Category Archives: Drdo

DMSRDE – RTI

To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
CPIO
DMSRDE, GT Road
Kanpur-208013

Sub:            Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005

Sir,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide list of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income Tax on rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE, Kanpur in the following format for-

(i) FY 2010-2011                    (ii) FY 2011-2012               (ii)  FY 2012-2013

 

S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Rent claimed per month as per rent receipt Total rebate on rent paid in Income Tax
  1. Provide the addresses for which the Scientists/Officers submitted rent receipt in following format
S.N. Name of Scientist & Rank Financial Year Address in rent receipt Rent claimed per month
  1. Provide the copies of Form 16 issued by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur for AY 2012-2013 and AY 2013-2014 in respect of Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  2. Provide copies of verified rent receipt submitted by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ to get income tax rebate on house rent paid for the AY years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 ( Financial Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013).
  3. Provide the copy of the undertaking given by Shri Amit Kumar , Scientist ‘D’ to Director, DMSDRE in respect to that ‘He will liable to pay Income Tax and Penalty on Income Tax in case it was found that his claim for both HBA interest and rent paid was found illegal’.
  4. Provide Copy of Income Tax Rules  on ground of which Shri Amit Kumar was allowed to get rebates in income tax both on rent paid and  on HBA interest by Director, DMSRDE , Kanpur.
  5. Copy of Declaration in Form No. 10BA under Rule 11 (B) of IT Act by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ during FY 2011-12, 2012-2013.
  6. Provide copy of salary slips for the months June 2013 and July 2013.
  7. Provide Owner name and address of house for which the rent receipts were submitted by Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  8. Provide Copy of the Performa submitted by Shri Amit Kumar to finance division for claiming rebates and informing saving details duly verified by Administration Division after confirming the present address from his personal case.
  9. The date on which Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ left the Government Accommodation . Provide copy of vacation report/certificate issued by MES to Estate Division in respect of Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
  10. The date from which Shri Amit Kumar is submitting rent receipt in order to claim/get rebate in rent paid in Income Tax.
  11. Whether any Vigilance Committee/other Committee was constituted by Director, DMSRDE to verify that the concerned Scientist/Officer claiming rebate on basis of rent paid is living on the address claimed and not submitting fake/forge receipt for house rent? (Yes/No)
  12.  If Yes then provide the copy of the letter by which the said Vigilance Committee/Other Committee for this purpose was constituted.

This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.

Besides this the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed.

Date: 31 July, 2013                                                                                       
                                                                                                           (Rajiv Chauhan)                                                                                              
                                                                                                       1053/3,Shastrinagar, Meerut(UP)-250005

Enc : IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No  16F 964390

DRL-TEZPUR- RTI-I

To                                                                                                                        30th July 2013
The CPIO
Defence Research Laboratory (DRL)
Post Bag No.2, 
Tezpur (Assam) – 784 001

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

In reference to Golden jubilee celebrated by Defence Research Laboratory (DRL), Tezpur in 2012.

  1. How much amount was sanctioned by DRDO Hqrs, is it Rs 2.75 Lakhs or more? if more, than total sanctioned amount.
  2. Was any Golden jubilee function was organized by DRL, if yes then date of function and name of the chief guest of the function.
  3. Was any Golden jubilee memento or gift was distributed to the all DRL employees? if yes, then please provide quantity in numbers.
  4. Director, DRL, Tezpur opened an account in the name of TEZCON-12 in IDBI, Tezpur Branch A/C no 1158104000003261. Please provide the total amount collected by various vendors, the list of vendors, the last date of money deposited by vendor.
  5. The above account is still in operative yes/ No; if yes then please provide account statement till date. Remember it is public fund and any citizen of India has right to know about it.

