Category Archives: Drdo

Drdo

Making Quite A Bomb

3 Comments

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279925

Making Quite A Bomb

How workers without intel clearance get into an explosives lab

A Defence Lab Breached?

  • The High Energy Materials Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, has outsourced the production of TATB, an explosive, to a private firm, Viswaat, with which an ex-director of HEMRL is associated
  • The firm does not have a licence to manufacture explosives
  • Worse, the workforce—which does not have intelligence clearance—enters the HEMRL facility to carry out the work
  • Local auditors have questioned payments, attendance records etc
  • Based on anonymous complaints and these audits, the CBI is investigating all work undertaken by Viswaat Chemicals

What Is TATB

  • TATB (or triamino trinitro benzene) is an explosive yellow powder
  • Being extremely stable, it’s called for in high-risk situations
  • One use of TATB is as a primer in nuclear warheads
  • Mixed with fuel oil or other binders, it can be used for bomb-making by terrorists When the CBI begins to investigate a premier defence research institute, the findings can be explosive. Quite literally so, in this case. Imagine the production of a restricted explosive substance being outsourced by a specialised government lab—that too to an unlicensed private firm. It’s just such a flagrant security lapse that was involved when the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, run by the venerable Defence Research & Development Organisation, parcelled out a production contract for the explosive triamino trinitro benzene (TATB) to Viswaat Chemicals. The storyline is by now familiar from other scams: a former director of HEMRL, Dr Haridwar Singh, is associated with Viswaat. The CBI probe began on anonymous complaints and local audits citing the conflict of interest. But especially worrisome is the security angle. One, Viswaat allegedly does not yet have a licence for producing explosives; and two, the workforce it provides does not have intelligence clearance.TATB may be a relatively lesser known one in the roster of explosive acronyms, but it packs quite a punch: it weighs in under rdx on the impact scale, but above TNT. Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (retd), an explosives expert, says, “In the current scenario—take Monday’s terror attack in a high-security zone in Delhi—substances used to make explosives must always be guarded. If anyone manages to smuggle TATB out of the factory, it can be used for any purpose. The purpose of intelligence checks is to prevent free accessibility. Also, untrained personnel may, without knowing the implications, sell the stuff, leading to disastrous consequences.”Viswaat is said to have applied for the relevant manufacturing licence to the Union industries ministry’s chief controller of explosives, headquartered in Nagpur. (It issues licences under laws governing the manufacture, use and transport of explosives, petroleum products and flammable substances.) The non-issuance of a licence may well be attributed to procedural delay. But it’s the fact of the workforce supplied by the firm not having intelligence clearance that experts cite as a serious internal security threat. In such circumstances, uncleared employees—or anyone claiming connections to Viswaat, for that matter—could gain access to the high-security HEMRL facility.Vidya Krishnan, an SP with the Pune branch of CBI, which is in charge of the probe, confirmed the firm and the lab were being investigated but said “revealing anything beyond this wouldn’t be possible at this stage”. However, sources said Viswaat has been working with DRDO since 2000 on what are known as government-owned, company-operated (GOCO) projects, taking on assignments outsourced by the Advanced Centre for Energetic Materials (ACEM), Nasik, and the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Jagdalpur. Those close to the investigation said all contracts obtained by the firm are now under the scanner. The amount isn’t comparable, say, to the Devas–Antrix deal—it’s no more than Rs 15 crore—but the security angle, given that explosives are involved, helps it take on immense gravity.Before the CBI took on the case, local-level government auditors had in 2009-10 raised serious objections to the contracts, pointing to discrepancies in allocation of work and the bill claims made for the workforce. One report, for example, says: “Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB at Rs 11,000 per kg and whether any concurrence has been obtained from audit authorities”. They had also sought inspection of documentary proof of raw material being brought into HEMRL by the contractor for producing TATB and the roster of employees deployed for production schedules, saying there was no uniform system for maintaining attendance records. That is a security gap even accounts auditors homed in on, though they were looking at it only from the payments angle: records say Viswaat had provided less manpower in Jan-Feb 2010, but payments made to it weren’t calculated accordingly. Similarly, there were no records of the entry and exits of vehicles the contractor was supposed to provide; again, the auditors looked at it from the payments angle, but the security angle looms large.
  • Dr Singh put on a brave face when asked to comment. “I am aware of the CBI inquiry against Viswaat—these days an inquiry can be initiated against anyone,” he said. “But I know I’ll come out clean.” And although investigators believe he heads Viswaat, Dr Singh maintains his role is that of independent director, and hence “very limited”, which is why he doesn’t know much about the contracts obtained by the company. About the explosives licence, he says, “I think the company was not into explosives earlier, and then started working in the field, so it had to apply for one. I’m not involved with the company directly, so I wouldn’t be part of the process. They requested me after retirement to join them, so I did, as an independent director.”

