That the Department of Space has now moved to tighten exit rules, particularly for those linked to the Gaganyaan human spaceflight programme, tells its own story: this is damage control, not a solution. India remains among a handful of nations capable of independent human spaceflight, lunar sample return missions, and interplanetary exploration. Many of the scientists now heading for the door have spent decades building precisely this capability, often on modest Government salaries sustained by little more than institutional pride and a sense of national purpose. That such loyalty is now being tested and found wanting ought to concern policymakers far more than it appears to.

The causes are hardly mysterious. The opening of India's space and defence sectors to private enterprise - a welcome and overdue reform in itself - has created a booming market for exactly the expertise ISRO nurtured. Domestic start-ups and established conglomerates are offering salaries several multiples of Government pay. Simultaneously, foreign aerospace firms, increasingly hungry for experienced systems engineers and mission specialists, are dangling even richer packages, often with the added lure of cutting-edge facilities and fewer bureaucratic constraints. Faced with such asymmetry, it is unsurprising that even the most dedicated scientists are reconsidering their futures.

Restricting centre directors' ability to approve resignations may slow the exodus in the short term, but it addresses a symptom rather than the disease. Coercing personnel to stay, even indirectly through procedural friction, breeds resentment rather than renewed commitment and does little to attract the next generation of talent. A more durable response demands two things. First, compensation and career structures within ISRO must be made genuinely competitive with industry benchmarks, particularly for scientists working on flagship missions such as Gaganyaan, Chandrayaan-4, the Bharatiya Antariksh Station and Mangalyaan-2. Second, a minimum service bond at the point of recruitment - clearly communicated and fairly structured - would allow the organisation to recoup its substantial investment in training highly specialised personnel, without resorting to after-the-fact restrictions that feel punitive. Treating the exodus of its finest minds as an isolated administrative irritant, to be managed through tighter exit paperwork, may not work. The Government must look at this in its true perspective - as a structural challenge requiring structural reform.