In reference of Estate Management Unit, DRL, Tezpur

  1. All quarters of P-3 Block allotted to DRL employees Yes/No
  2. Any quarter of P-3 Block is allotted to any individual who is not a Government servant. Yes/No
  3. All service personals of working in DRDL availing the accommodations, Yes/No
  4. All service personals who are availing the accommodations are also claiming HRA, Yes/No

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI act 2005. Also as per the provision of the RTI Act 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t. to your department with the reply to above request, where I may require file first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  16F 964386

Regards
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

RTI for expose corruption in HRA by senior DRDO officials

To                                                                                                                   Date 31st July 2013
The CPIO, DRDO HQ                                                          
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of recovery of HRA. The letter no DOP/03/31000/M/05 dated 17th August 2011of DOP, DRDO Hqrs address to directors of all labs/establishment

Reference :   (i)         The letter no DOP/03/31000/M/05 dated 17th August 2011of DOP,

DRDO   Hqrs address to directors of all labs/establishment

(ii)        File No CIC/LS/A12011/000412 DRDO reply for availing DRDO guest

house facilities by DRDO officials.

  1. Please provide the name of DRDO officials who claimed HRA while staying in Government accommodations.
  2. Total amount recovered from DRDO officials  in  2011-12,  2012-13
  3.  As per DRDO reply in CIC – “Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011”. Please provide the dated and total amount recovered from then Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D.
  4. Please provide the residential address of  Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs  from his date of joining in DRDO Hqrs to 25 March 2010.
  5. As per DRDO reply in CIC – “Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010” Please provide the dated and total amount recovered from Sh. S Ravi.
  6. Copy of any disciplinary action taken against those DRDO officials who violated the CCS rules of HRA in above subject matter.

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule – II. Because the recovery from DRDO officials proved that the some senior DRDO officials were indulged in corrupt practices.

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI act 2005. Also as per the provision of the RTI Act 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t. to your department with the reply to above request, where I may require file first appeal.

I do hereby declare that I am the citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before expiry of 30 day period after you have received the application.

Enclosed – Rs 10 Postal Order No  16 F 964387

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone – 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website – www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Waiting for Credentials of Outstanding Scientist of DRDO

To                                                                                     25th July 2013
The CPIO
Recruitment & Assessment Centre
Lucknow Road, Timarpur
Delhi- 110054

Subject: Transfer of Application AR No 0178 dated 10 July 2013

Sir,

My RTI application to CPIO, DoPT dated 27th May 2013 was transferred to Shri Rajiv Singh, CPIO, & Under Secretary, MoD, South Block vide letter no AB14017/4/2013-Estt (RR)(03074/RTIC/13) dated 28/6/2013. The CPIO, MoD transferred my RTI request to CPIO, DRDO vide letter no Mof D ID No 21(3)2013(1083)/D(RTI) dated 5/7/2013.

Subsequently I have received information of my RTI request point 2 from DoPT vide their letter no F.No.29/38/2013-EO(SM-II) dated 15th July 2013.

The CPIO, DRDO Hq transferred my RTI request vide letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 18th July 2013 to your office for information of point 1 of my RTI request.

As per my previous experiences regarding RTI requests all DRDO establishments 99% replied with their fix quote –

“DRDO is an organisation which is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and is therefore, exempted from disclosures of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.”

Therefore, it is requested that the information is pertaining to the allegations of corruption. Sh R K Agarwal’s  promotion case is totally based on corruption & nepotism.

I would like to submit some evidences of nepotism of Sh. R. C. Aggarwal, Director, DEAL, DRDO.

  1. Sh. R. C. Aggarwal after taking charge as Director, DEAL put all scientists/staff of his community in important positions. You can verify with Departmental Part orders.
  2. He supported Sh. R K Agarwal for his false claim of work in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).
  3. Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14
  4. Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.
  5. The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best  in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.
  6. The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty” 

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id  prabhudoon@gmail.com ,  website- www.corruptionindrdo.com

Copy enclosed

  1. DoPT Letter no AB14017/4/2013-Estt (RR)(03074/RTIC/13) dated 28/6/2013
  2. MoD Letter no Mof D ID No 21(3)2013(1083)/D(RTI) dated 5/7/2013.
  3. DoPT Letter no F.No.29/38/2013-EO(SM-II) dated 15th July 2013.
  4. DRDO Letter No. RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0178 dated 18th July 2013
  1. DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14

DoPT RTI reply regarding Sh R K Agarwal, Sc H, DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun

My RTI request to DoPT

To                                                                                                             27th  May 2013
The Under Secretary (RR- II  )
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)
Department of Personnel and Training
Room No. 268 – B , North Block
New Delhi- 110011

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in respect of Sh. R K Agarwal, Scientist ‘H’, (Out Standing Scientist ) Defence Electronics Application Lab, DRDO, Dehradun

As per SRO- 36 dated 9t May 2011 ( FileNo. DHRDn6205IDRDSlRRlClP/10/1022/D(R&D))

Para 2

“(iv) The Peer Committee as specified in Schedule ID shall assess suitability for appointment of Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist in Defence Research and Development Service”.

