In 2014, Ashoke Sen, professor at the less known Harish-Chandra Research Institute (HRI) in Prayagraj, was picked for this prize for helping to set off what is described as the "second superstring revolution". And in August this year, the Dirac Medal has been awarded to Deepak Dhar at the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (ICTS-TIFR), Bengaluru, for his influential work in statistical physics and complex systems. In an era when Indian science and technology is lagging in critical areas such news is uplifting, a reassurance that we have brilliant scientists whose work is recognised by the world.

The stories of these two scientists are cast in a classic mould-of gifted scientists who opted to continue their journey of discovery in India after stints in top US universities and institutions. We are retracing their career paths briefly because it rekindles the hope that the country can reclaim the glory days of Indian physics of the last century. Sen, worked in America's top particle physics accelerator laboratories before joining HRI, an aided institute of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) where he spent close to 26 years, and thereafter moved to ICTS. Dhar started his career at TIFR, which most people may not be aware is almost fully funded by DAE, and after almost three decades there moved to the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, and finally as a distinguished emeritus to ICTS. This might appear as a staid graph since their work seldom made the headlines here. But in the world of theoretical physics, they were stars.

Sen was honoured with the inaugural Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2012-it comes with US $3 million in prize money-in recognition of his outstanding work, which is focused on the superstring perturbation theory, unstable D-branes and the Sen Conjecture . This column is not equipped to explain these abstruse concepts. Dhar's work would be equally baffling to the lay person. The Dirac Medal is given by the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, to scientists who have helped to reshape theoretical physics. Eight of them have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. There other Indian scientists who have caught global attention this year. One such is Mohit Kumar Jolly, who was awarded the ICTP Prize in Quantitative Life Sciences for developing computational methods rooted in theoretical physics. He works on a systems biology approach to decode cancer metastasis and therapy resistance. In mathematics, too, Indian scientists are getting a slightly higher profile.

Why is all this such a big deal? Basic research is the bedrock of science and plays a critical role in a nation's scientific and technological advancement. The wellsprings of innovation arise from a solid base in the foundational sciences, as advanced nations have demonstrated-more dramatically by China in recent years. India, on the other hand, has paid little attention to strengthening the foundational sciences. It is only in the past two years that the Narendra Modi government, which came to power more than 12 years ago with the smug attitude that ancient Indian texts contained all of modern science, has begun to address the stasis in the system. It has earmarked a Rs 100,000-crore Research, Development and Innovation Fund, but in typical bureaucratic fashion disbursals after a minimal amount was given to a handful of start-ups (see "India's Innovation quagmire", Down To Earth, 16-31 October, 2026).

Primarily, India needs to focus on how to galvanise basic science. Should it set aside a specific fund to support basic research that is not tethered to timelines promising patents and products? Can that work in a country which has not demanded accountability of any kind from scientists who see themselves as mere cogs in a vast bureaucratic structure? Laboratories and organisations have failed to conduct strict scientific reviews of the work that is undertaken in publicly-funded laboratories. One such organisation is the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, where proven operational lapses of a grave nature and outright fraud by senior scientists have not been acknowledged, much less penalised, despite public exposure.

Our cultural challenges are, indeed, steep. Indian scientists in general plump for safe, plodding research that offers the prospect of adequate research papers-the number counts, but not the quality-with little regard for the depth or originality of the work that is published, mostly in journals of poor scholastic reputation. They also appear to have little problem with the rigid hierarchical setup of research organisations where seniority, and not merit, is of paramount importance. High-risk, high-reward projects of discovery that could lead to global breakthrough are a rarity. The basic idea of science as a curiosity-driven endeavour conducted in a rigorous environment of accountability and fulfilment sound utopian in the Indian context. That is why the achievements of Dhar and Sen make for happy reading. Unless the government takes drastic action to set right its research infrastructure as China has, India will pay a heavy price as it continues to be edged out of the frontier research landscape.

The Stanford-Elsevier list of the world's top 2 per cent scientists is an indication. The 2026 list released in mid-October uses standardised citation indicators to assess the impact of research papers of individual scientists associated with an institution. It is said to be this is a vital index to recognise excellence and track cutting-edge scientific contributions. The US dominates with over 73,000 scientists, accounting for 29.6 per cent of the list, followed by China with approximately 27,000 scientists (roughly 14.9 per cent). India has almost 7,000 scientists who make for 2.8 per cent of the total. Should we be pleased or dismayed? A more pertinent question is, in which spheres are Indian scientists making a mark?

Last year in Chennai, Venky Ramakrishnan, the 2009 Nobel laureate in Chemistry, made a trenchant observation on top institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science, the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research which figure in Elsevier's list. In his assessment, these may offer potential, but they are "world class only in some very specific areas".

This column was first published in the November 1-15, 2026 print edition of Down To Earth