Prof Munjal Interview

Yes, my first visit to Bangalore, or rather Indian Institute of Science, was in 1965 when I was a student of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. We had a tradition of an educational tour: one year for 20 days a tour of the East, that is Kolkata side, and another 20 days to the South side. We used to have a bogie for the Department of Mechanical Engineering, about 90 students, and we parked here in Bangalore. We had to go to Mysore because in those days there was no broad gauge, so we had to catch a bus. Due to some communication gap, I missed the bus and could not go to Mysore. I think that's the best thing that happened in my life, missing the bus, because those were the two or three days when I discovered the Indian Institute of Science. I stayed on the campus, I breathed its air, I went to the library, saw the culture, saw the books, the journals, the general environment. It was like a discovery because right from childhood I wanted to be a scientist, and I had no idea about the Indian Institute of Science. In fact, I didn't even know an institute existed. Now you'll appreciate it better if I give you a little of my background. I was born on the wrong side of the border, what is now in Pakistan. I was three years old when my parents had to run through those riots. In fact, my mother got separated from my father, and it took him three months to trace my mother. I was with my mother, and we had to go through underground nullahs to escape being killed. Finally we reached, and after three months when we were together, we were staying in a refugee camp. I used to travel five kilometers almost without shoes because we couldn't afford shoes. That's how I used to go to school. My parents were completely illiterate. I'm telling you all this because this itself would be of interest to you: from being the son of completely illiterate parents and coming to IISc. Fortunately, the government was very helpful to us. We got refugee grants. Even the school I studied in, Sanatan Dharam School in Hoshiarpur, they were very helpful to us in every way. Fortunately, we got first the district scholarship, then the state scholarship. In fact, I was very lucky because when I was in 11th and got a position in Punjab University, it was during that time that the Government of India had started what was called the Government of India Scholarship, later called the National Scholarship. Automatically, the top 10 students of Punjab University or all universities in India got that scholarship. That was a life scholarship. It came at the right time when my father had started wondering whether he could educate me further from secondary onward. That was a life scholarship with 50 rupees. Those 50 rupees were a lot of money, which I got during my 12th standard. Then from there it became 110 in Chandigarh, and even when I came to IISc I would have got 250 rupees. So what I'm trying to say is that scholarship and that incidental thing completely changed my career. But what I want to tell you was in 1965, when we came here and I missed the bus and I discovered this institute, I just told myself: that's it, this is what I have been missing, and that's where I belong. I really meant it, because otherwise I wouldn't have been here for 42 years after joining this place. And I must say even further also, it was very nice. When I was called for interview, it was very interesting. The telegram said: 'The fact that you have been called for interview, you have a good chance of being selected.' That one line was very important, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to convince my parents to send me all the way 3,000 kilometers to appear in an interview. It took a full 72 hours. I reached here in the morning and it was already too late because the interview was at 9:00 and it was already 8:30. I just dumped my things in the hostel without wondering who was going to look after them, went to the department, and when I appeared it was very interesting. They said there's no interview for you. They said they got my results a little late, and in those days there was nothing like an entry examination. All they were looking for was a person who had got a position in the university once or twice during his career and had been having high first class. That was fulfilled, and therefore I was selected. The only thing I was asked was whether I wanted to do my ME or MSc Engineering by research. I couldn't choose. I said, 'Can I come back in the afternoon?' They said no problem. Things were very informal those days, that is the best thing. So I went to the mess at lunchtime and I didn't know anybody, so I just asked the person sitting next to me, somebody from the Chemistry Department. I said, 'Can you tell me whether I should do ME or MSc Engineering? I'm very clear I want to do research finally, but whether I should join for ME or MSc Engineering?' He said, 'Where are you from?' I said, 'From Hoshiarpur.' 'Where is it?' I said, 'About 3,000 kilometers because those days it was via Chennai, there was no direct train. I had to change at Jalandhar, then change at Delhi, then at Chennai, and that's how I came here.' He said, 'Don't tell me you traveled 3,000 kilometers to get hanged.' Because apparently I joined the Department of Internal Combustion Engineering, which was known to be the most ruthless department. Irrespective of the fact that all were rank holders, at least a couple of people would fail every year. They were simply ruthlessly asked to leave. So he says, 'You had to come all the way to get hanged?' I said, 'Thank you very much for your warning, but I'm going to stay.' Good. I'm glad you did.

