Jobs, Gates & Me: Silicon Valley Dhurandhar Kanwal Rekhi's Memoirs

By SHIVANAND KANAVI

May 05, 2026 

Kanwal Rekhi is a peaceful techie who ardently believes in competitive market economics and democracy, despite the trauma his family suffered during Partition and his narrow escape from violent mobs in 1984.

Key Points

·         Kanwal Rekhi, an IIT Bombay alumnus, was a pioneering Indian entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, founding Excelan in 1982.

·         His autobiography, The Groundbreaker, details his encounters with tech giants like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, and Excelan's successful Nasdaq listing and merger with Novell.

·         Rekhi became an influential angel investor and co-founded TiE (The Indus Entrepreneurs) to mentor and network Indian tech professionals in Silicon Valley.

·         He played a crucial advisory role in India's telecom policy reforms, contributing to the growth of Internet bandwidth and the nation's digital revolution.

·         Rekhi also championed changes allowing alumni to donate to Indian engineering institutions, making a significant $3 million contribution to IIT Bombay.

 

Kanwal Rekhi, an IIT Bombay graduate in electrical engineering (1967), pursued a master's degree in the US and became one of the first Indian engineers to venture out and become a Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

His Local Area Networking Company, Excelan, was founded in 1982. Along with Vinod Khosla's Sun Microsystems, Rekhi's Excelan was one of the earliest Indian startups in Silicon Valley.

His experiences as a Dhurandhar in Silicon Valley are told in a highly readable style in his autobiographical work The Groundbreaker: Risks, Rewards, and Lessons from a Legendary Entrepreneur.

A Pioneer's Journey and Business Acumen

The word Dhurandhar in Hindi and Sanskrit means a stalwart, expert, master, ace, or leader.

Rekhi is a peaceful techie who ardently believes in competitive market economics and democracy, despite the trauma his family suffered during Partition and his narrow escape from violent mobs in 1984.

He narrates his story effortlessly, from his childhood in Kanpur to life on the IIT Bombay campus, and then his travails in initial years in US academia and the tech industry.

The portion about his life as an entrepreneur should be read by all modern-day entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. He shares business lessons without being preachy or professorial.

His business meetings and negotiations with Silicon Valley's 'golden boys' like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison are very interesting and leave readers wanting more.

The successful listing of Excelan on Nasdaq in 1987 and its later merger with Novell in 1989, along with his close association with the legendary Ray Noorda, the then chairman of Novell, make for compelling reading.

It also sheds light on boardroom dynamics and Rekhi's personal ambition to overcome his speech defect and become the CEO of the company.

It is notable that while today it is common to see Indians as CEOs of many leading tech companies in the US, this was not the case then; Indian founders often became CTOs but not CEOs.

Mentorship, Philanthropy, Policy Impact

After his exit from Novell, Rekhi embarked on another chapter in his career, once again becoming a pioneer.

He became an angel investor and mentor for many startups, and also one of the founders of TiE (The Indus Entrepreneurs) to facilitate networking and mentoring of Indian entrepreneurs (including Pakistani techies) in Silicon Valley in the 1990s.

In the heady days of the Internet revolution in the late 1990s, TiE played an important role in encouraging Indian entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley.

Later, TiE chapters sprang up in India too and in the 21st century even tried to internationalise it further into Pakistan, South East Asia, etc.

His memoirs also cover two other aspects where he proved to be a 'Dhurandhar'.

His advisory role in the reforms of the Indian government's telecom policy led to the growth of Internet bandwidth and the privatisation of telecom in India.

Internet availability has now proved to be a great strength of the Indian economy and a facilitating factor for the digital revolution in India, as well as the growth of a $300 billion IT services industry that has become the envy of many other economies.

The other significant contribution is the role of alumni in the growth of Indian engineering institutions.

Earlier, private individuals like alumni could not donate to their alma maters like IITs, which were set up by an act of Parliament, as there was no provision for it in the statutes.

Rekhi fought for it and ultimately brought about changes in the statutes, making a pioneering contribution of $3 million to IIT Bombay to set up the Kanwal Rekhi School of Information Technology in 1999.

Since then, many alumni have contributed millions of dollars to these fund-starved institutions.

The memoirs capture this last social phase of Rekhi's life quite well. Overall, the book justifies the title Groundbreaker.

---

Shivanand Kanavi, a frequent contributor to Rediff, is a theoretical physicist, business journalist and former VP at TCS.
He is the author of the award winning book Sand to Silicon: The Amazing Story Of Digital Technology and edited Research by Design: Innovation and TCS.
He can be reached at skanavi@gmail.com

Feature Presentation: Rajesh Alva/Rediff

SHIVANAND KANAVI

 

Conversation with Shivshankar Menon on Indian Nuclear weapon program Part 2

 

Shivshankar Menon: 'Pakistan's Insider Threat Is Serious'

By SHIVANAND KANAVI

March 27, 2026

'Pakistan's is the only military-controlled nuclear weapons programme in the world.'
'As people get radicalised, the risk of a brigadier or pilot taking matters into their own hands is a real concern.'

Key Points

·         Nuclear weapons are meant to prevent use, coercion, or blackmail -- not for battlefield advantage.

·         The decision to maintain a moratorium on nuclear testing has been driven primarily by scientific confidence rather than international pressure.

