Editorial-23/08/2026
The Leadership Crisis Inside IISERs
The Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research were created to transform the way India teaches and conducts basic science. Their distinctive promise was simple but ambitious: bring bright students into research early, place them in intellectually vibrant environments, and give scientists sufficient autonomy to pursue important questions without excessive bureaucratic interference.
Today, that promise is being weakened by a crisis of leadership. Several IISERs are functioning under temporary, divided or incomplete governance. Some chairpersons hold positions in multiple institutions, while seats intended for eminent scientists remain vacant. In at least one institute, the director’s position is being held on an interim basis. These may appear to be administrative irregularities, but together they point to a deeper problem: India’s premier basic-science institutions are gradually losing scientific direction.
An ambitious experiment in science
The IISERs were established from 2006 onwards at Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal, Thiruvananthapuram, Tirupati and Berhampur. They were later brought under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007, and given the status of Institutes of National Importance.
Their model was different from that of conventional universities and engineering institutions. The five-year BS-MS programme was designed to combine classroom education with early exposure to laboratories and research. Students were expected not merely to study established knowledge but to learn how new knowledge is created.
This model depends heavily on institutional culture. Good science cannot be produced through administrative instruction alone. Researchers need freedom to choose questions, pursue uncertain paths and sometimes fail. Students need mentors who are intellectually engaged and institutions that value curiosity over immediate measurable outcomes.
Leadership, therefore, is not a ceremonial matter. It determines whether an institute remains adventurous and collegial or becomes cautious, procedural and bureaucratic.
The present governance problem
The immediate concern is the condition of the IISER Boards of Governors and senior administrative offices. The Board is the principal executive body of each institute, while the director functions as its chief executive. The Senate is responsible for academic matters.
The statutory framework includes senior government officials, institutional representatives and nominated experts. Government participation is not inherently undesirable. Publicly funded institutions must be accountable, and the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that public money is used responsibly.
The difficulty arises when government representation becomes the dominant feature of governance while scientific expertise is neglected. The recent pattern suggests that several institutions are operating with incomplete Boards, interim directors or chairpersons whose attention is divided among multiple organisations.
For example, IISER Berhampur’s Board has reportedly had vacant positions reserved for an Indian Institute of Technology director and eminent scientists. IISER Bhopal has been functioning with a director in charge after its previous director moved to NITI Aayog. IISER Thiruvananthapuram’s chairperson also holds chairmanships in other institutions, while the chairperson of IISER Pune has a similar responsibility elsewhere.
Interim arrangements are sometimes unavoidable. A director may resign, retire or move to another position. A new appointment may take time. But a temporary arrangement becomes damaging when it is prolonged, repeated or treated as normal. A leader in charge may be reluctant to make long-term commitments on recruitment, infrastructure, research programmes or academic restructuring. The result is institutional drift.
Who should lead a basic-science institute?
The question is not whether every administrator must be a scientist. Boards benefit from people with experience in public policy, finance, industry and organisational management. A non-scientist chairperson can make a valuable contribution, particularly when supported by strong scientific members and an empowered academic leadership.
But a basic-science institution must ultimately be guided by an understanding of science. The current concern is that several IISERs no longer have enough distinguished scientists in positions where they can shape institutional vision. The leadership profile of an institute sends a powerful message to faculty and students. If the people with authority over research priorities have little connection with scientific work, researchers may feel that their professional judgment is being treated as secondary.
The issue is not a demand for scientists to be insulated from accountability. Rather, it is a demand for scientifically informed accountability. India has many researchers who have combined distinguished careers with experience in running universities, laboratories and international collaborations. They understand both the autonomy required by science and the discipline required to manage public institutions.
Earlier, the government often appointed prominent scientists to leadership positions in the IISER system. The retreat from that practice deserves scrutiny. If the institutes were created primarily for basic science, why should scientific excellence not be the central criterion for their leadership?
The cost of divided attention
A chairperson responsible for two or three institutions cannot devote the same sustained attention to each one as a full-time leader. Boards require more than occasional meetings. They must understand faculty recruitment, student welfare, research infrastructure, financial planning and institutional development.
Divided leadership creates several risks.
First, decision-making slows down. Files remain pending, appointments are delayed and important investments are postponed. Science, however, operates on timelines that are often longer than annual administrative cycles. A laboratory may need several years to develop. A promising research group may be lost if recruitment is delayed by even a year.
Second, responsibility becomes unclear. When authority is spread across temporary office-holders and overburdened chairpersons, it becomes difficult to identify who is accountable for institutional outcomes.
Third, short-term administration replaces long-term vision. Interim leaders generally focus on keeping the organisation functioning. That is understandable, but an institute also needs leaders who can define where it should be in ten or twenty years.