Yes, in fact, our head of the department was Professor A.V. Shastry, who died just last year at the age of 90. Then we had Professor M.V. Narasimhan, who is very much around, he's 75 plus. Then we had Professor Rami, who unfortunately died a few years ago. Then Professor Kopa, who is still around, he settled in Canada but has continued to be in touch and is also coming for the IISc centenary conference. Then we had one Professor D.L. Prasanna, who is now in the US. Then one G. Ramachandra Rao, he's in Holland. These people just settled abroad and didn't return. One who was very close to me was Dr. Venkatesh, who unfortunately developed leukemia and died. And one Professor H.K. Nanjundiah, he was, I think he also died recently. So that's the kind of group we had.

No, I forgot that student. After giving me the warning about getting hanged, he gave me very good advice. He says, 'You do your ME, because you get ME in 2 years, then you decide whether you want to do PhD or go abroad or whatever.' So that was good advice. And I must say I was again very fortunate that when I finished my ME, I had developed some very special algorithms for linear dynamical systems, which I applied to vibrations in acoustics, mufflers, even electrical systems for networks. That really got me a direct lectureship without interview again. So that was very nice. In fact, I remember when I presented my seminar at the ME level, the only thing everybody asked was, 'How did it occur to you?' Nobody had any questions to ask other than how did it occur to you, what you did. So that was really very kind of everybody, and they really made out a case for lectureship for me, though I didn't have a PhD. PhD used to be a must those days with Professor Dhawan as director, so the department made an exception, the Institute made an exception, and they offered me a lectureship. That's how I could join this place.

I'll tell you what it is: basically turning a difficulty into an opportunity. I did my Master's degree in Internal Combustion Engineering, and at the end of the fourth semester when the project was to be chosen, I was asked to work on mufflers simply because mufflers go onto engines. But I had not studied or been taught anything about acoustics, noise control, nothing at all. Not even. We had 23 subjects during the first three semesters, all compulsory, but there was nothing like acoustics or noise control. Fortunately, vibrations, yes. Professor M.V. Narasimhan taught us vibrations, and he really taught it so well that that brought in me the love for dynamical systems. That is how I got into this. But what I did was, my class fellows asked me, 'Why do you want to take up this project? Simply go back to the head of department and say sorry, give me another project.' But I was that type, really believing that the best things happen against adversity. All my life, my family had gone through that, and that is how we had turned everything into advantage. So I said I'll take it. But I didn't even know where to start. The good thing was my guide left me alone. That was very important because if he had also insisted on guiding, that would have been difficult. At least he left me, he didn't know anything. I said fine. So I went to the library. I didn't even know where to start, so I looked in the Journal of Engineering, not even Mechanical Engineering, just Engineering, and looked at the index and looked at some papers on mufflers or silencers. Then I looked at those papers and looked at the references, and I found one common book: Fundamentals of Acoustics by Kinsler and Frey. That was not in the main library, it was in the Electrical Communication Engineering Department. I got hold of the book and simply sat in the library for 8 days and gave myself a crash course in acoustics. I not only studied the whole book, I solved all the exercises, examples, everything. And then I came to know that very little had been done. I really felt that in muffler silencer, there's really nothing that is there. Anyway, I went back to those papers and found that indeed very little had been done. That is how I told myself, all right, I'm going to do it. Instead of feeling discouraged, I said okay, I'm going to do it. That is how I developed those algorithms, purely using mathematical induction, theory of complex numbers, basically that kind of thing. That is how I was able to finally come out with an algorithm which didn't involve even writing the equations, let alone solving them. Simply given a dynamical system, I was able to write down what would finally happen in terms of the characteristic impedances, wave numbers, everything for the distributed system as well as lumped parameter system. So this aspect of self-learning, which I think is the most important thing about graduate education at least.

