She does come across as a bit shrill, but she makes some points that need to be made. Interestingly, did you notice she works for the Templeton Foundation?

I took the question to be rhetorical.
It struck me that if each culture is seen as a middle-aged patient with multiple ailments—in this case, India—Nanda, I think, does a good job of describing many symptoms. Beyond that, I largely see the skills of a pharmacist on the diagnosis front, and those of a quack for the cure.

Assuming that the comment posted above is indeed coming from Meera Nanda:
Ms Nanda,
I can’t speak for Namit and Usha and their views regarding your work, but I find that you have not addressed the issues I raised in my comment. I still maintain that the question itself is silly. We have to understand that science and technology are related but different things. Just having a large pool of technically trained workers, many of whom are barely competent, does not make a country a “science superpower”, genuine or otherwise. To pursue my sports analogy further, just because we have a billion people in India who can run doesn’t mean we have international level athletes.
I also sense no specific aspiration in Indian culture of wanting to become a “science superpower”. There is a sense of pride and much hype, especially in the media, when Indian scientists win awards or when India’s government science and technology establishments accomplish something. That however, is not very different from the hype at the Oscars awarded to Slumdog Millionaire.
Finally, I have to say that in addition to being surprised by your petulance in your comment, I am afraid I find even the brief extract of your Frontline article to be replete with moralizing platitudes.
I would welcome further debate on this, if you are so inclined.

Ms. Nanda,
Thanks for stopping by. I’m traveling in Southeast Asia so I’ll have to keep this brief. I will have more time in the third week of May and can then engage more if you wish. One thing I will acknowledge upfront is that my critique of your work was based on limited familiarity with it—a couple of articles, and two chapters of a book. It is possible that I might refine my views after reading more.
Having said that, I find implicit in your comment above an idea that I have to disagree with: that condemning the “deadwood of falsified ideas” is a better use of one’s time than condemning how it is often done by so many self-avowed rationalists. Seems to me that you underestimate the harm that can come from the latter. Those who do the how well, I believe, are alert to at least the following:
— Many falsified ideas have no obvious moral disadvantages and may be best left alone
— We often do not know what to replace “falsified ideas” with, how, and to what justifiable end
— Talk is cheap and it is easy to lash out against the “deadwood” on a blog or book with no further costs of engagement
— The few falsified ideas we react against are driven by our highly subjective concerns, assumptions, and experiences
— There is a lot other than “falsified ideas” that one ought to resist in moral, political, and economic life
And so on. How one criticizes the “deadwood of falsified ideas” has parallels in politics too: for e.g., the wise political philosopher knows when, on what grounds, how, and to what extent is it prudent to push democracy on them others. You surely get the drift.