Finally, divided leadership can weaken morale. Faculty members and students want to know that the institution has a clear purpose and that its senior leadership is invested in its future. Without that confidence, talented researchers may look elsewhere.
Autonomy under pressure
The IISERs were built on the principle that scientific autonomy is essential for good research. Yet autonomy does not mean the absence of oversight. It means that decisions about research questions, academic programmes and scientific priorities should be made primarily by people who understand the relevant disciplines.
When Boards are dominated by officials or nominees who change with administrative postings, institutional priorities can become unstable. Leadership may respond more to procedural expectations than to academic needs. Over time, faculty participation may decline, and important decisions may become concentrated in a small group at the top.
This creates a paradox. The statutory structure was intended to ensure public accountability, but weak appointments and vacancies can produce the opposite: policy paralysis, opaque decision-making and reduced confidence among the academic community.
The danger is not necessarily an immediate collapse in research output. Institutions often retain momentum for years because of the commitment of existing faculty, the strength of their students and the reputation they have already built. IISERs continue to attract talented young people. But reputational capital can conceal institutional decline. By the time faculty departures accelerate and research programmes weaken, recovery becomes much harder.
The larger funding challenge
Leadership cannot be separated from funding. India’s expenditure on research and development remains around 0.64% of GDP, significantly below the level seen in many advanced research economies. The government continues to account for the major share of national research spending, while private-sector participation remains comparatively limited.
This makes public institutions especially dependent on stable state support. Basic science requires long-term funding because its benefits are uncertain and often emerge slowly. Annual uncertainty encourages conservative decision-making. Institutions may prioritise projects that are easy to justify administratively rather than research that is scientifically important but unpredictable.
The Anusandhan National Research Foundation is intended to strengthen research across universities and colleges. Its success will depend not only on the amount of money available but also on the quality and independence of its allocation. IISERs need multi-year funding commitments, predictable infrastructure support and recruitment flexibility. None of these can substitute for effective leadership, but weak leadership can prevent even adequate resources from being used well.
A practical reform agenda
The crisis can be addressed without dismantling the existing statutory framework.
First, the government should restore distinguished scientists to leadership positions. Scientific standing, research achievement and experience in institution-building should be central criteria for selecting chairpersons and directors.
Second, vacant Board positions should be filled quickly. The seats reserved for eminent scientists and heads of research institutions exist for a reason. Leaving them vacant removes the expertise that the governance system was designed to include.
Third, simultaneous chairmanships of multiple Institutes of National Importance should be restricted. A chairperson may serve on another Board, but holding several major chairmanships at once is inconsistent with sustained institutional oversight.
Fourth, there should be a clear time limit for director-in-charge arrangements. Temporary leadership must not become a substitute for regular appointment. The search process should be initiated well before a director’s term ends, with a publicly stated timetable.
Fifth, the selection process should be more transparent. The government need not publish every confidential deliberation, but it should disclose the broad eligibility criteria, the composition of search committees and the stages of appointment. Transparency would strengthen public confidence and reduce the perception that leadership is being allocated through administrative convenience.
Sixth, the IISERs should develop a leadership pipeline. Mid-career scientists with administrative potential should receive training in budgeting, personnel management, student welfare, research administration and public accountability. This would enlarge the pool of capable leaders instead of repeatedly rotating the same individuals across institutions.
Finally, the Senate should have a stronger role in academic direction. Curriculum design, faculty evaluation and research priorities must remain protected from frequent changes in Board composition. Administrative accountability and academic autonomy should reinforce each other rather than compete.
The choice before India
The IISERs represent one of India’s most important investments in the future of science. Their success will not be measured only by the number of degrees awarded or papers published. It will be measured by whether they produce scientists capable of asking original questions, building institutions and contributing to the global scientific community.
That mission requires leadership with imagination, credibility and continuity. The present pattern of interim appointments, vacant expert positions and multiple office-holders risks turning institutions created for frontier science into ordinary bureaucratic establishments.
India does not lack capable scientists. It lacks a consistent willingness to place them at the centre of institutional governance. Correcting that failure does not require a new law or an elaborate administrative revolution. It requires the government and the IISER Boards to recognise that scientific institutions must be led with scientific purpose.
The leadership crisis inside the IISERs is therefore not merely an internal administrative issue. It is a test of whether India understands what world-class basic science demands. If autonomy, expertise and continuity are restored, the IISERs can still fulfil their founding promise. If temporary arrangements and divided authority become permanent, the country may retain the appearance of a strong research system while quietly losing the institutional conditions that make strong research possible.
Download Pdf