    As for the DRDO, its public interface director, Ravi Gupta, was circumspect: “The contract related to production of TATB was awarded after following duly laid down procedures. It won’t be appropriate to make any further comments as the matter pertains to sensitive defence projects.” That really seems to be the whole point. Should a sensitive issue like this be handled in such a fancy-free manner?

Drdo

Vision 2020

Leave a comment

India became a nuclear state with underground explosion on 18th May 1974, known as Pokhran-I (Smiling Buddha). The economic condition then did not permit this misadventure as the fallout was international sanction.

Sh. Atal Bihari Bajpai, then opposition leader expressed his view in the parliament “A hunter went for hunting the lion in the deep & dense forest on a bullock cart, when the lion appeared and roared the hunter in hurry asked his subordinate to load the gun, the helping hand said sorry sir, in a hurry we forgot to bring the gun but license is with us. The hunter requested the lion please give me some time to bring the loaded gun and then I assure you a decisive fight”

What Sh Bajpai said then was proved during KARGIL WAR 1999, the active defence asked for latest arsenal from DRDO and in return DRDO showed them the license.

DRDO bosses show the licenses instead the loaded gun (Product) and when the user demand they always seek more time. This mockery will continue until a firm accountability is implemented and user active participation in project/ program is made mandatory.

User requirements if not met in time then concerned officers who participated in developmental process should be made accountable.

Until these steps are taken, DRDO will only show the licenses of doing research even if country faces next KARGIL like scenario.

DRDO needs similar determination in development projects/programs like the US & Russia. When Americans developed the mother of bomb GBP-43/B with blast yield 11 Ton in 2003, then in 2007 Russia produced Father of Bomb (ATBIP) with blast yield 44 Ton. And now US produced MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) which penetrate 60 feet thick concrete wall bunker and will reach the target with satellite guidance.

SA to RM is not only to enjoy the personal gym which was constructed and procured at Development enclave under project funds but he is also supposed to accelerate the developmental efforts in frontline technologies having 20 years life.

The constitutional limitation of SA to RM is such that he is not able to take timely decision/action to save the image of DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE’s massage parlour episode; he has overlooked GTRE lab which is running without suitable and committed head since May 11, 2011. Similarly like Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, lots of cases/complaints pending against him with documentary evidences right from Defence Minister, CVC, Women Cell, Court etc but SA to RM does not bother about the image of DRDO.

This type of corrupt team of DRDO are becoming role model for the young scientists and in the process sincere scientists leaving DRDO.

The decision made for extension of service is without any analysis. The incompetency is growing, the deserving are the sufferers, the team lead by aspiring seniors stop working and result no output is poor tax payer of the country is ultimate looser.

The PMO, the Finance Minister is not able to find the hole in their GDP. In last 20 years technology import by DRDO has bypass all the procurement policy. For DRDO Directors “money is flowing”. The government has show leniency and the technology being imported is on its peak. 90% of the sanction budget for DRDO is being spent on 15 years old abandon technology of developed nations.

The experts from DRDO justify the procurement as the supplier agents offers them massage parlour to hefty commissions, good food, spa and stay in a 5 stars for a brief period.

The obsolete technology are imported as custom built item and 5 to 10 times higher cost and paid in Indian currency. The global tenders placed two to three times until the desired supplier decides the percentage of commission with journey to country from where technology is being imported. Further in the name of AMC signed MOU to ensure their periodical personal inputs and this periodical revenue is the sole cause of extension in service.

With this attitude of DRDO top brasses and MoD’s inability to handle the situation can we imagine to ever see the Vision – 2020? It is a big question?

Drdo

“Truth Never Dies” ll Satyameva Jayate ll

Leave a comment
                                                                                                                                  29th January 2012
To
The Honorable Prime Minister
PMO, South Block
New Delhi -110011

Honorable Sir,

“Truth Never Dies” ll Satyameva Jayate ll

A Powerful orator, economist of International repute, most reliable financial expert, trusted lieutenant of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Ex-governor of Reserve Bank & Ex-Chairman of Planning Commission- All these decoration warrant that at least PMO should not ignore the fight against corruption prevailing in DRDO. If the Prime Minister obliged the scientist with 20% incentive in a country where 40 crore people have to fight for at least one meal for survival.  How come PMO helps DRDO to conceal the truth of the prevailing corruption?