I think it's not only possible, I think it's very desirable. The best thing you can do to a student is to make him learn on his own and simply give encouragement. That's what Professor Narasimhan did to me. I must say that's the best thing that could have happened to me. I don't know if the students today do this at all, picking up a new subject and trying to learn it on their own. They look for a course to take. If the course is not there, that field doesn't get explored. In fact, when I finished my ME and I got first rank in the Institute and also in almost 20 out of 23 subjects I had topped, then I wanted to do PhD here itself as a lecturer. My class fellows laughed at me. Those were the days, 1968, a person could go abroad just for the asking. From IISc, the first rank holder, and he just wants to continue here for PhD. I said, 'I don't need any guidance, what's the problem? I know what I want to do. It's entirely a new field. I have created a niche for myself. I go ahead and do the best.' Then they said, 'What will you do after that? You finish your PhD, then somebody asks you where did you do your PhD, with whom did you do your PhD? He'll say Professor Narasimhan.' I said, 'Wait a minute, that's not how research should be done. There can be two ways of going about it. One is that I could be proud that I worked under such and such professor. The other way around, the professor should be proud of the student, saying he was my student. Same thing I said about the Indian Institute of Science. IISc has a name, but somebody has to create that name, somebody has to sustain that name, somebody has to strengthen the name. I said why can't I play that role? So that IISc should become what it is known for, rather than only milking it, only making use of it. That's what I try to tell my students even now. I think that's what they should aim at.

No, in fact, because I was telling you that I came from a really lower middle class family. Once or twice I was made to feel by my not necessarily family but relatives that what was I doing for my family, why couldn't I also go abroad, earn money, and so on. But I was so much into this. I tried to convince my parents that you wait. They were very kind enough to wait. Then in 1975, I got the Science Academy Medal for Young Scientists from the Prime Minister. When I sent that photograph to my father, for the first time he said, 'Oh, you have not been wrong.' So at least then he could appreciate that money is one thing, but this is not what everybody gets. That photograph still is one of the best things I have. That is true. My grandfather, I have let him down because when I got this job, he asked me a photograph came in the paper, so you have already done that. So more times than one. So that's great. But no regrets.

What I'll cherish, I'll tell you. When I joined as lecturer, that was an ad hoc position, a supernumerary post only for one year. Then after about 10 months, the Institute advertised for lecturer posts, and I was asked to appear with everybody else. It was very interesting. There were seven PhD holders who were competing with me, and I was just ME, I had not yet submitted for PhD. I was the only person selected for the lectureship. Later on, I was told by the head of the department, he says, 'You know what happened in the interview? Those experts who had come, one from IIT, one from IIT Delhi, they simply told the director, if you don't want him, we'll take him.' Simple. So that is how I got this. But the best part was, just one week later after that interview, I was assistant warden of the hostels. I was sitting in the hostel office at lunchtime, and a mathematics professor who had taught me ME came to see me. He said, 'My God, you are fantastic.' I said, 'What happened?' He says, 'The director, who was also acting as head of the department for mathematics because that professor had left suddenly, he came to our committee of professors meeting or faculty meeting and told us, go and learn mathematics from Munjal. This is not mathematics that you should be doing a little better here, a little better there. Why don't you think completely out of the line and see what he has done?' So everybody who had taught me, three teachers, came to me later, they wanted to know what I had done. So that was a very special moment for me, that my own teachers from the Mathematics Department coming to me and saying, 'What mathematics did you do?'

Yes, that is true. But in terms of the other element, the selection of faculty, would you say that even there the kind of discretion that was possible was good, and now I think there's less discretion? Or would you say that part is okay? No, now again, I think our global advertisement, rolling advertisement, I think we are coming back to a little flexibility, which is very good. I think we should really further build up on that, making it still more informal. Still we have some problems. A person applies, the chairman of the department puts it to the committee of professors, then to referees, and later on many times things not entirely technical come into the picture. So I think something is not right somewhere. We could improve on that.