·         A critical distinction in India's thinking lies between its own strategic systems and the destabilising nature of tactical nuclear weapons.

Shivshankar Menon has had a distinguished career in the Indian Foreign Service -- as ambassador to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Israel and China.

He was foreign secretary and later national security advisor to the government of India. He has had a long association with the Indian nuclear programme.

"There is a dangerous frivolity in public discourse now, with people saying 'nuke them' without understanding that you cannot contain the effects within a neighbor's boundaries," Ambassador Menon tells Shivanand Kanavi in the concluding segment of a two-part interview:

 

On the doctrine, India and China are the only two countries with a declared No First Use (NFU) policy.
What was the logic behind ours?

We stated that our arsenal is primarily to prevent nuclear threats, blackmail, or use against us. We are not going to use it to compensate for conventional inferiority or against asymmetric threats like terrorism. It's meant for other nuclear weapon states.

Therefore, No First Use makes sense. It indicates our posture and the circumstances under which we would use them. Since we have been subjected to nuclear threats -- like the USS Enterprise in 1971 -- the weapons are to deal with that.

The doctrine is a logical whole; if you change one bit, like NFU, you have to change the posture and force structure. However we keep it under review.

What about the moratorium on testing? Was that based on scientific advice or international acceptability?

It was based on scientific advice that we could further develop the programme without testing. When it comes to national security, you can't base your decision on what other countries like.

The moratorium was not part of the nuclear deal with US. It was a unilateral declaration we reiterated. The US has a policy to cease cooperation if we test, and we have the right to test if our national security requires it.

The deal was structured to ensure fuel supply and reprocessing rights to prevent a repeat of the Tarapur situation.

On the admission of India into Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG): Now that we have a waiver, do we really need to become a member?

Frankly, I don't see any big gain from membership apart from an ego boost. The waiver gives us a license to cooperate with anyone who wants to cooperate with us. That's all we need.

If we want to export reactors, we are free to do so under our own restrictive policy.

Chasing NSG membership, especially when China is blocking it, gives them a lever and doesn't suit us.

It makes no sense. We should engage, be a player in nuclear commerce, and these things may follow. Chasing status is the wrong way around.

One issue that is often discussed is about Pakistani tactical nuclear weapons and thereby decentralising command and control. Doesn't that same logic apply to our nuclear submarines?

Obviously, on a submarine, the weapons are either mated or not. It is a more complicated problem than with land-based or air-delivered weapons, but it is a problem that other countries have solved with technical means.

There will still be central command and control. There are protocols and technical fixes to ensure this.

While no one can give a 100% guarantee, every possible measure is taken to prevent anything from going wrong. For me, that provides a very high level of assurance.

Tactical weapons are a different and more destabilising problem because command and control often has to be delegated to a much lower level, especially if you're talking about nuclear artillery shells.

This is particularly dangerous in our situation, where launch warning times are very short and we lack a robust early warning system.

Our reliance must be on deterrence and other means'

This leads to the issue of ballistic missile defence (BMD). With Pakistan, the ranges are so short that a 100% effective BMD seems impossible.

That's correct. At these ranges, there is no foolproof ballistic missile defence. Therefore, our reliance must be on deterrence and other means.

There is a dangerous frivolity in public discourse now, with people saying 'nuke them' without understanding that you cannot contain the effects within a neighbor's boundaries.

People need to be educated so that these weapons are not talked about lightly.

On India's command and control structure, has it been published? Who has the authority to order a launch?

The broad structure is known. There is a Nuclear Command Authority with a political council, chaired by the prime minister. But I don't know how much of the detailed procedure has been or should be published.

The idea of a 'button' is a popular simplification. The reality is a rigorous process designed to prevent any madman from starting a nuclear war.

In Pakistan, however, the insider threat is serious. It is the only military-controlled nuclear weapons programme in the world.

The Strategic Plans Division controls everything. As people get radicalised, the risk of a brigadier or pilot taking matters into their own hands is a real concern.

There's a technical debate about our thermonuclear test in 1998, with scientists like P K Iyengar and others claiming it was not a full success.

How does one reconcile that with the official statement?

There is a point beyond which this debate is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The relevant question is not about the exact yield of one test in a series, but about credible and effective deterrence.

Do we have workable, deliverable weapons that create a credible deterrent? The scientific establishment that is responsible for the programme, from Dr R Chidambaram to Dr Anil Kakodkar, has been clear that we do.

We must be wary of getting into an arms race or pursuing overkill. We have resource constraints.

Our doctrine is based on assured retaliation, not on matching other countries warhead for warhead or megaton for megaton. The goal is deterrence, and that has been achieved.

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff

SHIVANAND KANAVI

 

Conversation with Shivshankar Menon on Indian Nuclear weapon program Part 1

 

'Pakistan Threatened India With Nuclear Weapons Three Times Before 1998'

– Conversation with Shivshankar Menon Part 1

By SHIVANAND KANAVI

March 27, 2026 

'We were in a heavily nuclearised environment. China had tested for Pakistan in the 1980s and helped their missile programme stay just one step behind us.'

Shivshankar Menon has had a distinguished career in the Indian Foreign Service -- as ambassador to Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Israel and China.

He was foreign secretary and later national security advisor to the government of India. He has had a long association with the Indian nuclear programme.