I assure you Sir, the way the website www.corruptionindrdo.com has been targeted with fake cases with fake charges FIR registered with Police against whistle blower and Ministry of Defence has put all efforts to close their eyes against documentary evidences of corruption on DRDO is not a welcome sign of good governance.

This website mainly advocated the self reliance in front of defence technology.  The huge one lakh crores infrastructure and 28000 strong competent scientists/engineers/technicians of DRDO in last 50 years have failed to deliver a single indigenous output of International standards.

This website has exposed the corruption, nepotism in DRDO and this neck deep corruption/nepotism is stumbling block in development.

The scientists/engineers are encouraged to justify the failures.

Nobody is talking about the success, about the projects/programs. When it will stop? Only time will tell.

DRDO is targeting those who give positive criticism for technology development.

Similar firm and thunderous decision is required in DRDO like ISRO.

This website represents the common people of India and expects the result of action taken on issues exposed with evidences and so far DRDO is ignorant of national perspective of development. Only goal is personal interest.

The accountability of DRDO is Zero

The Accountability is directly proportional to work output.

Therefore DRDO work output is Zero

Even the honorable parliament has been mislead by DRDO several times.

Thanking you

Regards   

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

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

Leave a comment

Dear friends while surfing I found the very sensible analysis of DRDO problems/solutions by Sh R C Chakraborty, Ex Director, DTRL, DRDO.

Prabhu Dandriyal

Scientist Leaving DRDO — Why call Attrition?

June 23, 2007, posted by rnyreaders http://myreaders.wordpress.com/,

R C Chakraborty,-rcchak@gmail.com

http://www.myreaders.info/02_Scientist__leaving__DRDO.pdf

The DRDO Directors’ Conference held on February, 21, 2007 was effective in a sense that media started reminding about DRDO functioning more frequently. For example, the dissatisfaction expressed by the Parliament’s standing committee on defence, the Minister A.K. Antony asking DRDO to answer for the huge delays in high profile projects, the concern expressed by Defence Services on DRDO projects and deliverables, the criticism of the individuals and an appreciation for the Government action in short listing private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Ratna. DRDO of course tried to read in between the lines, expressing — “High attrition rate of young scientists … The DRDO’s representation to the Pay Commission . . . proposals to increase salaries of its scientists to arrest the exodus ? . . . and so on “. Extracts from few such reporting are reproduced below for quick reference.

• Address at the DRDO Directors’ Conference, dated 21/02/2007, by the President Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, The Hindu, dated 22/02/2007, “Set goal for self-reliance in defence systems”: Kalam , by Special Correspondent. President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Defence Minister A.K. Antony on Wednesday asked defence scientists to bring about a change in their functioning to deliver on India’s requirements of futuristic weapon platforms. “When an organization functions; for over five decades …..A change in the organizational culture is required based on present-day technology and infrastructure . . . . Advising that the DRDO be reorganized after every five years based on the dynamics of organizational missions. Mr. Antony … asked them to be prepared to answer for the huge delays in some of the high profile projects……..

• Indian_Express_dated 14/06/2007: DRDO Scientists are leaving to the greener avenues available in the Private Sector. More than 300 Scientists and Technical staff have left DRDO in the year 2006.

• Tribune_Chandigarh dated 28/04.2007 : “During 2002-2006, . . . 1,007 scientists left DRDO due to increased opportunities available in the private sector,” DRDO is seeking a four-fold increase in salaries . . . from the Sixth Pay Commission.

• Citizen Journalism, citizenxpress.com dated 15/0612007 Because of better career prospects nearly 33% of people who loin DRDQ quit (attrition rate as BPO), nearly 20% use DRDQ as stepping stone, nearly 13% are having due to lack of professional challenge and 8% leave DRDO looking for advancement and additional qualifications.

• The Hindu dated 23/12/2007 Defence Minister, A K Antony said “concerns had been expressed in various quarters over the functioning or the DRDO. The time has come to look ‘toward and see whether the organization is tuning itself adequately, to the changing time.

• Hindustan Times, dated 17/06/2007: 1,007 DRDO scientists quit in five years.

