to understanding the emergence of the Indian nation…
Visvesvaraya lived from 1861 to 1962, a period in which many seminal developments in the history of the Indian nation took place. Moreover, he was directly or indirectly involved in many of them: the popularisation of economic planning, the concept of constitutional autonomy within the British Empire, the emerging status of princely states, the emphasis on industrialisation and large dam projects. He worked with the most prominent Indian politicians of his time as well as institution-builders, scientists and engineers. He made technocracy fashionable, the echoes of which are still heard today.
There are over 500 pages of biography with 200 pages of quotes. Tell us about the research process.
I began by reading existing articles about Visvesvaraya, which gave me a good idea of what was known about him and what was yet to be discovered. I decided that I wanted to rely on primary sources as much as possible. I visited various government and private archives in Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru and Mysore. I found records related to his time at the Bombay PWD, studied his correspondence with politicians and others and pored over his own extensive collection of government reports and newspaper cuttings. I also looked at records related to his close associates such as Walchand Hirachand. Digital databases of official reports and newspapers from his time were extremely helpful. The biggest challenge was the reticence of the subject – he was a private man who did not leave many personal letters or diaries, and initially it was difficult to probe beyond the public persona. But by immersing myself in the available sources, I hope I have been able to unravel his personality and his thought process.
A museum, a college, a terminal, a commemorative trophy – Visvesvaraya’s name lives on in many forms in Karnataka. Is his legacy well known outside the state as well? Do you think he got his due?
You are right, he is omnipresent in Karnataka. But in other parts of the country his name is remembered, but I don’t think his significance on the national stage is appreciated enough. Yes, he had a great influence on the princely state of Mysore, but his scope was much wider. He advised on dams and water-works in undivided India and even in Aden. He worked closely with national politicians like MM Malaviya and MR Jayakar. He played an important role in bringing forth the concept of economic planning. He influenced technical education policy.
What role did Bombay play in his life path?
Visvesvaraya spent nearly 25 years as a PWD engineer in Poona and other parts of the Bombay Presidency. During this time he internalised the colonial philosophy of irrigation but also elaborated his own based on his experiences, including the experience of famine in the Deccan. He met industrialists and intellectuals interested in national politics, notably MG Ranade and GK Gokhale. In later life, he divided his residence between Bangalore and the city of Bombay for many years. This meant that he was in close contact with developments in the industrial and commercial world as well as with politicians on the national stage.
Gandhiji was against the idea of industrialization, while Visvesvaraya considered it a means of nation building. Were the two men in agreement?
The two had a respectful relationship and tried to meet each other through their correspondence. But ultimately they could not agree, especially on the question of large-scale industrialisation, and certainly their visions for India were quite different. I think Visvesvaraya’s views on the centrality of science and technology came partly from his education in colonial institutions, but mainly from his study tours of Japan, Europe and the US. Japan in particular was an important model for him.
Like your subject, you too decided to go abroad. After studying electrical engineering, you did postgraduate work in the history of science, medicine and technology at Oxford University (MSc) and Imperial College London (PhD). What inspired this leap from science to history/from the future to the future past, if you would say so?
I went into engineering without thinking too deeply about my options. Although I did well in my studies, I found that I was most excited by the courses I was taking outside of my major, and the general studies I was doing. After deep reflection, I realized that my interest in history was long-standing but dormant, and I had questions about how we got here in terms of engineering, IT, and related fields. This inspired me to change fields. I think the time spent in graduate school abroad helped me understand my country a little better, as it gave me some distance. Interacting with mentors and other scholars from around the world also helped broaden my perspective and see Indian history as part of global developments.
The Indian Science Congress–an annual forum begun in 1914 at which many attendees in recent years have made controversial claims about India’s achievements in the history of science, ranging from the existence of stem cell technology to fleets of aircraft in ancient India and Sri Lanka–did not take place this year. What does this (the event and its cancellation) say about India’s relationship with science and history? Also, did you miss it?
I don’t know the deeper reasons behind the cancellation/postponement – I guess we’ll have to wait a year or two to understand its significance. But as far as the historically unsupportable claims about science and technology in ancient India are concerned, they point to a deep insecurity. Given the many strides India has made since Independence, isn’t it time to be more confident and look at its past objectively?
In an age of rampant misinformation, pseudoscience, and questionable history textbooks, why is it important to rethink the professional lives of scientific and technological professionals?
This is important because there is a tendency to create icons, hollow out the complexity of their lives and use them selectively to support the agenda of the day. This points to the need for microbiographies in general. Especially when it comes to scientists and engineers, it is always important to understand how their thinking evolved, how they were influenced by the social and political context and what assumptions they made. We need to look at the primary sources in as much detail as possible and study their lives with an open mind.
If Visvesvaraya were alive, what would he have said about AI, UID, UPI and present India?
These are always hard to answer! My guess is that he would have been quite excited by the first three, to the extent that they could be applied to improving public health and material prosperity. Yet I think he would have criticized many aspects of the current situation. He would have found our cities chaotic, lamented the continued existence of poverty, and disapproved of the cultural bigotry in today’s public discourse.
| ReplyNext Add Feedback |