Shivanand Kanavi spoke to Ambassador Menon about the Indian nuclear weapons programme.

"After 1971 and Nixon's visit to China, the last thing the US-China tacit alliance wanted was a nuclear-armed India. That's why they reacted so violently to our 1974 test," Ambassador Menon tells Shivanand Kanavi in the first of a two-part interview:

 

After the first Chinese nuclear test at Lop Nor in 1964, why do you think India did not immediately pursue a nuclear weapons programme or at least a test?

I think there were people who wanted to pursue weapons, but the feeling was that the economic cost would be too high. Opinion was also very divided within the establishment.

Some still argued that India should set an example -- that we could build the capability but shouldn't.

This is why, under Prime Minister Shastri, we sought a nuclear umbrella from both the Soviet Union and the United States. We didn't get one.

Frankly, a nuclear umbrella is a fraud. Who is going to put their own citizenry at risk for your security, especially in the face of nuclear weapons? So, fundamentally, it doesn't make sense.

We were also in the middle of negotiating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and there was still some hope for a meaningful agreement. Once the superpowers came to an agreement amongst themselves in late 1966 or early 1967, that door closed.

There was no hope for any real, effective disarmament or control of nuclear weapons.

Most importantly, the Chinese test showed a capability, but it wasn't an operationalized weapon system. Given China's internal situation at the time, we felt we had a few years to make up our minds.

Clearly, nobody was willing to give up the capability. The CIRUS reactor went critical, and the plutonium plant started producing plutonium, etc.

Dr Homi Bhabha was quite clear: We should have the capability and should announce it and demonstrate it. But the political leadership was much less ready.

When Mrs Indira Gandhi came to power, she faced a terrible situation. The economy was a mess; we didn't have enough food. Devaluation made it even harder.

Many promises made by the Americans during her first visit to the US and (then US president) Lyndon B Johnson were not delivered by the US system.

Politically, the Congress lost a lot of states in the 1967 elections. The economy was under continuous stress. Even the victory of 1971 came with huge stress -- the refugees, the cost of the war, the mobilisation.

Immediately after that, we had the 1973 oil crisis. So, it took some courage to do the test in 1974.

It's also said that during the NPT negotiations, though India played a major role initially, we were taken aback when the 1967 cut-off was introduced.

Well, not just the cut-off. There was a real negotiation on the NPT and disarmament until the US and Soviets reached a private agreement. The Soviets' biggest fear was that the US would transfer control of nuclear weapons in Europe to its NATO allies, like Germany.

For the Americans, the NPT was a way to stop everyone else from acquiring nuclear weapons that is all.

To get Soviet agreement on an NPT that stopped horizontal proliferation (though it allowed vertical proliferation), the US had to give up the idea of a European nuclear force.

The promise was that command and control would always stay with the US, even for weapons stationed in Europe. The Soviets did the same with weapons in Belarus and Ukraine.

Once they made that agreement, the entire shape of the NPT changed. It was no longer about non-nuclear States giving up the option in return for nuclear States giving up their weapons.

Suddenly, nuclear weapons were off the table.

The nuclear States would only make 'good faith efforts' towards disarmament. That took the bottom out of the original idea.

Then, you had binding commitments and safeguards for everyone else. The only loophole entered was Article 4, on peaceful nuclear explosions.

As for the 1967 cut-off, most treaties have an effective date close to their signature or ratification. That was much later, in 1970 or 1971.

'Last thing US-China alliance wanted was a nuclear-armed India'

What's surprising is that some CIA or diplomatic correspondence suggests that after the 1962 War, the US might have been benign, even encouraging, towards an Indian nuclear programme, with promises of help. Is there any truth to that?

There are many stories, but there's no way to prove any of them. For an objective account of the NPT negotiations, I recommend Bertrand Goldschmidt, the French scientist.

France didn't sign the NPT for many years and had a fairly objective view of the superpowers dealing over everyone's heads.

If the Americans did have a benign attitude -- which I'm not sure they did -- and the Soviets had already split with China, even they were not benign towards an Indian programme.

The 1967 cut-off made sure India could not be part of the nuclear club.

The problem wasn't just India; if you allowed India, then Germany, Japan, and others would want the same. None of them signed the NPT immediately.

In any case, no established power wants another power to rise. The whole goal of US policy, as they say openly, is to prevent the emergence of a peer competitor. After 1967, the Soviets became the strongest defenders of the NPT system, even stronger than the Americans.

After 1971 and Nixon's visit to China, the last thing the US-China tacit alliance wanted was a nuclear-armed India.

That's why they reacted so violently to our 1974 test. The Zangger Committee was created after the 1974 Pokharan test, and from that, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) grew.

The Soviets were very vehement about it in private, though publicly it was (then US president) Jimmy Carter who was vocal.

Why did India eventually weaponise and declare itself a nuclear power in 1998?

Four things changed drastically in the 1990s:

1. The NPT was made permanent in 1995. This fixed that discrimination forever; there was no hope of it ever being made satisfactory to us.
2. Pakistan was a de facto nuclear weapon State. It had threatened us with nuclear weapons at least three times before 1998.
3. We were in a heavily nuclearised environment. China had tested for Pakistan in the 1980s and helped their missile programme stay just one step behind us.
4. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was an attempt to close down our future options. The French and Chinese tested just before it was announced to get their testing behind them. We would have been hugely disadvantaged.

