Response from Kamal Lodaya

E-mail: kamal@imsc.ernet.in

In their Report, Aho et al have many recommendations. For example, they ask for:

In response, Goldreich and Wigderson say the Report reflects a lack of self-esteem in the Theory of Computing (TOC). Senior researchers --- like the authors of the Report --- should take the responsibility of communicating the importance and success of the subject to other (non-theory) colleagues and to funding agencies, and to defend it as a new and flourishing science, instead of talking about bridging theory and applications.

I think this debate is on a very different wavelength from ours. There is practically zero funding for TOC in this country. Even outside TOC, a couple of areas like supercomputer architecture or networking may currently be getting generous funding, but that is about all.

One of the main goals of IARCS should be --- and is --- to obtain a nontrivial level of funding for research areas in computing (including TOC). The priorities seem to be: funding for travel within India, funding for travel outside India, funding for schools and workshops, funding for meetings like FSTTCS and NSTCS.

Apart from these activities, the NSF also funds salaries of researchers working on a project. This sort of funding is very small in our context since research scholars are either funded directly by a scholarship (as in universities) or they support themselves by teaching (as in most colleges).

To Indian science administrators, we need to emphasize that what we need is more rather than less. At least a hundred groups of researchers, all over the country, interacting through a good network of e-mail, travel and meetings, are required to capitalize on the enhanced interest in computing today.

I believe the formation of IARCS reflects that the senior TOC researchers here have taken on this responsibility.