Defender of scientific thinking
Rajesh Kochhar was someone I knew for a few decades, first as a fellow historian of science, based in Bangalore, and later as the Director of the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), Delhi, where I worked. Before I comment on his contributions, let me dwell on some of my personal reflections about Kochhar as a friend, and also as the head of an institute where we worked.
As colleagues we had serious disagreements on policy issues and sometimes had public spats about administrative matters, however none of this affected our relationship. This was one of Kochhar’s most valuable traits which I always admired. He had a knack for recalling an apt anecdote, or even a joke for every occasion. Even a serious comment about politics was laced with humour, which I had the privilege of sharing several times.
He pursued physics and mathematics from Panjab University, and later trained as an astrophysicist and worked at the Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore. Kochhar took some time to move onto the study of the history of modern astronomy in India as well as did some work on the history of astronomical instruments. He worked closely with our foremost astronomers, Jayant Narlikar, and authored some books and papers together.
He later joined the postcolonial turn in the history of science, and took to debunking myths and unsubstantiated claims about science in India or the manner in which it was conceptualised and framed by those given to making chauvinistic claims about the past of science. But these debates and polemics were largely published as research papers, and later as newspaper articles. But as Krishna Kumar says, his magnum opus was The Vedic People. His interest in it did not stop with the publication of the book but was evident from several addenda, clarifications and updates published later as articles and polemical pieces.
After retiring as the Director of NISTADS, he was appointed CSIR scientist and was hosted at IISER, Mohali, where he taught some courses in the history of science.
I will end this short tribute by quoting his own very apt words about reading the past, particularly living in the contemporary times. He said, ‘Reconstruction of the past is an important part of the exercise of nation-building. A nation’s heritage should be based on hard, scientifically tested facts and not on vague notions born out of cultivated ignorance.’
He will be sorely missed as an indefatigable defender of science and scientific thinking.