  • DRDO criticized for huge time and cost overruns its multifarious projects, saw  1007 scientist quitting in the last five years, Parliament was informed Thursday
  • Earlier this week, Antony had served notice on DRDO to quickly rectify the defects in the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) it has been developing since 1970s or the government would be wind up the project.
  • Indian Army refused to induct the tank citing 14 major technical defects.
  • A parliamentary panel, last month rapped the DRDO for failing to meet its import substitution targets by as much as 50 per cent, saying hue overruns in its big ticket projects -warranted a “thorough review” of its functioning.
  • Parliaments standing committee report on the DRDO: During the 10th Plan (2002- 07), targeted 70% indigenization, only 30-35% could be achieved. Even after 48 years of its formation has not achieved its targeted mission of self reliance. Urgent need for a thorough review’ of its functioning and organizational structure “to increase its efficiency”. Pointing delays in the MBT, LCA and its Kaveri engine, and integrated guided missile development programme (IGMDP). Noting “No scientific audit at any point of time of DRDO and its projects”, recommended that the organizations projects “must be audited by external and independent groups of experts approved by the government.

• Bharat Rakshak, Consortium of Indian Defence Website, dated 11/06/2007, India’s R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector, Times of India, 19/06/2007: Godrej has big plans for military hardware. The $1.7 billion Godrej Group plans to give a major push to its military equipment supply, creating private Sector in manufacturing defence hardware. Already in nuclear and space technology and now plan to vigorously pursue in defence. Group Chairman Adi Godrej said. . . supplier of airframe sections for the Brahrmos missile, supply o equipments for satellite launch, nuclear sector, and refineries. Government short listed 1,3 private firms for granting the status of Rakshya Udyog Retna. The list was handed over to Defence Minister A K Antony by Probir Sengupta, the chairman of the government-appointed selection committee, on June 6.

•The Indian Express dated 23/06/2007, “Just DRDO won’t do’, why India has MNCs in IT, pharma, telecom but not in defence research. by Milind Deora, 2 1/11/2006.

  • In 1958, the DARPA was set up by USA, Dept of Defense and same year India established the RDO. While DARPA has been a huge success DRDO still hasn’t been able to achieve its vision — everything that really matters in the Indian military is stilt imported.
  • A special CAG review in 2000 of found: almost 50 per cent of the DRDO’s budget was spent on salaries; present ratio of scientists to other support personals is 1:5 in DRDO compared 1: 0.7 to DARPA.
  • World -class scientists are acquired from private sector and universities, Supporting personals are temporary, hired from other agencies so that DARPA doesn’t have to support them on a permanent basis.
  • US defence budget is almost 25 times larger than that of India, but then DARPA’s annual budget is only twice that of DRDO’s, because DARPA is focused on high-end technologies, leaving other- systems to industry. This has enabled it to stay lean.
  • For Arjun MBT and Akash missile, DRDO needs to follow better management practices to deliver indigenous technologies to the military. The production of juices and insect repellants are other instance where the DRDO urgently needs to rethink is focus.
  • DROD labs should avoid any kind of overlap and duplication. The organization must, draw up a list of future technologies based on certain criteria and go after them aggressively.

— First strategic  technology that no  country may sell to India— e.g., nuclear weapons, surveillance and communications  satellites and long range cruise missiles.

–       Second, technologies which are heading towards a global monopoly like conventional submarines  presently being sold at very, high price.

–     Third, future technologies on drawing boards all over the world — like unmanned  combat  aerial vehicles (UCAV5), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and robot soldiers.

  • If our other scientific and research organizations can make the world’s most competitive satellite launch vehicles, we can surely do the same for defence technologies.

• intent Blog, http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2OO6/12/how India .can s.hgj, dated 14/12/2006, How India Can Stop Subsidizing Russia And Israel by Milind Deora, India can build strong indigenous capabilities while creating competitive benchmarks for DRDO through the active participation of the private sector. . . If India has built world- class multinationals in sectors such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, both of which are knowledge-driven industries, we could easily create a handful of defence multinationals in less than a decade. . . A small nation like Israel accounts for a 10th of world defence sales and approximately a 5th of its exports are defence- related. While India had an annual import bill of around $5 billion last year, we exported a paltry $47 million worth of arms. Pakistan, which lacks industrial base, exported nearly twice as much. . . In addition to reforming the DRDO, the viability of select DPSUs, especially those not dealing with core areas like the production of missiles and warheads, should also be re-examined and certain products like food products should ether he scrapped or outsourced to lower-cost vendors.