First, I want to take you a little back. Very substantial changes occurred in the 1960s when Professor Dhawan became director of IISc. He himself was only 41 years old when he took over as director. At that time, there were only two PhD holders in the whole of engineering faculty: Professor Dhawan from Aerospace Department and Professor A. Ramachandran from Mechanical Engineering. They were the only two. But the changes he made, two changes which are very important, for which the Institute can be proud. One is, at that time, every department used to have a professor and head of the department, and that was by appointment till his retirement or death. So there would be only one professor, and he would be head of the department all his life. That was not good because many heads of departments became so unreasonable in their power that the departments suffered a lot. So he really got away with that, discontinued that system, and replaced head of department by chairman of the department by rotation. Second thing he introduced was merit promotion. At that time, everybody would wait for a vacancy to arise, and only then could he be promoted. In the process, people would leave. But he introduced this: a person doesn't have to leave. He will be evaluated every few years, five years at that time, now it's six years. Next thing he did was the review by international referees. This really made the whole thing impersonal. Nobody would need a godfather to get a higher position, and he would rise when he deserves it. This was in the 1970s? No, it started in 1965-66. Another thing that was very nice was that in the process, IISc became really internationally known. Up to that time, it was not so. We might have liked to feel that way, but it was not. It is only when our faculty reviews would go to them, our PhD students' reviews, theses would go to them, they came to know. That way, indirectly, he did a great service to IISc. Another change which Professor Dhawan did, again which has been everlasting, is that he was here from 1962 to 1971 as our director, and then he also became chairman of Space Commission and Secretary of Space. But he didn't want to relinquish directorship of IISc. He was able to persuade Mrs. Indira Gandhi to bring the Department of Space headquarters to our neighborhood here. But naturally, he couldn't find time. He brought in the divisional structure. He introduced four divisions, later on became five, later on became six, with divisional heads, etc. So that way he could really delegate certain duties to the divisional chairmen rather than having only the deans. The deans were then deans of students, dean of engineering faculty, dean of science faculty. From that time onwards, even now, they are looking after all student affairs, whereas all faculty and academic affairs are looked after by the divisional chairmen. This was another very good thing. Though he did it out of necessity, I think later on all directors after that have found this was the best thing that he could have done for the Institute.

First, I would like to tell you one thing. IISc has played a very big role in institution building. All IITs, for example, starting from IIT Kharagpur which came up in 1954, later on IIT Delhi around 1959, IIT Kanpur 1961, etc. If you look at all of them, IISc was the one which really gave birth to these institutions. In fact, when these four IITs came up in the 1960s, IISc lost 50% of its entire faculty because everybody went on promotion to those new institutions. Again, not only IITs, look at the CSIR laboratories. There are 42 now, at that time there were 26, and out of 26, almost 15 were conceived on the campus right here. You have NAL, you have GTRE, later on ADA, all the defense labs. So what I'm trying to say is that we have played a big role in institution building. Of late, what has happened, which is not good actually, we have almost started comparing ourselves with IITs. I don't think that's the right thing at all. We should look up, not below. These are institutions made from us. Now, many faculty members in the Institute say, 'Well, if I had gone to this IIT, I would have got promotion in four years. Here I have to wait a minimum of six years, and then also I may or may not get it.' This kind of thinking is not good. I think somewhere, in fact I was talking about this to Professor Balam, and he also felt that there are two ways of looking at this. One is yes, we lower the standards so that our faculty doesn't leave. Second way of looking at this is that this kind of faculty don't deserve to be at IISc. Let them leave. We can afford them. We have nurtured those institutes. Let this nurturing also go on. We'll get still good ones. And we are getting very good faculty. For example, when I was divisional chairman, we made a study during Professor Mehta's time that during 1991 to 2001, 171 faculty left the Institute or retired or died, and exactly 171 had joined during that time. So we are doing well. We are not starved of good faculty. We don't have to lower our standards. We keep up there. Only thing is, somewhere we should give a 'shabash', a pat on the back to our faculty so that they don't leave. That could be by certain incentives, like making it a little more economically feasible for people to go abroad to attend international conferences and things like that. Little extra things we should do indirectly so that they feel appreciated.

