Doing a PhD in itself is a wonderful opportunity if you are deeply curious about scientific truth and want to push the boundaries of human knowledge. In addition to research, you will get more time to deeply reflect upon yourself and be part of a great peer group if you are doing it from a decent place. However, a PhD could be a painful exercise if you treat it as just another degree, as many Indian students probably think. Unfortunately, our schools aren't designed to spark curiosity about research, and most students aren't told explicitly why they should pursue a PhD.
Deciding to pursue a PhD, especially in India, is a significant commitment that can shape your entire life. The experience of your PhD journey will either uplift or haunt you depending on whether you complete a good or bad PhD. If your motivation for pursuing a PhD isn’t genuine, the likelihood of ending up with a bad experience is high.
In a country like India, where many individuals prioritize securing a well-paying job, students often see employment as a primary goal. Although PhD programs at top universities are fully funded, the stipend typically pales in comparison to what a software engineer earns in the same timeframe. Therefore, if your goal is to earn a substantial income, a PhD is unlikely to satisfy you and could result in a poor outcome.
One thing I have commonly observed in Indian academia (perhaps outside India too) is that the students are given a problem statement by their advisors. I think initially this is helpful because most students have almost no exposure to research, and having a concrete problem helps them get started. But unfortunately, the students are rarely taught to be independent.
The students who understand these nuances often pursue their PhD abroad. Some of them come to India to prove themselves as researchers. Due to the limited appeal of PhD programs, they may employ various strategies to attract students, sometimes for less-than-ideal reasons, e.g., guaranteed five-year completion. Many students, motivated by external factors, become overly reliant on their advisors. Ultimately, they become research assistants to their advisors rather than independent researchers. This is not surprising, because there often isn't enough time for students to become independent. The first three years can easily pass working on the primary problem assigned by the advisor; after that, students may not have enough motivation to spend a few more years exploring independent problems, depending on funding constraints and the nature of the advisor. So advisors take a convenient route to give them another problem and a potential roadmap to publication, so they can graduate. Sadly, the number of publications is the dominant metric that matters for many advisors and students.
A student who completes a poorly executed PhD often struggles to conduct independent research or even identify meaningful research problems. They might end up in engineering roles they could have secured without a PhD. If they find a position in a research facility, fitting in becomes challenging. In academia, they may be forced to perpetuate the cycle by hiring similarly unmotivated students to sustain their careers.
In summary, a poorly executed PhD can lead to a lifetime of challenges, especially if you wish to pursue a research career. The best way to avoid this fate is to ensure that you do a good PhD, whether during your studies or afterward.