Expressing such dissatisfaction, criticism or concern about DRDO accomplishment is not new. After the Kargil war (1999) DRDO activities were subjected to some scrutiny and a few reforms were suggested, but Not much was done on those recommendations (The Indian Express, 23/06/2007). Also, commenting on the DRDO in isolation, without looking at the higher defence management framework within which it is placed, would perhaps lead to incomplete or even flawed deductions,

Assuming that what all is said is correct, then DRDO must be 1ooking for alternatives to its failures, which means DRDO is preparing to take few “hard decisions”.

Some hard decisions I have in my mind which I would like to share are.

1. GET RID OF THE STUFF DRDO SHOULD GO WITHOUT.

2. All System Development projects and programs should be taken out of DRDC, because of very little R&D opportunity. The R&D element is just 10% while 90% is engineering design, fabrication, testing, integration, field trials, acceptance and management. Each of these better done elsewhere and not by R&D mind. The implementation responsibility would also he oti those who do these 90c/o work and finally on a Board. DRDO contribution, claim, responsibility, budget allocation, manpower, infrastructure, and management should relate to that 10% only.

3. Further, the Most Technology Demonstration projects should also be take ii out of DRDD. The reason is same said above. The R&D elements in these TD projects are just 40% or less. Indian industries, particularly the private sectors, offer better compensation and therefore have better human resources. They would better absorb this 40% R&D elements along with rest 60% activity.

4. Lastly, a few Technology Demonstration projects where R&D elements are 40% or more and all the S&T projects where R&D elements are 100%, there DRDO has it primary role that is : “Convert scientific know- how into usable technologies. Here also DRDO need to evolve partnership with the academic institutions, funded by government or privately managed. All such projects are identified as (a) Basic Research that produces new knowledge in scientific or technology areas of interest to the military and (b) Applied Research that supports the exploratory development of new technologies for specific military applications or further development of existing technology for new military applications. The procedures followed by DARPA can be adopted to ensue transparence, equal opportunity, accountability, quality and most importantly revealing what followed next.

My best regards to friends in DRDO, a great organization that helped me to grow over a period of 30 years

Drdo

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Leave a comment

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Anubhuti Vishnoi : New Delhi, Wed Jan 25 2012, 00:56 hrs – Indian Express

In an unprecedented disciplinary action, four of the biggest names in the space community, including former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) G Madhavan Nair, have been barred from occupying any government position — current or in future — for their role in the Antrix-Devas deal, in which a private company was accused to have been wrongfully allotted S-band frequencies for radio waves.

A Bhaskarnarayana, former scientific secretary in ISRO; K R Sridharmurthi, former managing director of Antrix which is the marketing arm of ISRO; and K N Shankara, former director in ISRO’s satellite centre, are the others who have been penalised, according to an order issued by the Department of Space on January 13, 2012.

Nair, during whose tenure the contract was signed, is the recipient of the Padma Vibhushan. He is the chairman of the board of governors of IIT Patna.

The order, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, is signed by Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, director, Department of Space. While it does not specify the allegations against these scientists, the order says that the decision comes after the government “carefully considered” the report of the high-powered review committee set up on February 10, 2011 and that of another team set up on May 31, 2011.

The order, sent to all Secretaries of the Government of India and Chief Secretaries of state governments and Union Territories, says that these “former Officers of the Department of Space shall be excluded from re-employment, committee roles or any other important role under the government”.

Further, the order states that “these former officers shall be divested of any current assignment/consultancy with the government with immediate effect”. Ministries and departments concerned have been asked to communicate necessary action taken towards the same to the Department of Space.

The deal involved a contract that Antrix Corporation — whose mandate is to market technologies developed by ISRO — had signed with Bangalore-based Devas Multimedia in 2005. The multi-million dollar deal gave Devas bulk lease — 90 per cent — of transponders on two yet-to-be-launched satellites for supporting a range of satellite-based applications for mobile devices through S-band frequencies. For this, the company was given access to 70 MHz of the 150 MHz spectrum that ISRO owns in the S-band.

The Cabinet approved the building of these two satellites — GSAT-6 for Rs 269 crore and GSAT-6A for Rs 147 crore — in 2009. The cost of the launch of satellites was to be Rs 350 crore. Interestingly, the Cabinet was not informed that these two satellites were meant to be used by Devas, a fact admitted by ISRO.

“Ideally, that should have been explicitly mentioned but it was not done,” ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan had told reporters last year when the matter had broken out.

Following allegations that the contract was awarded to the company without competitive bidding, ISRO had set up a committee to review the contract in November 2009, soon after Radhakrishnan had taken over as ISRO chairman from Madhavan Nair.