I have strong views on this side. I personally feel that we don't have to get into undergraduate teaching. Let's continue to do what we are doing better, rather than do what everybody else can do. For example, we have more than 300 universities in the country, and the total number of engineering colleges is more than 500. They are sufficient to produce undergraduates. Why does this institute have to do it? This institute is very special because the teacher who teaches here is an expert in that field. He knows absolutely the latest. He himself has been adding to that knowledge. That kind of thing is very important for students. We should continue to strengthen the Master's degree program rather than trying to do undergraduate. I personally feel, I'll just like to tell you something more phenomenological. As it happens in water, water flows much better if there is a potential difference. Same thing happens in education. Potential difference is very important. If the teacher is at a much higher level, when he teaches even the same thing that anybody else teaches, he'll be able to put it across to the students much better than otherwise. This is how IITs are different from other engineering colleges. In those colleges, a teacher himself would study the last previous night and then come and just repeat what is given in the book. Neither he has the confidence nor the students have the confidence. So that is how teaching suffers. I think let us continue to strengthen ME and PhD much better rather than also start undergraduate.

Again, I like to take you back a little. There was no colony in the Institute up to 1975. The first set of quarters, where I'm staying for example, duplex quarters, 20 of them, came up. That also came up indirectly. We got a grant from the Defense to start what was called Rockets and Missiles Program, and they wanted those faculty to stay here. So this is how 20 quarters came up for the first time. But around that time, the rents outside had increased, and for the first time, the faculty was almost in rebellion. In fact, you wanted to know a special event that comes to my mind. All IITs started in the 1960s, and right with the departments came the colony. Our Institute started in 1909, and up to 1975 there were only 22 bungalows on the campus. Nothing else. And it was useless for living. Suddenly, the outside rents had started going up, and we couldn't even afford a one-bedroom house, let alone a two-bedroom house. The faculty wanted a colony. Professor Dhawan said, 'We have unfortunately never asked the Government of India. It's not that they have refused. It is that all the people here were so busy being good scientists that they never thought that family also was important.' Suddenly, families had started reassorting themselves. A stage came where there was going to be a Council meeting the next day, and people were going on strike. Faculty going on strike has never happened in this campus, absolutely unheard of. That was in the late 1970s. The good thing happened: Mr. J. Tata, who was president of our court at that time, came the previous evening instead of coming in the morning like they do today. He found a lot of unrest. He asked what was going on. Professor Dhawan told him, 'We have really defaulted on this very important social aspect of our campus. They are so restless, they really want to disrupt your court meeting tomorrow.' I must tell you, the Tatas have really played a very special role. That evening stands out in our memory. He simply called his office and got out a pay order because even a checkbook he was not carrying. He paid straight away for 50 lakhs. 50 lakhs in 1977 is almost like 50 crores today, not 5 crores, at least 5 crores. That really diffused the situation. Everybody was too thankful to him. It also helped Dhawan because now he could show that money and get a matching grant from UGC, so he got 50 lakhs against that. Then MHRD woke up and matched another 75 lakhs. So within about one year, we were able to get two crores together. That is how many of these places came up. Of course, it was still not sufficient, but at least the beginning was made. Later on, it was only a question of strengthening. And now you can see that most of the people are on campus. History repeated 30 years later almost. Interesting.

No, I don't think it is just that. Indians by nature are emotional people. If they love you, they love you all the way. Suddenly you make a mistake, they hate you like they want to kill you. It is unfortunate, but this is our character. We are extremists in some way. We are not very moderate in our thinking. So this has to do with that. Otherwise, I think we have not been doing bad at all by any standards, whether it's DRDO, ISRO, or even CSIR. We should be proud. Particularly IISc, I think our best achievement has been human resources development. I was telling you the number of students we have produced who have done so well, the number of teachers we have lent out, the number of institutions that have sprung out as a reaction. So I think we have not done badly at all.