In DRDO Newsletter September 2012 page No -14. In which the details of Outstanding Scientists of the DRDO. Sh, R K Agarwal, Outstanding Scientist, DEAL   “ his main contribution has been the development of , the first semi-static and transportable terminals developed in the country. These terminals were immediately deployed in SRI LANKA during operation PAWAN where they have played a vital Role.”

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed false that he worked and contributed in “Project NARAD”, which was the only real-time successful project and was appreciated by user (IPKF).

Sh. R K Agarwal claimed the aforementioned for his promotion to outstanding scientist and it was published in DRDO’s News Letter September 2012 page No -14 (Copy enclosed)

Departmental Part Order for manpower for Project NARAD reference are DO Part-I No.232/AD dated 18/11/1988 and DO Part-I No.238/AD, No.239/AD dated 24/11/1988. There was clear cut mention in the order that Sh. R K Agarwal was not part and parcel of Project NARAD.

The appreciation letter No 35795/Aks/per date 20th April 1990 by Major A K Singh, 57 Mtn Div. Signal Regiment to Sh Surendra Pal, Dy. Director, Project NARAD clearly reveals the names of DEAL’s scientists who participated and contributed their best  in the real operation scenario. There is no name of Sh. R.K Agarwal in the appreciation letter.

The DRDO in their RTI reply No.DEAL/RTI/0003/2013 dated 08/04/2013 clearly mentioned that No such document/information is available, means there is nothing available which proves that Sh R K Agarwal was part and parcel of Project ‘NARAD’. It is clear evidence that Sh RC Aggarwal supported Sh R K Agarwal’s false claim for promotion to outstanding scientist because of the only reason of nepotism and castism. (Copy enclosed)

Kindly provide the following informations under the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005

1.    The certified copy of  Sh R K Agarwal’s credentials submitted to then Peer Committee by DRDO for consideration for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist).

2.    The certified copy Peer Committee recommendation for promotion of Scientist ‘H’ (Outstanding Scientist) in respect of Sh R K Agarwal

RTI reply

dopt reply0001

 

dopt reply0002

 

dopt reply0003

DMSRDE – RTI -4

To,                                                                                   25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

