Login Register
Follow Us

Fast-forward Vision 2020 for development

Vision 2020 was developed by the government in 1998 under the leadership of APJ Abdul Kalam and YS Rajan. This year, it is appropriate to revisit this exercise for a reality check. It appears that the document did make some bold predictions and prescriptions, but refrained from outlining specific technology trends.

Show comments

Dinesh C Sharma

Dinesh C Sharma
Journalist and author

Some years become landmarks in the history of countries because they are attached with important events that take place or turning points they witness. On the other hand, some years appear more charismatic than the others because they denote certain deadlines or are easy to remember. This usually applies to long-term visions proposed by the countries or international bodies such as the United Nations.

In recent global history, one such was the 1978 Alma-Ata Declaration of the World Health Organisation fixing the year 2000 for the attainment of ‘health for all’. Then came the Millennium Development Goals, launched in 2000, and targeted for achievement by 2015. Currently, the world is chasing the Sustainable Development Goals that are to be attained by 2030, with some slated for an early deadline of 2020.

In addition, there are several other visions and goals, including those for various disease elimination such as tuberculosis and malaria. One such was Vision 2020 developed in 1998 by the government under the leadership of APJ Abdul Kalam and YS Rajan. We are in 2020, so it is appropriate to revisit this exercise and do a reality check.

As the name suggests, Technology Vision 2020, was a techno-centric exercise carried out in 1996 under the aegis of the Technology Information, Information and Assessment Council (TIFAC) of the Department of Science and Technology. The vision exercise was driven mainly by Rajan, who was heading the technology think tank, and Kalam, who was then the scientific adviser to the Defence Minister and head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Although the exercise involved over 500 experts from the industry, R&D institutions and academic bodies as well as benefited from written responses sent by scores of others, the vision documents were seen to be reflecting Kalam’s militaristic and nationalistic vision of making India a developed nation by 2020. Developed nation, according to the document, meant that “India will be one of the five biggest economic powers, having self-reliance in national security. Above all, the nation will have a standing in the world economic and political fora.”

It had a clear imprint of technological and engineering approach to solving problems and focused a great deal on pathways to make India self-reliant in strategic sectors like materials and fine chemicals. Despite this apparent tilt, it was an important exercise and the outcome was in the form of voluminous reports with a lot of data and projections for sectors ranging from food and health to engineering. For each sector, strengths were identified and a roadmap was suggested for long-term development. In addition, an inter-sectoral mission-centric approach was suggested for five identified areas — agriculture and food processing, electric power, education and health, information technology and strategic sectors. The mission-oriented approach was, perhaps, a legacy of the technology missions implemented just a few years ago during the prime-ministership of Rajiv Gandhi and the success of Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) in developing a digital telecom switch within tight timeframes.

Reading through the vision document in 2020, it appears that the document did make some bold predictions and projections as well as certain prescriptions based on them, but refrained from outlining specific technology trends or futuristic technology scenarios. For instance, it was predicted that India will have to depend on conventional agricultural technologies while working on biotechnology-based solutions like transgenic crops for food security. It also talked about climate change implications for Indian agriculture even though it was early days for climate discourse. Both these predictions stand validated in 2020. In the same way, it was predicted that “by 2015, India will have a network which could be totally digital” and provide “full coverage within the country, provide mobile service based on the personal communication system” as well as “end-to-end high bandwidth capability at commercial centres.” Barring the terminology, the description has become a reality, although it was written when India barely had commercial mobile telephony and had rudimentary dial-up internet.

One key sector where Vision 2020 remains unfulfilled is the health sector, though projections about non-communicable diseases emerging as a major challenge in both urban and rural areas have come true. The document had stated that the “vision for health for all Indians is realisable well before 2020” as small solutions and change in thinking can lead to “miraculous transformation.” Clearly, it was too optimistic a vision.

The document was submitted to the coalition government headed by HD Deve Gowda which was short-lived. Successive governments did not commit to any missions or make any worthwhile follow-up. As Principal Scientific Adviser to the government and later during his Presidency, Kalam did push some of the ideas, such as PURA or ‘providing urban amenities to rural areas.’ The exercise could have been much more useful if there was greater dissemination of ideas and public debate on it. The detailed reports were for restricted circulation in the pre-internet era and remained highly priced when made available online. The vision exercise itself was limited to a select community of experts and involvement of social scientists and civil society was avoided. Wider societal discussion could have forced public policymakers to take note of the findings.

Nearly a quarter century after Technology Vision 2020, the government is repeating the same mistakes with Technology Vision 2035 which was released in 2016. Somehow, the militaristic and nationalist tilt was retained in the vision whose objective is to deploy “technology in the service of India: ensuring the security, enhancing the prosperity and strengthening the identity of every Indian.”

There was no broader engagement in the preparation of the vision document, outside the closed group of technocracy, bureaucracy and those from select IITs. Even after the release of the document, wider public debate and discourse has been avoided. In fact, it would have been great for those hired to write the 2035 document to have interacted with those who wrote the 2020 vision as many of them are still active. Such efforts can make vision exercises meaningful and useful.

Show comments
Show comments

Trending News

Also In This Section


Top News



Most Read In 24 Hours