Well, I'll put it this way. Most of what has happened is all because of globalization. Suddenly, there's much more money going around. Naturally, everybody would like to have their part of it. In the process, people would like to go abroad where they get paid in dollars rather than rupees. In fact, more than half of my students are in the USA. But then, we also have to look at another part. There's also a positive side. The positive side is that now we can also become the USA of the third world countries. After all, USA, in fact, I would like to tell you, often people talk of USA as an example. I was at the University of Calgary. I can tell you there were 36 research students in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and only one was American. Another example: at Auburn University, I know Professor Malcolm Crocker, who is chief editor of Noise Control Engineering Journal. He had three Indians, three Chinese, six research students working under him. He was accused by all his other faculty members that he was not encouraging local talent. He gave an advertisement, he wanted to get some real Americans. He couldn't get any for two years despite the fact that he was offering almost 50% more stipend or scholarship. So what I'm trying to say is, we are the ones who are making USA. Now Obama, the latest, the president himself coming from Africa. But it is a fact that in NASA, almost 75% of all scientists of NASA are non-Americans by origin. Of course, now they are Americanized, but they are not really Caucasians. They are Africans, Indians, Asians. So what I'm trying to say is, why can't we also make use of that? With the same globalization, today India is emerging as a power. We also start playing that role with respect to our neighboring countries. We don't have to keep fighting with Pakistan or Bangladesh. I think we need to really come out of that and really open up and embrace them. Let others also come in. Get more and more students from all over the world. I think that's the best. Then you will find a stage will come where Indians also will be proud to join IISc rather than go abroad. That's the way.

I must say I was very much inspired by Professor Dhawan because of things I told you. The second person who most inspired me was Professor C.N.R. Rao as director. He's the one who really brought to the Institute the concept of publications, fellowships, awards. He really made, for the first time, talking about our work respectable. Up to that time, it was almost immodest on our part to talk about our research. We were all in our own world. C.N.R. Rao really opened the Institute and gave exposure that was fantastic. He brought this culture of even starting DSc. Many persons got DSc during that time. So he really brought this institute out in a much more effective way than it was earlier. These two persons really stand out in my mental horizon.

I must say one thing, again on a personal level. One person who really impressed me most was my father. It was very interesting. I like to tell something to all of you. When we came as refugees, we didn't have anything. My father would thank God morning and evening. In Punjabi, he'll say 'Shukar hai'. I was just three or four years old, and I pulled his dhoti. I said, 'What do we have? What are you thanking God for?' He said, 'Son, we are alive. Isn't that enough?' People talk of bottom lines. I said that's the bottom line. He was thankful to God for nothing else mattered, just the fact that he was alive. Then he told the story that 50% of the persons in the train we came in were dead inside. Even when my father survived that 75-hour train journey without water, without air, without anything because it was closed, otherwise you were being shot at. So simply we were lying low. In 75 hours, 50% died of dehydration. My father also, when he came out and was asked to register, the dehydration was so much he could not even open his lips to tell his name to the registration people. Can you imagine where we started? But despite that, I never saw him unhappy. Never. He never grudged others anything. He always said, and he had no education to back it up, but still he said, 'I am going to educate my children.' And he did it. That is something which I don't think I would have done with all my education in those circumstances. I would have told my son, 'Come on, you also start earning.' But he never expected anything from us till his last days. So that is one. Of course, I have another couple of teachers, but I mean.

I disagree with you. It's only a question of looking in the right perspective. Let me help you in this. We were the first ones to start, out of all IITs, IISc, the application of science and technology in rural areas. We were the first ones. Now we have upgraded it to a Center for Sustainable Technologies. We have a village, we have been demonstrating everything. So we set the trend again. My colleague Shrinivas started the Sustainable Technologies, SUTRA. Even now it's continuing, so much so that the whole Andhra Pradesh government wanted him to implement all those technologies in rural Andhra Pradesh. Then you look at the Center for Ecological Sciences, how much role our professors have been playing at the Ministry of Environment and Forests. For example, I have been chairman of the National Committee for Noise Pollution Control, advising the Central Pollution Control Board. How many of us are really in various ministries trying to play our role? So when we talk of societal things, it doesn't mean that every one of us has to go physically to help somebody out in the street. I think we can do at our level. I think that is equally, in fact even more important, than doing purely at the personal level.

Again, our history has been one of hard science all the time. We have been so much into it. In fact, I remember this debate that you are talking of. Mr. J. Tata, who was president of our court for almost 15 years or more than 10 years at least, he was saying the same thing as you are saying: why is it that we are neglecting the social aspects of science? We should also do that. At the same time, he never forced. He could have forced, being president of the court, but he never did that. But then he did something better. He started NIAS, the National Institute of Advanced Studies, which is exactly supposed to do that: social, religious, even they go into mind and spirit. So that's fine. In fact, though we didn't have to do it necessarily here, it is on our campus. They are successors of our founder only, who applied that correction. So it has been done.