Celebrating launches, neglecting the institution: ISRO's quiet crisis

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan 

A nation that dreams of becoming a global superpower cannot afford to underinvest in the very institution that has made it one.

For decades, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has been India's most respected scientific institution. From launching satellites at record-low costs to sending the Chandrayaan missions to the Moon and the Aditya-L1 mission to study the Sun, ISRO has become synonymous with innovation, frugality, and national pride. It has demonstrated to the world that scientific excellence does not always require extravagant budgets but rather visionary leadership, dedicated scientists, and sustained public investment.

Yet behind every successful launch lies a less glamorous reality. India's space ambitions are expanding rapidly, but the institutional support required to sustain those ambitions has struggled to keep pace. While political leaders rightly celebrate every ISRO achievement, the long-term questions are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Are we investing enough in our scientists? Are we creating conditions that allow ISRO to flourish? Or are we expecting world-class outcomes from an institution asked to do more with comparatively limited resources?

India's space programme has grown in complexity over the last decade. Human spaceflight, reusable launch vehicles, deep-space exploration, satellite constellations, navigation systems, and commercial launches all require sustained financial support. The joint ISRO–NASA mission reflected the widening gap between ambition and financial commitment. While the project was initially expected to receive an allocation of around ₹700 crore, the budget was reportedly reduced by more than half. Such a significant cut raises important questions about whether India's space ambitions are being backed by adequate financial support, and it underscores the growing disconnect between ambitious policy announcements and the resources required to translate them into reality.

Several economists and policy analysts have pointed out that India's expenditure on scientific research remains modest when compared with major technological powers. India's gross expenditure on research and development has hovered around 0.6 to 0.7 per cent of GDP, significantly lower than in countries such as China, the United States, South Korea, and Israel. ISRO has consistently demonstrated remarkable efficiency, but efficiency cannot permanently substitute for investment. Laboratories require modern infrastructure, missions require predictable funding, and scientists require confidence that projects will not be slowed by financial uncertainty.

The greatest strength of ISRO has never been its rockets; it has been its people. Parliamentary responses have acknowledged that ISRO has faced thousands of vacancies across its establishments. Although recruitment drives have been initiated, staffing shortages place additional pressure on existing scientists and engineers, especially when the organisation is simultaneously managing multiple flagship programmes. More than 14 per cent of ISRO's sanctioned posts reportedly remain vacant, which only compounds the problem.

Every delayed recruitment cycle represents more than an administrative statistic. It translates into heavier workloads, slower project execution, reduced institutional memory, and increased pressure on experienced researchers. Science thrives on continuity, and vacancies create discontinuity. Recent reports indicate that experienced scientists and engineers have left ISRO for India's expanding private space sector, citing higher salaries, greater flexibility, and startup opportunities. Some observers argue this reflects weaknesses in compensation, career progression, and organisational culture rather than a lack of scientific opportunity.

The opening of India's space sector to private participation in 2020 marked one of the most significant reforms in recent decades. Today, hundreds of startups are working in satellite manufacturing, launch technologies, downstream applications, propulsion systems, Earth observation, and space analytics. Industry reports estimate that India's space economy has expanded substantially, with ambitions to capture a larger share of the global commercial space market. This transformation deserves recognition, but every structural reform also creates new challenges. Private firms often possess greater flexibility in salaries, incentives, stock options, and specialised hiring, and as India's commercial space ecosystem grows, ISRO increasingly competes with the very industry it helped create for highly skilled engineers and scientists. The solution is not to restrict private participation, but to ensure that ISRO remains competitive through better career progression, stronger research funding, modern laboratories, and policies that encourage scientific careers within the public sector.

Several ISRO leaders have publicly spoken about the need to reduce procedural delays and administrative hurdles. Scientific organisations function best when researchers spend their time solving engineering problems, not navigating excessive paperwork or prolonged approval chains. India's space programme has historically succeeded because technical experts enjoyed considerable autonomy, and as governance structures evolve, policymakers must ensure that oversight strengthens accountability without weakening agility. Scientific excellence depends upon trust in scientists. Former officials and commentators have argued that ISRO continues to face bureaucratic procedures typical of government organisations, including procurement delays and administrative processes that can slow research and development. These concerns have been raised for many years and are not unique to one administration, and the emergence of government-formed bodies such as IN-SPACe has, in the view of some critics, deepened this culture of red tape rather than eased it.

China offers an instructive comparison. Over the last two decades, China has transformed itself into one of the world's leading space powers through sustained state investment, aggressive recruitment, long-term planning, and extensive support for scientific institutions. Its achievements, including the Tiangong space station, lunar exploration missions, Mars exploration, and reusable launch technologies, reflect decades of consistent public investment rather than short-term political cycles. The comparison is not about copying another country's model; it is about recognising that scientific leadership requires stable funding, institutional autonomy, and long-term vision.

Every successful ISRO mission generates national celebration. Political leaders across party lines congratulate scientists, television channels devote hours to coverage, and social media fills with patriotic messages. These moments deserve celebration. Yet the true measure of national commitment is not applause after success, it is support before success. Scientists need resources before launches, not merely recognition after them.

India's Parliament has an important constitutional role in ensuring that scientific institutions receive adequate support and effective oversight. Budget debates, parliamentary committee recommendations, and public accountability are essential components of democratic governance. Constructive questioning of funding priorities, recruitment, project implementation, and institutional reforms should be viewed not as opposition to science but as support for stronger scientific institutions. Healthy democracies strengthen their research organisations through transparency and informed debate.

The future of ISRO should not become a partisan issue. Governments change, political narratives evolve, but scientific institutions endure. Whether led by one political party or another, every government inherits a responsibility to preserve and strengthen India's scientific capabilities. Investing in ISRO is not merely spending on rockets; it is an investment in weather forecasting, disaster management, agriculture, telecommunications, defence preparedness, navigation, education, climate monitoring, technological innovation, and national security.

India stands at an extraordinary moment. Its economy is expanding, its private space industry is growing, and its scientific talent is recognised globally. Its ambitions extend from the Moon to Mars and beyond. But ambition alone cannot sustain leadership. If India genuinely aspires to become a global scientific superpower, it must invest accordingly. That means increasing public funding for science, filling vacancies promptly, empowering researchers, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, supporting long-term research, and ensuring that institutions like ISRO remain among the nation's highest priorities.

History will remember not the speeches delivered after successful launches, but the decisions taken before those launches became possible. The greatest tribute India can pay to its scientists is not another congratulatory message after mission success. It is creating an ecosystem where the next generation of scientists chooses to stay, innovate, and build the future from Indian soil.

There is credible evidence that ISRO faces significant challenges, including staffing shortages, talent attrition, and funding pressures relative to its expanding mandate. These issues have prompted criticism of the government's management of the space programme. However, the claim that the government is "destroying ISRO" is not supported by the available evidence. During the same period, ISRO achieved major technological milestones, and the government introduced reforms that expanded India's private space sector. The debate is therefore less about destruction and more about whether policy, funding, and human-resource management are sufficient to sustain India's growing space ambitions.

Ultimately, India's space future should never become a casualty of political narratives. ISRO deserves policies driven by scientific priorities rather than headlines, sustained investment rather than symbolic announcements, and an environment where its scientists are empowered to innovate without avoidable administrative or financial constraints. The measure of any government's commitment to space exploration will not be the promises it makes, but the strength, independence, and capability of the institution it leaves behind.

---

Mohd Ziyaullah Khan is a freelance content writer and editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, and co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media