On the recommendations of that committee, the deal had been scrapped. Devas has gone to court against that decision and the matter is pending in court.

While deciding to scrap the deal, ISRO was also guided by the fact that strategic and societal needs of the S-band spectrum had changed radically from 2005 when the contract was signed, and therefore, it was not imprudent to hand over such a large band of spectrum to a private company.

Former head of NASSCOM Kiran Karnik, who had served as an independent member on Devas Board, had, however, strongly defended the contract. In a letter to the Prime Minister, he had lamented the fact that the government had not done enough either to defend the agreement or the reputation of ISRO.

“In terms of processes, as far as I know, this agreement went meticulously through every step… If cabinet approval was not sought for the deal, the question is whether it was at all required and whether past transponder deals with private parties has gone through any such specific Cabinet approvals,” Karnik had asked.

After the controversy broke out, Karnik resigned from the Devas Board. He had told The Indian Express that he did not have the time or the energy to spend on offering explanations, particularly to the media.

Reader’s Comments(2) | Post a comment

ISRO TOO !

ISRO_EMP | 25-Jan-2012

IS ISRO ANOTHER CWG AND IS THIS ADEQUATE? IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO BE SHIELDED IN THE NAME OF STRATEGIC DOMAINS?

Antrix: Ex ISRO chief...

K. K. Cherian | 25-Jan-2012

Sir, ISRO is one of the most prestigious organisations in the country. A chance to head such an organisation is an extraordinary achievement for any Scientist. It is shocking and Paradoxical that Mr. Madhavan Nair who was one of the most respected individuals in the country should have indulged in such a shameful and deceitful act. The action taken is probably too small a punishment for the heinous crime he has committed. One can only hope and pray that ISRO would never again face the ignominy of such individuals heading it

Drdo

Missile Crisis

Leave a comment

Shantanu Guha Ray January 22, 2011 /India Today / India / Story

India’s defence ministry is stalling the export of the indigenously manufactured BrahMos supersonic cruise missile to Indonesia. This first defence deal between the two countries was being pushed by the external affairs ministry as part of its Look East policy. The defence ministry shelved the proposal, citing security implications. Ironically, Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is to be the chief guest at the 61st Republic Day celebrations in Delhi

 

Drdo

Defence lab wasted money on bridge Army couldn’t use: CAG

Leave a comment

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Defence lab wasted money on bridge Army couldn’t use: CAG

Pranav Kulkarni : Pune, Sun Dec 25 2011, 02:47 hrs

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has now targeted city-based Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) lab Research and Development Engineers (R&DE). A CAG report has revealed that the non-execution of a project to build a modular bridge by the R&DE resulted in wastage of assets created at a cost of Rs 21.46 crore as the users, in this case, the Army, found the bridge unusable. The report, however, mentions that the DRDO and the Army were aware of the project limitations but no attempt was made by either of them to resolve the matter beforehand.

The report says the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had, in October 2002, sanctioned a project to build a 46-metre single-span bridge of Military Load Class 70 (MLC 70). R&DE was supposed to complete the work by October 2006 at a cost of Rs 24.25 crore. In May 2006, it sought an extension of the Probable Date of Completion (PDC) up to October 2008. In October 2007, the R&DE, against specifications, submitted a trial report to the DRDO headquarters for a 20-metre bridge and MLC 40 standard, which was not acceptable to the Army. Also, the PDC of the project was again extended to December 2009.

During this time, the R&DE developed a 40-metre, MLC 70 bridge, which was usable after trials but was not what the users had specified (46 m). The report said in March 2010, the R&DE closed the project after having spending Rs 21.46 crore and proposed to develop a new project worth Rs 13.25 crore with original specifications, which was to be completed by July 2012.

“Thus instead of adhering to specifications, R&DE, Pune, developed a bridge which was not required by the users. The end result was — after an expenditure of Rs 17.89 crore, excluding the cost of five carrier vehicles being used in next project, the requirements of the user could not be served,” the report says.

“The details of the case, MoD’s reply and the clarification given by the users reveal that both the user and DRDO were aware that the bridge being built was 40 metres and MLC 70. Further, the DRDO had its limitations for construction of the bridge with original specifications. Though both the user and the designer were aware of the limitations of the project, neither of them took the initiative to foreclose the project,” it says.

Manish Bharadwaj, scientist and spokesperson, DRDO said, “We will have to speak to DRDO authorities before commenting.”

Drdo

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

Leave a comment

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

TNN | