A Prize for Indian Research That Rarely Rewards India

The 2025 Infosys Science Prize was announced in Bengaluru last month by Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy. The event received wide media coverage, with Murthy declaring that “… research is the only way to make India a better nation” and that creating an ecosystem for research is our duty because this is the only way that we can fulfil the dreams of our founding fathers. The irony, however, was unmistakeable: four out of the six awardees he named were scholars based at MIT, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Chicago and the University of Toronto.

Since its inception in 2009, the Infosys Science Foundation has honoured scholars across various disciplines with the annual Infosys Prize. Its website proudly states that the Prize endeavours “to elevate the prestige of science and research in India and inspire young Indians to choose a vocation in research.” The awardees receive a prize money of $100,000, which is tax-free in the hands of winners in India, according to the website. Yet since its inception, a majority of the recipients have been scholars working at elite American or European universities. 

Take the case of Economics where the elite bias is most apparent. The 2025 Prize went to Nikhil Agarwal, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The 2024 winner was from Stanford. Before that, Economics fell under a broader Social Sciences category. Over the past 15 years, roughly 80% of the awardees have been US-based economists of Indian origin from universities such as MIT, Chicago, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia, and Yale. Recognising Indian-origin scholars abroad is worthwhile, but here is the paradox. Why does a prize meant to elevate the prestige of research in India consistently reward economists who have already reached the highest levels of global visibility?

 The Infosys Prize is decided by a jury of world-class researchers of Indian origin. Perhaps the selection criteria given to them emphasise recognising scholars of Indian origin or those whose work have impacted India, rather than scholars based in India. There is no doubt that the prize winners are outstanding researchers. Among the Economics recipients are superstar scholars like Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, who even went on to win the Nobel Prize.

But does this mean that the work being produced in Indian universities is not deserving of recognition and encouragement? Across India’s top economics departments— ISI, IGIDR, IIMs and IITs in the public sector, Ashoka, SNU, APU to name a few— there are numerous talented scholars conducting high-quality research on solving India’s economic problems. Their research may not always match the standards of the world’s very top universities, but should that be the yardstick here? Shouldn’t an Indian corporate philanthropic initiative celebrate research excellence within its own country rather than repeatedly awarding already-celebrated global stars?

Researchers based in Indian institutions overcome a series of structural challenges that do not exist in Western academic ecosystem, yet they manage to produce research of global standards. Teaching hours in India are significantly higher, leaving less time for research. Administrative loads of Indian academics are far heavier. Professors in the West focus primarily on teaching and research with their occasional contribution to departmental administration being an exception rather than a norm. In contrast, Indian professors routinely handle non-academic duties ranging from admissions to accreditations and program management to hostel affairs.

Research funding is considerably lower, and infrastructure (including the availability of research assistants, computational facilities, access to datasets, and software) lags behind global standards. Travel constraints add another layer. Stringent visa regimes and limited travel funding make it difficult for Indian researchers to attend leading academic conferences in the US or Europe, which are crucial networking venues from where collaborations and publication opportunities emerge. Given these hurdles, the research produced by India-based scholars is not just commendable, it is remarkable and all the more deserving of recognition.

But when an Indian software giant chooses to overlook scholars working under far more difficult circumstances, it unintentionally reinforces the very prestige hierarchy it is supposed to counter. The Prize could have helped identify areas of excellence within Indian academia and inspired students to pursue research careers within the Indian ecosystem. Instead, when a prestigious Indian award repeatedly recognises US-based scholars, it signals to young Indian researchers that true scientific legitimacy lies abroad and that career success requires migration.

It is no surprise, then, that the best undergraduate and postgraduate students continue to use Indian institutions as stepping stones to research careers in the West, rather than as destinations to build their futures and contribute to the nation. This continual celebration of Western success exacerbates the talent drain and, ironically in the case of the Infosys Prize, undermines the Foundation’s stated mission of nurturing India’s research environment.

Going forward, here are some options for Infosys and other successful Indian companies that wish to support research meaningfully. Explicitly include research conducted in India as a core criterion for such initiatives. If the intention is to amplify or get associated with global prestige by awarding scholars based in the West, then create a separate award exclusively for India-based researchers. Beyond awards, invest in grants, research labs and India-focussed collaborations.

 If India is to succeed as a knowledge economy, its most admired private businesses must help to strengthen domestic institutions by including Indian academia in their plans and priorities. If most Infosys Prize winners are going to come from the American Ivy league, whose research ecosystem are we really trying to build? The world does not need another Nobel Prize, but India certainly needs its marquee businesses to believe in local talent, and celebrate the scholars who stay, not only those who leave.

*Views are personal.