So, we decided to test. I can understand the compulsions in 1998.

'There are theories about why Rao didn't test in 1996'

But why did we not make nuclear weapons right after 1974?

I'm not sure. I know many thought we should, right through the 1980s -- people like Dr Raja Ramanna, General K Sundarji, K Subramanyam. Politically, figures like Vajpayee had argued for it since the 1960s.

Mrs Gandhi herself didn't initiate a weaponisation programme immediately after 1974. It was much later, when she returned in the 1980s, that she started much of it, including the nuclear submarine programme.

Each leader took it a step forward: Rajiv Gandhi with the missile programme, Narasimha Rao, and then Vajpayee, who finally gave the go-ahead for the Pokharan 2 tests. Mr Vajpayee publicly acknowledged Narasimha Rao's work.

There are theories about why Rao didn't test in 1996. One is that he wanted to demonstrate capability without actually testing, sending a message to Pakistan, China, and the US, which helped his diplomacy.

The standard theory is that the US found out and pressured him, and he buckled. But with Narasimha Rao, nothing was that simple. He was a much more complicated person.

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff

SHIVANAND KANAVI

 

Conversation with Dr R A Mashelkar on technology, patents, startups

 'The Key Is Talent, Technology, Trust'

By SHIVANAND KANAVI

December 30, 2025 

'Our problem is not a budget deficit but a trust deficit. We need to trust our institutions and industries to innovate and lead. That is the way forward for India.'

India's patent landscape has come a long way -- from a time when intellectual property was barely understood to an era where filings are rising across laboratories, universities, and industry.

Few have shaped this transformation as decisively as Dr Raghunath Anant (Ramesh) Mashelkar, who served as director general of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and one of the country's foremost champions of intellectual property-led innovation.

"Patents aren't just pieces of paper; they must lead to commercialisation and wealth creation," Dr Mashelkar tells Shivanand Kanavi.

Thank you for your time, Dr Mashelkar. You became widely known not just for your work in polymer engineering or leading CSIR, but for championing intellectual property rights (IPR) in India. I recall people from Pune once naming you 'Patent-kar'.

Recent WIPO data shows a rapid rise in patents filed from India -- around 80,000 in 2023, with high growth rates, though the numbers are still modest compared to South Korea or China.

Of course, we lack granular data on how many are filed by GCCs (Global Capability Centers -- R&D hubs of MNC's located in India) which now number around 1,600 and are very active in R&D; and how many by Indian labs.

So, it's unclear how many patents come from Indian institutes, universities, IISERs, India Inc as against companies like IBM or Microsoft.

Nevertheless, the culture of patenting you advocated for has clearly taken root.

I just saw a LinkedIn post where a doctoral advisor was proudly stating his student had a PhD, and 13 research publications and six patents!

What are your thoughts on the journey so far and what needs to be done to make this deeper and more meaningful?

I remember my early days as the director, National Chemical Laboratory in 1989.

On my very first day, addressing the entire staff, I outlined my challenge: Whenever we did something ahead of the world, Indian companies would ask, "But has DuPont done it? How can we1 do it?"

I declared my intention to transform NCL from a national to an international chemical laboratory. I said we should be able to license our patents even to a giant like GE.

A fellow scientist pointed out that GE's R&D budget was two-and-a-half times India's entire R&D budget. I replied, "It's not the power of the budget, but the power of ideas that matters." We did it.

By 1992, we had licensed three US patents to GE on polycarbonates, where they held a 40% global market share. That success story made others take notice. Companies like DuPont asked, "If they are so good, why aren't we in India ?"

That's how India started becoming a global R&D hub, with nearly 2,000 R&D centres today.

Awareness was very poor back then. I remember Dr A P J Abdul Kalam asking me to speak to 55 DRDO directors in 1994. He asked what I would talk about. I said, "Fighting in the marketplace." He was puzzled.

I explained that while DRDO worked in the protected area of defence, after the 1991 economic reforms, CSIR had to compete with multinationals as tariff barriers vanished.

During my talk, I introduced the concept of 'patent literacy' -- the ability to read patents, to bypass them and write patents so others cannot bypass you. I gave examples from our licensing success.

Dr Kalam later asked me, "What can I patent?" I explained that the systems and sensors he developed could. He immediately called his people over to listen. This same awakening happened in industry.

I recall traveling with Jamshed Irani of Tata Steel. He asked if patents were important for the steel industry. I explained how they were, and we sent our IP head, to speak to their senior leadership.

I still have a letter from Dr J J Irani written many years ago, showing an exponential rise in their patenting,

The point is, leaders like those at Tata and Dr Kalam created awareness.

We have moved a lot, but have we moved enough? The answer is no.

Today, the University of California is number one globally. China is now a major player.

CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) must be applauded for creating national IP awards, covering patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

I've chaired these awards for nine years and have seen progress, but it's not enough.

Companies like TCS dominate in patenting, but I don't see other players coming in a big way.

Patents aren't just pieces of paper; they must lead to commercialisation and wealth creation. That is still not where it should be.

To illustrate how awareness has spread, I was once invited to address 1,500 inmates at Yerwada jail, who were to be released in 6 to 12 months.

After my talk, they showed me the kitchen where they make 10,000 rotis a day using a twin-screw extruder.

