CORRESPONDENCE
Scientometrics, Wisden, science, cricket and leadership in India
Scientometrics has attracted enormous
interest among scientists and others
interested in science. While there is no
denying the fact that the number of pub-
lications, citation and h-index (I have
not followed the indices that came after
this) are all important, many realize the
danger in giving over-importance to
these indices1. In cricket, the number of
centuries scored and the total number of
runs scored are all equally important.
Not surprisingly, these statistics can miss
out more important contributions to sci-
ence or cricket. For example in 2001,
Wisden ranked the all-time top 10 in-
nings played in the world, top 10 innings
played by an Indian batsmen and top 100
innings played in the world (http://in.
rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat10.htm).
All the three lists prepared by Wisden did
not have any of the innings played by
one of the great Indian batsmen of all
time, Sachin Tendulkar. The only innings
played by an Indian player that figured in
Wisden’s top 10 innings of all time
(compiled in 2001) was the classic in-
nings played by the very very special
Lakshman in the historic test at Kolkata
against Australia. This he did when the
chips were down and the result was star-
ing on the wall, except for his innings
and an equally important innings played
by the ‘wall’ of Indian cricket, Rahul
Dravid. Dravid’s contribution in the
Kolkata test figured in the top 10 contri-
butions from an Indian batsman. These
two innings changed the final outcome.
When this list was published, it natu-
rally upset many cricket lovers in India
who felt Tendulkar should not have been
ignored, no matter what (http://www.
thehindu.com/thehindu/2001/07/28/stories/
07280281.htm). Wisden did manage to
come up with a list of criteria in which
none of Tendulkar’s contribution till
2001 counted. What is quite admirable
about Tendulkar, Dravid and Lakshman,
is that Wisden’s listing had really no im-
pact on the way they played. Tendulkar
continued to score more runs and cur-
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 98, NO. 8, 25 APRIL 2010
rently holds the record for the most runs
and most centuries scored in test matches
and one-dayers. He has arguably become
one of the best batsmen in the world of
all times, the great Bradman himself ac-
knowledging this. Lakshman and Dravid
continued to make vital contributions to
the Indian test cricket team. Dravid’s
contribution in both innings of a test
match we won in Australia in a later se-
ries comes to mind. He remained not out
in the second innings guiding India to
victory. More importantly, these three
men of cricket continue to impress the
Indian fans by their impeccable charac-
ter. After all these achievements, they
have remained humble and are very
measured in their comments about fellow
players from India and abroad. Indian
science today needs many Dravids,
Lakshmans and Tendulkars, who would
continue to make contributions to the
best of their ability, irrespective of
whether some committee chooses them
for an award or a fellowship. They also
need to retain the sense of humility when
they win an award and continue to focus
on their work when they miss one. India
certainly needs to have more and more
scientists that can be compared to Ten-
dulkar, Dravid and Lakshman not only
for their vital contributions, whichever
way one measures them, but also for
their character.
Do we have enough scientists who are
willing to take up a challenging problem
that looks un-surmountable, as it must
have looked when Lakshman walked in
to bat? If we have, do we have a system
that can nurture them? There has been an
overemphasis on publishing more and
more papers which has led people to
solving problems that are solvable or
may be just publishable. When a system
does not support individuals willing to
take risk and try the impossible, it would
be difficult to find scientists who would
solve problems of national interest.
These problems are not going to be sim-
ple to solve or publishable. One has to
remember that such attempts can and do
lead to failures but they give us valuable
experience. Those who persist can and
do succeed in the end.
That brings me to the last issue: lead-
ership. Serious concerns have been
expressed in various forums about the
lack of leadership in science. Coinciden-
tally, Indian cricket in the recent times
has given us a good example. Dhoni has
proved to be a good leader, though Ten-
dulkar, Dravid, Lakshman, Sehwag and
Yuvraj Singh are all more accomplished
in cricket. Ganguly had a much better re-
cord as captain than Tendulkar did. Hats
off to the Indian Cricket Board for iden-
tifying Dhoni. Dhoni was a small town
rustic young man who was entrusted with
the captaincy of probably the most diffi-
cult team to manage in the world, given
the diversity of players who come from
all corners of our country. Several cen-
tres and laboratories are functioning in
India with one leader and many follow-
ers, who are unable to find their feet if
and when the leader leaves. That makes
it difficult to find a replacement and
allows the leaders to continue endlessly.
If we want leaders in science, we have to
encourage independence and not nepo-
tism. We could then hope that leaders
would emerge in the system naturally. If
we do not find leaders in science today,
it would be important for the leaders of
yesteryears to retrospect and see where
we went wrong. However, I personally
do not think there is a dearth of leader-
ship in science. As Balaram mentioned in
an interview earlier ‘it is simply incon-
ceivable in a country like India’.
1. Balaram, P., Curr. Sci., 2009, 96, 1290.
E. ARUNAN
Inorganic and Physical Chemistry
Department,
Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560 012, India
e-mail: arunan@ipc.iisc.ernet.in
993