This is with reference to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence Report 2009-10 & 2010-11 and News published in print/electronic media   regarding Development of Bullet Proof Jacket (GSQR-1293) by DMSRDE, Kanpur. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. The date on which GSQR-1293 for BPJ was issued by AHQ to DRDO.
  2. Provide the copy of the letter from AHQ to DRDO for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  3. Provide copy of DRDO HQ letter by which DMSRDE was instructed to develop BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  4. The date on which DMSRDE started to work on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293 and the date on which BPJ-1293 developed successfully.
  5. PDC given by AHQ for development of BPJ-1293.
  6. Whether any team was constituted for development of BPJ-1293? If yes then provide name of  the team members (Scientists, Technical Officers and Scientific Assistants etc) who worked on development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  7. Whether any project has been sanctioned from the DRDO HQ for development of BPJ-1293?
  8. If yes then how much funds has been sanctioned for this Project?
  9. Provide the copy of sanction letter of the Project for development of BPJ as per GSQR-1293.
  10. If no Project was sanctioned from DRDO HQ for BPJ as per GSQR-1293 then from which head (Build-up etc) funds were arranged for Development and Fabrication of BPJ-1293?
  11. Provide total expenditure incurred in procurement of items(matrials) for development of BPJ-1293 including expenditure incurred on TA/DA to Officers & Employees, Government Transport and hired transport separately.
  12. Provide copies of DRDO.MM.06 (demand) and copies of supply orders for purchase of items/materials and services hired for development of BPJ-1293.
  13. Purchase of materials, items and services hired for fabrication of BPJ-1293 were made under which type of tendering process (Single Tender /Limited Tender/Open Tender/Global Tender)?
  14. Provide details of procurement of materials(items)/services hired/fabrication for BPJ-1293 in the following format :-table
  15. Total expenditure incurred in creating facility in DMSRDE, Kanpur for R&D of BPJ-1293.
  16. Total expenditure incurred from public fund for TA/DA in Temp. Duty of officers and staff involved in development of BPJ-1293 for visiting site of vendor involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293 or to other places for work related to BPJ-1293.
  17. Total expenditure incurred from public fund on Govt. Transport and hired transport for transporting the materials up to the site of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd at New Delhi/Palwal.
  18. Names of private vendors/firms involved in development/fabrication of BPJ-1293.
  19. Whether SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd is registered with DMSRDE. If yes then provide copy of Registration Certificate issued by DMSRDE to S. M. Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd.
  20. Whether any award was given to BPJ-1293 team/group or Scientist for successful development of BPJ-1293 under Laboratory Level Award under DRDO Award Scheme for 2010-2011. If so then provide the
  • Name of Scientists/Individual Scientist getting this award.
  • Amout of award in Rupees for Laboratory Scientist of the year award.
  • Copy of the minute sheet sanctioned by Director for this award.
  • Copy of the letter forwarded by Head of the Division with name(s) of Scientists to Technical Coordination.
  • Copy of the recommendation/proceeding of  Award Committee constituted by Director for 2010-2011.

21. Whether facilities for fabrication of BPJ are available in Kanpur (Yes/No).

22.  M/s M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd , Kanpur  is also working on development/fabrication of BPJ at Kanpur. Provide the reasons on the ground of which DMSRDE did not utilized services of M Kumar Udyog Pvt Ltd, Kanpur for development of BPJ-1293 using Limited Tendering Process in order to save expenditure on TA/DA of Officials and hired Transport?

23.  Copy of certificate issued by TBRL, Chandigarh for successful testing of BPJ developed by DMSRDE under GSQR-1293

24. Whether these BPJ-1293 was under gone Quality Control/Assurance test by QAG, DMSRDE. If so then how many BPJ-1293 were tested by QAG, DMSRDE.

25.  Whether these BPJ-1293 were tested by another agency like CFSL Chandigarh etc? (Yes/No) If yes then provide the name of agency.

26.  How many BPJ-1293 was fabricated by SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd and total amount paid to SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd for the fabrication of said BPJ-1293?

27.  Copy of the supply order placed for fabrication of mould/procurement of mould for BPJ-1293.

28.  Whether user trials were conducted by Army for BPJ-1293. (Yes/No) If yes then how many BPJ-1293 were submitted to AHQ for unit/field testing?

29.  AHQ (Army) accepted BPJ-1293 (Yes/No)

Enclosed-           Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470728

 

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal   
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,   
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com

DMSRDE – RTI -3

 

To,                                                                                                                 25th July 2013
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE
GT Road, Kanpur-208013

Hello,

Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

  1. Fund expenditure for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year
  1. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  2. 2009-2010                ii.         2010-2011                   iii.       2012-2013
  1. Mode of tendering for procurement of Scientific & Technical books in Technical Library, DMSRDE for Financial Year viz (Single Tender, Limited Tender/Open Tender)
  1. If mode of tendering in any Financial Year  from years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 was limited tender then provide the copies of CST(Comparative Statement of prices of books with discount %  offered by suppliers) approved by Library Committee and Director for that particular year.
  2. Copies of supply orders placed for supply of Scientific and Technical books in Technical Library in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.
  3. Discount offered by various suppliers on procurement of Indian and Foreign books with name of suppliers and discount  offered by them, when mode of tendering was Single Tender or Limited Tender.
  4. Copies of bills submitted by suppliers for getting payment against supply of books in Financial Year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013.

This is relevant to mentioned here that the information sought is related to establishment matters (Purchase) and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act.

Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.

However the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted under section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005.