Some engineer inmates had modified it for better laminar shear mixing, improving dough quality and speed.

They asked the supervisor, "There's a Mashelkar who talks about patents. Can we patent this?" Imagine -- inmates at Yerwada jail were thinking about patents! They did eventually get a patent. I consider that a significant achievement.

What about higher education institutions? Central universities, state universities, IITs, IISERs, AIIMS? From an IPR angle, what do you see?

The curve is definitely upward. IP is getting counted in performance evaluation.

I've been chairman of IISER Mohali, Kolkata, and Pune, and I've seen this shift. They are beginning to realise that knowledge can create wealth -- that there needn't be a disconnect between Saraswati (knowledge) and Lakshmi (wealth).

I always give the example of Professor George M Whitesides of Harvard, one of the world's most highly cited scientists (H-index ~200), who has 134 patents and whose companies have a market cap of over $20 billion.

He exemplifies deep science coupled with a strong patent portfolio and commercialisation.

The Anjani Mashelkar Foundation awards recognise this balance -- high science (papers in Nature, PNAS) alongside strong patent portfolios. This culture is definitely spreading.

Are patent cells now established in many institutions?

Yes. CSIR was a pioneer. We set up our Intellectual Property Management policy in 1996, the first in the country.

We then helped ICAR, ICMR, and even the Indian Institute of Science create their policies. These policies now exist practically everywhere.

The current government also deserves credit for fostering a startup culture.

What about strategic sectors like space, nuclear, and defence (DAE, ISRO, DRDO), where the import option is limited? Did your conversation with Dr Kalam about patenting smaller, commercially viable components have an impact?

Yes, absolutely. For example, the Explosives Research & Development Laboratory (ERDL) in Pune invited me for their 50th anniversary celebrations.

They recalled my conversation with Dr Kalam and mentioned they had now crossed the 100-patent mark. This movement is everywhere.

When Mr Sharad Pawar was chairman of ICAR, he asked me to chair a committee on reforms. We brought in a patenting culture, and it has grown substantially.

I see it now at the Tata Memorial Centre, where I'm on the board; they are talking about creating incubators and a startup culture.

The awareness is undeniable. The intensity and realising the full potential is what we must focus on.

Another neglected area is agriculture. We did a lot of research, but when Monsanto's Bt cotton came, there were patent infringement issues. How important is IP awareness in ICAR and agricultural universities?

Absolutely crucial. Scientists are often completely unaware that 80% of new knowledge exists in patents, not just journals. They rarely refer to them.

The awareness has been late in coming. But better late than never.

The turmeric patent case became a landmark. Could you recount that story?

I read a small item in The Times of India by N Suresh stating that the wound-healing properties of turmeric had been patented in the US.

I thought, "My mother used this! Where is the novelty factor necessary for patenting in this ?"

That evening, I was giving the Homi Bhabha Memorial Lecture, chaired by Dr P N Haksar. I declared from the podium that I would fight this patent.

As director general of CSIR, I had freedom, but as Secretary, I needed permission.

All hell broke loose the next day, but the country trusted me. We fought and revoked the patent in 14 months.

It was easy and cost only Rs 5 lakhs, contrary to the belief that it would cost crores. Its implications were huge.

I was lucky to become chairman of the standing committee on information technology at WIPO.

In a speech to 176 member nations, I argued that knowledge generated in the 'laboratories of life' by my ancient predecessors was just as valid as knowledge from Stanford or Cambridge.

They didn't consider traditional knowledge as 'prior art', because it wasn't in their International Patent Classification system.

We, along with China, Brazil, and others, introduced new sub-codes for traditional knowledge.

I visited the US patent office and showed them ten wrong patents, providing 'prior art' from our ancient texts for each claim.

They were cooperative and showed me their search process.

When they typed 'turmeric','powder', 'wound healing', nothing came up because this knowledge was either in people's heads or ancient books.

This led to the creation of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library under Dr V K Gupta.

It's now a 30 million page repository translated into the international patent classification language.

This had three effects: It eliminated wrong patents, deterred MNCs from filing them as they would be caught, and gave India a voice at the high table in WIPO.

This benefited not just India but all developing nations with rich traditional knowledge, like China and African countries.

In the last 20 years, there's been a significant expansion of higher education: New IITs, IISERs, AIIMS, IIITs. However, it takes decades to build a culture of research and excellence. What is your view on this expansion? Also, many universities declined after being transferred to state governments in the 1970s. What are your thoughts on strengthening higher education?

I totally agree. We had a pyramid: IITs at the top, ITIs at the bottom, and government colleges and regional engineering colleges (RECs) in between.

Raising the standards of each is crucial. IITs must be research institutions, not just teaching colleges.

My very first committee was to review the RECs. I found that while IITs selected one out of a hundred applicants, the next three or four were often just as good. On another day, the selection could have been different.

More importantly, who served India? It was the REC graduates. Many top IIT graduates went abroad. The REC graduates served in Indian companies, space, defence, and atomic energy.

My committee recommended converting RECs to National Institutes of Technology (NITs/em>) with central funding and autonomy. Credit goes to Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, the education minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government, for implementing this.

I had written that with freedom and autonomy, some NITs would surpass some older IITs.

I'm proud to see that happening with NITs like Warangal, Suratkal, and Trichy.

The lesson is: Empower current institutions with more funding, autonomy, and flexibility.

You don't always need to create new ones. While good private institutions have emerged, their exorbitant fees (e.g., Rs 12 lakhs/year) put them out of reach for the middle class.

Access to education is a fundamental right. My municipal school education was free, and the Tata scholarship of Rs 60/month (equivalent to Rs 25,000 today) supported my household. Without that, I wouldn't be here.

Education, research, and innovation must go together. Education disseminates known knowledge, research creates new knowledge, and innovation converts it into economic and social good.

The idea of IISERs is a great move. I was part of the science advisory committee to the PM.

In 2006, I made a presentation to Dr Manmohan Singh, showing how China was retaining talent by creating world-class institutions like Tsinghua.

I pointed out that the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru was turning 100, but was created by the Tatas, not the government.

This discussion led to the decision to create IISERs, combining high quality science education and research.

I spontaneously offered 100 acres of NCL land in Pune for the first IISER.

Today, in one square kilometre in Pune, we generate a thousand PhDs. This clustering has a great impact.

A good trend is the return of Indian students who went abroad for PhDs and post-docs.

When you create centres of excellence, brain drain turns into brain gain and then brain circulation. For example, the GE R&D centre came to Bengaluru because Indian scientists voted for it.

The scientists who joined GE didn't all stay; they moved to other Indian institutions, startups, or companies like Reliance. This circulation of knowledge and talent is vital.

My dream in 1995, was for India to become a global R&D platform. People thought I was crazy, but the strategy was based on competing with skill, not just products. This knowledge diffusion is happening.

You mentioned the prime minister's science advisory council. Why does a PM need such a council? What was its contribution from your long tenure (from Rajiv Gandhi's time in the 1980s till 2014)?

It acts as a scientific think-tank, assisting the PM in strategising. For instance:

The idea of a National Science Foundation-like body was born there.

The Technology Development Board (TDB), which provided seed money for pioneers like Varaprasad Reddy (Shantha Biotech, Hepatitis B vaccine) and Krishna Ella (Bharat Biotech, Covaxin), came from SAC.

The Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) was created.

The Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) was initiated.

I recall Professor Roddam Narasimha advising Rajiv Gandhi to compete in areas like parallel processing supercomputing where everyone was at the same starting line. Rs 10 million was instantly approved, and Vijay Bhatkar delivered PARAM 8000 in 3 years, making India ahead of China at that time.

The National Knowledge Commission and the Prime Minister's National Innovation Council, during Dr Manmohan Singh's time led to State Innovation Councils and the concept of Tinkering Labs. Atal Tinkering Labs, originated from these discussions.

SAC brought together independent thinkers with great vision. There was an intimate relationship with the prime minister, who gave time for these discussions.

Both PMs I worked with; Rajiv Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh, were receptive.

The contributions were huge in shaping India's science and technology policy, creating new institutions, and driving reforms.

Finally, your views on manufacturing. We need smart manufacturing and mass employment for our youth. What should our strategy be, especially with initiatives like PLI (Production-Linked Incentive)? How do we avoid the pitfalls of old-style import substitution?

I believe re-skilling and up-skilling are paramount. The nature of work remains, but the skills change.

For example, translation is now done by AI, but humans refine it. The new skill is crafting the right prompts for generative AI.

For manufacturing to be competitive, we must look holistically at land, labour, and input costs (power, water).

Clustering, like MIDCs in Maharashtra or the chemical cluster in Gujarat, is the best strategy, not creating isolated islands. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) like China's are needed.

I am fully for Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India), but with Atma Vishwas (self-confidence). We need aggressive policies.

Let me give an example: The New Millennium Indian Technology Leadership Initiative (NMITLI) I launched in 2000.

It was about leadership -- doing what nobody had done. It was a risky public-private partnership where industry got loans at 3% interest when the market rate was 19%. This de-risked innovation for industry.

Take fuel cells. Nobody was talking about them in 2002-2004. NMITLI funded a consortium of NCL, CSIR's Central Electrochemical Research Institute, and KPIT Technologies.

Years later, the prime minister launched India's first indigenous hydrogen fuel cell-based ferry in Kochi, developed by Cochin Shipyard.

It's ahead of the world in performance and lowest in cost. This is true Atmanirbharta -- creating new, globally competitive technology for greening our waterways, not just import substitution behind tariff walls.

The key is talent, technology, and trust. Our problem is not a budget deficit but a trust deficit. We need to trust our institutions and industries to innovate and lead. That is the way forward for India.

Thank you. This has been a fantastic conversation covering immense ground from your firsthand experiences.

(Shivanand Kanavi, a frequent contributor to Rediff, is a theoretical physicist, business journalist and former VP at TCS.

He is the author of the award winning book Sand to Silicon: The Amazing Story Of Digital Technology and edited Research by Design: Innovation and TCS.

He can be reached at skanavi@gmail.com )

Feature Presentation: Ashish Narsale/Rediff

SHIVANAND KANAVI

"We have to blame ourselves not Macaulay"- Prof V N Jha in conversation with Shivanand Kanavi

 

‘We Have To Blame Ourselves,

Not Macaulay’

 (https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/we-have-to-blame-ourselves-not-macaulay/20251127.htm )

By SHIVANAND KANAVI

 November 27, 2025 10:39 IST

'We kept importing educational models from outside that had no connection to our cultural and intellectual strengths.'

 

IMAGE: Professor V N Jha. Photograph: Shivanand Kanavi

 

Professor V N Jha is an eminent Sanskrit scholar renowned for his multidisciplinary approach, making ancient Indian knowledge systems relevant to contemporary studies.

A former director of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, he was also the founding chairman of the Centre for Sanskrit Studies at JNU.

His expertise spans Veda, Vyākaraṇa, Nyāya, and Mīmāṃsā, Professor Jha pioneered new academic disciplines by creating innovative courses in Sanskrit Linguistics and Indian Logic & Epistemology.

A prolific author, he has contributed over 45 books and 100 research articles and supervised 35 PhD students.

He has been a visiting professor at universities in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and Mauritius, promoting Indian intellectual traditions globally.

Honoured with titles like Sanskrit Mahāmahopādhyāya and Vācaspati, his life's work, continued through the Rishi Rina Trust, is dedicated to reviving scholarly interest in India's profound philosophical heritage through intensive workshops and textual study.

"Only about 5% of Sanskrit literature is 'scriptural'; the other 95% is secular -- covering mathematics, law, medicine, aesthetics, and politics," Professor Jha tells Shivanand Kanavi.

 

IMAGE: Professor V N Jha. Photograph: Shivanand Kanavi

 

I would like our audience to know about your journey. What attracted you to Bharatiya Darshanas? How did it all begin?

 

I hail from West Bengal, from a small town called Raiganj. I was born on July 20, 1946.

My family originally came from a village in Dinajpur district, which became part of East Pakistan after Partition. Anticipating this, my father moved us to Raiganj before Partition.

I never attended primary school. In those days, it was optional, and education often began at home.

One day, my grandfather decided I was ready for high school. He took me to a primary school headmaster, Gopal Chandra Mandal, to assess if I could be admitted directly into Class 5.

The headmaster asked me a few questions, and I must have answered satisfactorily because he advised my father to admit me directly to high school.

I joined the famous Coronation High School in Raiganj. From Class 5, we had Sanskrit. My Sanskrit teacher, Sita Kanta Acharya, became my real guru.

Seeing me in traditional dress, he took a special interest. After class, he invited me to his home.

He had me play with his children for an hour, and then at 6 pm sharp, my studies would begin.

He ran a traditional pathshala called Madhusudana Chatushpathi, where the four Vedas were taught. He was a great grammarian.

This is how I was introduced to the traditional method of learning Sanskrit and the Shastras.

My grandfather used to recite Ashtadhyayi and Amarkosha every morning, so I had already absorbed much of it passively.

My formal training began under Sita Kanta Acharya, and I progressed through the traditional levels, earning titles like Nyayacharya Tirtha and Veda Tirtha while still in school.

Simultaneously, my father was a devotee of the Gaudiya Math, an ashram on the bank of the river near our house.

Every morning, we would go for the aarti. A scholar there, Surendranath Das, would gather the children afterwards and teach us Sanskrit, Mathematics, and English -- completely outside the school syllabus.

This selfless work ignited a deep interest in these subjects, especially mathematics.

After higher secondary, I went to college and, without telling my father, took admission in Mathematics Honours.

My father's friend, a Sanskrit professor at the same college, Ligon's College (now a university), informed him.

My father took me to college and changed my course. A compromise was reached: I did my graduation with Sanskrit Honours and Mathematics as a subsidiary subject.

After graduation, my father wanted me to go to Kashi. I went to Banaras Hindu University and did my MA in Sanskrit with a Vedic group.

There, a teacher noticed my interest in language and structure and advised me to do another MA in Comparative Philology.

I sought my father's permission, and he encouraged me to keep studying. So, I went to Calcutta University for another MA.

This exposed me to the European perspective on Sanskrit-historical linguistics, the Indo-European language family, and the Aryan invasion theory.

It gave me a new vision to complement my traditional training.

After my exams, I took a job as a Sanskrit professor at a new college in the Sundarbans. But then I saw an advertisement for a Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit at the University of Pune, offering scholarships for a PhD. I applied, was selected, resigned from my job to move to Pune in 1968.

For my PhD, I wanted to work on the Padapatha of the Rigveda by Shakalya.

To break the continuous Samhita text into individual words (Padapatha), Shakalya must have had a deep knowledge of grammar -- a grammar that is pre-Paninian.

My goal was to reconstruct that grammatical knowledge. My guide, the great linguist A M Ghatge, directed me to work under the renowned grammarian Professor S D Joshi at Pune University.

This work allowed me to understand not just the history of the Sanskrit language but the history of Indian grammatical thought.

After submitting my thesis, S M Katre, the director of Deccan College, invited me to join a massive UNESCO project: The Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles.

Working there, I met two stalwarts who truly shaped my intellectual journey: Shivaram Krishna Shastri, a grammarian and Mimamsaka, and Srinivas Shastri, a Naiyayika and Vedantin.

For 17 years, I studied under them, reading texts line by line -- Sutra, Bhashya, Vritti, Tikā -- understanding the entire history of thought in these systems.

I would translate what I learned into English and have them verify it the next day. This shifted my focus from pure grammar to Mimamsa, Nyaya, and other Darshanas.

Later, Professor S D Joshi created a post for Indian Logic at Pune University and invited me to join.

I did and eventually became the director of the Centre of Advanced Studies in Sanskrit, serving for 20 years until 2006.

In 2001-2002, I took two years' leave to establish the Centre for Sanskrit Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University at the invitation of then chancellor Karan Singh.

My work also took me abroad. In 1988, I taught Indian Logic at Humboldt University in Berlin.

I had collaborations with universities in Japan (Nagoya, Tokyo, Osaka) due to the strong interest in Japan in the Bouddha-Nyaya dialogue.

I also taught as a visiting professor in Mauritius and at the University of Lucerne in Switzerland.

IMAGE: Professor V N Jha with his wife Professor Ujjwala Jha. Photograph: Professor Jha

This is a fascinating journey. When and why did the idea of establishing the Rishi Rina Trust come about?

The idea came from a deep-seated pain. From my childhood, I was exposed to these profound knowledge systems.

Simultaneously, I was in the modern education stream. I could see the clarity and depth in our traditional systems, like Sanskrit grammar, which was often missing elsewhere.

I always felt this knowledge should be made available to everyone and integrated into mainstream education.

At the Centre of Advanced Studies, I created new courses like an MA in Sanskrit Linguistics and an MA in Indian Logical Epistemology, designed to be 50% traditional and 50% modern. The goal was to start a dialogue between the two traditions.

Unfortunately, the university system was often resistant to such reform.

The then UGC chairman once heard me lecture and asked me to design a common course for all Sanskrit departments in India, I worked hard to create it but sadly it wasn't implemented. Teachers weren't trained to teach it.

My wife, Professor Ujjwala Jha, who was also a scholar of Nyaya, Veda, and Buddhism, told me that we could not depend on the system of Sanskrit studies in our universities to reform themselves despite all our effort but we have to share what we had learned. Thus, we established the Rishi Rina Trust.

The name is significant. In Dharmashastra, we speak of three debts (rina): to the sages (rishi), to the ancestors (pitr), and to the gods (deva).

The only way to repay the debt to the sages is to teach what you have learned from your guru. This is rishi rina. That is the trust's mission: To repay our debt by disseminating this knowledge.

Through the trust, we conduct workshops all over the country and abroad, focusing on textual study of original texts in Sanskrit.

We have covered all six Astika (Vedic) Darshanas. But a true understanding requires dialogue with Nastika (non-Vedic) systems like Charvaka (classical Indian materialism), Buddhism and Jainism as well.

Our tradition itself created models for such dialogue, like Vatsyayana's method, which focuses on four points of discussion to find common ground without sacrificing one's worldview.

In the last 20-25 years, how many such workshops have you conducted?

I have lost count. Every year, we conduct many. Each has over 40 students from diverse backgrounds. The response has been very encouraging.

IMAGE: Professor V N Jha with Shivanand Kanavi. Photograph: Shivanand Kanavi

People often have prejudices about Indian philosophy -- that it is dogmatic, other-worldly, or was restricted to a certain caste. How do you address this?

These notions exist out of ignorance, a lack of exposure. If you actually study a small text, you will see these claims are false.

The very existence of multiple interpretations of the same Upanishads -- Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbaraka -- proves that rationality and debate were celebrated, not suppressed. There was immense freedom of thought.

The purpose of Darshana is not just philosophy (love of wisdom) but realisation and transformation -- to create a better, more empathetic human being who can see unity in diversity. This knowledge is holistic and human-centric.

Even if there were restrictions on who is eligible to study these systems in the past, today, anyone can learn it. There are no restrictions.

In our workshops, we have people from all communities, faiths and often more women than men. The knowledge is there for anyone who is curious.

Furthermore, only about 5% of Sanskrit literature is 'scriptural'; the other 95% is secular -- covering mathematics, law, medicine, aesthetics, and politics.

The analytical tools developed in Nyaya or the algorithmic structure of Panini's grammar are incredibly relevant for fields like computer science and law.

I taught Nyaya to law students for 16 years, training them to distill court judgments into the five-step Nyaya syllogism. This sharpens their logic, language, and discourse skills.

We lost this because we kept importing educational models from outside that had no connection to our cultural and intellectual strengths.

We have to blame ourselves, not Macaulay. It is our responsibility to reintroduce this into mainstream education.

Your point about the need for dialogue is crucial. The traditional method of vada, which requires first understanding the opponent's view (purvapaksha) is really absent today's chaotic debates especially in the media and polity.

Absolutely. Vada aims at arriving at the truth. The other forms, jalpa (quibbling) and vitanda (destructive criticism), are what we see today.

The Navya-Nyaya scholars even developed a precise, technical language to avoid the ambiguities of natural language during debate -- a concept incredibly relevant in today's world of computer science and machine learning.

This knowledge can teach us how to disagree respectfully and intelligently. That is what we need today.

Thank you so much, Sir, for sharing your incredible journey and insights.

Thank you. My only request is: Become a volunteer. Learn Indian intellectual traditions. Don't depend on secondary sources. Go to the original texts. And share your knowledge and understanding. This is the only way to repay our debt to the rishis.

For those interested in Professor Jha's work and the workshops, please visit www.vidyavatika.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Shivanand Kanavi, a frequent contributor to Rediff, is a theoretical physicist, business journalist and former VP at TCS. He is the author of the award winning book Sand to Silicon: The Amazing Story Of Digital Technology and edited Research by Design: Innovation and TCS.)