Enclosed-      Rs 10 Postal order 12F 470729

 

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal   
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,    
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com , www.corruptionindrdo.com

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- V

‘Kalam has been promoting himself, not self-reliance’

George Iype

Avul Pakir Jainulabeen Abdul Kalam, who headed DRDO for years, is credited with drawing up the blueprint for India’s entry into the league of developed nations. He is the protagonist of the government’s grand plans to make indigenisation of defence products a reality.

If he could transform DRDO from a moribund, bureaucratic government organisation to an establishment that fights for self-reliance in defence production, will Kalam’s effort to build aircraft, war machines and missiles on the Indian soil bear fruit?

Many acknowledge that despite technology denials and control regimes enforced by the developed countries, Kalam imbibed a high-end research and development initiative in DRDO laboratories that the government, academic institutions and the industry now look at him in awe.

Thanks to Kalam, DRDO now has a leading role in generating technologies and secure systems in the field of information technology which could change the quality of life in defence forces. Under his stewardship, the organisation created the critical components and devices that will be the backbone of state-of-the-art electronic systems in defence.

Many claim Kalam’s discovery has been a turning point in India’s history and national security. But these days the boat owner’s son from Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu is setting sail on just one massive project — take India to self reliance in defence production at least 70 per cent by 2005.

It is because of Kalam that India can now boast of the ambitious indigenisation Plan 2005. Plan 2005 is not just about making weapons indigenously. It is the symbol of national pride.

Years after it professed the indigenisation mantra, the government sheepishly admitted last year that only 30 per cent of Indian weapons were of domestic origin. The realisation prompted it to turn to Kalam. It then immediately created a Self-Reliance Implementation Council headed by Kalam that will implement Plan 2005.

Is DRDO’s aim to achieve 70 per cent indigenisation in the defence system realistic in the wake of unaccomplished high profile projects like the Light Combat Aircraft, Arjun main battle tank, the missile and nuclear submarine programmes? But can Kalam deliver?

Not many believe that Kalam will accomplish 70 per cent self-reliance by 2005. The task us gigantic. More than one-third of the budget for the missile programme, the Arjun MBT and the LCA has gone into imports of critical components. More imports are to follow as DRDO’s indigenous engine programme, especially for the LCA, is on the verge of collapse.

“Indigenisation is a hoax. Kalam is spreading it boasting that he will attain self-reliance in defence equipment in five years time. Indigenisation should have been the DRDO motto when it was established in the 1950s, not in 2000,” says an army officer.

Many within the army, the air force and the navy, who have been waiting in vain for DRDO-developed defence equipment and electronic warfare systems, claim Kalam has been promoting himself, and not self-reliance.

“Both DRDO and Kalam have failed to win over the armed forces because many of their projects have become serious stumbling blocks for the forces’ modernisation,” the army officer adds.

The accusations against Kalam are three — that he did not create a good research and development culture in DRDO, that his relationship with the armed forces has been rocky and that he did not embark on any plan to stem the brain drain from DRDO.

Designing and developing defence weapons is perhaps the toughest engineering task. But experts claim DRDO suffers from a poor research and development culture thanks to Kalam.

“DRDO under Kalam has done more on public relations than on proper research and development. That is the reason why many of our projects like LCA are terribly lagging behind in schedules,” says Shankar Sen Chaudhury, an independent technical analyst based in Hyderabad.

“The structural environment in DRDO labs have to change if effective results in indigenisation is to take place,” he adds.

Another problem is the rocky relationship that Kalam has with the armed forces. He and his colleagues argue that the forces do not have any specialists who understand the design and development concepts of DRDO. “Therefore, the armed forces always interfere in our projects halfway through,” a DRDO scientist says.

Many say this messy relationship between DRDO, “the seller” and the three armed forces, “the buyers”, should be blamed on both sides. “Kalam was a marketing man. He wanted to hard-sell his half-baked DRDO products to us, like the Arjun tank,” says an army officer.

But DRDO asks: When the forces induct imported products without any trails, why can’t they rely on indigenous products? DRDO officials say the only reason for this is that the army does not have the experience to induct an indigenous weapon system.

DRDO has been mouthing the politically correct mantra of indigenisation because a number of disgruntled scientists in the organisation charge, “Dr Kalam is a politician.”

His critics say the problem is that India’s defence programmes is a one-man show. “Only Kalam is recognised and acknowledged. It is ridiculous that thousands of us are working there, and only one man is framed in a glass house. That is the precise reason for the high rate of brain drain from DRDO,” a disgruntled DRDO engineer said.

The rate at which scientists and engineers are leaving the laboratories is a cause for grave concern. According to a survey, more than 3 per cent of scientists and engineers leave the organisation every year in search of attractive salaries and perks.

“We have been demanding better salary packages and service conditions. But neither Kalam nor the government has listened,” says the engineer.

A section of DRDO scientists are now happy that the organisation is no longer under Kalam. Ever since the new chief, Dr Vasudev K Aatre, took over in December, things are looking up. One of the his first decisions was to initiate a university interactive programme for DRDO scientists. Now, professors of premier science institutes like the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore will spend time with DRDO scientists on specific research projects.

Dr Aatre is also taking a few radical decisions — he is on the verge of dropping some projects that the organisation has failed to execute in many years.

TOMORROW: ‘DRDO is like the Indian cricket team’
“They have been pampered with money and praise that they cannot just deliver,” remarks Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- IV

The DRDO has succeeded with missiles, but…

George Iype

In May 1998, the DRDO and its chief Dr A P J Abdul Kalam became symbols of national pride thanks to the nuclear tests. DRDO’s expertise in explosives and related technologies, and in systems engineering and integration was the key to the five devices tested by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.

Four months after the event, the government entrusted DRDO with a Rs 20 billion ballistic missile defence project. This is perhaps the most ambitious programme that DRDO has embarked upon. It would need to integrate the Russian-made anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile systems, which the army and air force are planning to induct, with an Israeli fire control radar.

The project, along with the Integrated Guided Missile Development programme and the nuclear submarine programme that DRDO has engaged in over the years, is meant to lay India’s foundation of strategic missile programme and security stability.

But given DRDO’s track record in the IGMD and nuclear submarine programme, not many believe the new ballistic project could come out with flying colours, that too in time.

It is not that DRDO’s missile mission has not taken India to the rarefied heights of missile power. “If there is one area in which DRDO has succeeded with a certain degree of success, it is in missiles,” says Prakash Nanda, a security expert in Bangalore who is currently writing a book on the subject.

“Agni, Prithvi, Akash, Trishul and Nag. All these missiles have made us proud. But the problem is that though a number of flight tests of these missiles have been successfully carried out, DRDO has been unable to induct some of them into the forces,” he says.

For instance, for the last 16 years, DRDO has been building two types of anti-aircraft missiles — Trishul and Akash. According to the government’s defence plans, these surface-to-air missiles were to have replaced the Russian-supplied OSA-AK and Kvadrat systems by early 1990s. But DRDO has been unable to meet the deadlines.

To be specific, the Trishul project began in 1983. The original deadline was 1992. DRDO has spent more than Rs 2.6 billion on the missile, but it is still undergoing trials. Official sources say the major problem with Trishul is that the missile’s command guidance does not work.

Hence, though the defence ministry has entrusted DRDO with the Rs 20 billion project, it is not confident that the agency will accomplish its task in time.

“The anti-ballistic missile programme will languish like the nuclear submarine project, which DRDO has been working on for years now,” a ministry official comments wryly.

Fifteen years ago, the nuclear submarine programme was billed as India’s key to second strike capability after enunciation of the no-first use policy. But after spending millions of rupees, the naval headquarters is now demanding a technical audit of the Advanced Technology Vehicle project, as it is formally known.

The design and development of the nuclear submarine is a joint project of DRDO, the Department of Atomic Energy and the Indian navy. The DRDO, DAE and navy together have spent a whopping total of Rs 20 billion on the ATV — on its design drawings from Russia, civilian construction work, establishing test beds and testing facilities on the east coast and procurement of related equipment.

DRDO sources say the land-based prototype testing facility of the submarine reactor has been completed successfully and a training facility to familiarise with the nuclear submarine’s power plant has also been set up. The submarine’s power plant would use enriched uranium as reactor fuel.

But years after the ATV project was mooted, the submarine’s keel is yet to be laid because DRDO has been unable to decide on its construction design.

Chinks in the Armour – What ail DRDO, India’s Premier Defence Organigation?

Rediff.com – News-Special Part- III

‘DRDO took up Arjun before it learnt to make tanks’

George Iype

Some 20 years ago, the defence ministry entrusted the DRDO with two projects: the development of a battle tank and a multi-barrel rocket launcher system.

The DRDO called the former, assigned to it in 1974, Arjun, and the latter Pinaka.

Two-plus decades later, the Arjun is considered a major failure. And so is the Pinaka. The Indian army found the latter passed only seven of its 29 requirements.

Defence experts allege that DRDO continues to work on Arjun and Pinaka just to keep its laboratories open.

“The Arjun main battle tank is not world class and has failed to meet the required levels of accuracy. But DRDO is keeping it alive because it does not want its factories to close down,” says Major General (retd) Ashok Mehta.

Experts like Major General Mehta feel the Arjun could have been a tank with potential if DRDO had got its act together. But the premier defence research organisation continues to exert pressure on the army to accept a limited series of production for the Arjun.

Army officers say it is politics and not the tank’s potential that is at work in the defence ministry, which last year placed orders with the Avadi Ordinance Factory to manufacture 124 Arjun tanks.

“I am happy to inform you that not only is the army satisfied with the Arjun tank’s performance, but it has placed an order for 124 more such tanks,” Defence Minister George Fernandes had told Parliament. “With this India has achieved the capability for indigenous manufacture of battle tanks.”

Army officials, however, say no other defence agency in the world must have spent 25 years and Rs 3.5 billion on developing a tank that has failed to perform.

“We have wasted money and time in producing a tank that is just not a world class product these days,” an army officer in Hyderabad says.

Insiders say the army was not “satisfied with the Arjun’s performance” as Fernandes claimed, but was coerced to accept it by the DRDO.

N K Mohan Pillai, a retired army officer who witnessed the Arjun trials, says the tank lacked three vital strengths. First, its engine is weak. Second, its suspension needs permanent maintenance. Third, its gun control is not accurate enough to obtain first round kill probability.

“In fact, the main problem was that DRDO took up the Arjun project before learning how to make tanks,” Pillai remarks.

In 1994 when DRDO announced that the Arjun tank was ready for production, then army chief General B C Joshi witnessed the trials. He sent a note to the DRDO and the defence minister saying the tank fails to meet standards and therefore was unacceptable. General Joshi then laid down a dozen imperatives that DRDO should take to improve upon the tank.

General Joshi’s main concerns were that the tank that weighs 57 tonnes lacked armour protection and vital suspension for crew comfort and gunfire accuracy.

But DRDO, which has showcased the Arjun as its finest indigenous product, claims that the problem is not with the tank, but with the army.

“The army is used to handling only T-72 tanks. For the soldiers who have fired T-72 tanks, operating the Arjun is a gigantic task. So we have told the army to train their crew before accusing us of inferior production,” a DRDO engineer says.

Despite DRDO’s claims, many in the army believe that the 124 Arjun tanks will drain the exchequer just like the multi-barrel rocket launching system Pinaka did.

In 1999 the Comptroller and Auditor General severely indicted DRDO for its failure to develop critical components for Pinaka after spending Rs 424.5 million on the project.

The defence ministry had entrusted DRDO with the Pinaka project in 1980. The deadline given was 1994. Twenty years later DRDO is nowhere near finishing. The war heads and all the three vehicles necessary for launching the rockets are yet to be developed by DRDO. Against the requirement of eight types of warheads, only three have been developed. Of this, one is not acceptable to the army and the other is only a dummy.

“The delay in the development of the EWPinaka has compelled the army to depend on our existing 20 kilometre-range system even during Kargil conflict. The DRDO is entirely responsible for this,” charges an army officer.

According to experts, the Pinaka system has met just seven of the 29 requirements of the army during trials. The indigenous rocket launcher lacks the promised range, fire power, loading time of the salvo and deployment time.

These, however, are “minor problems” according to DRDO.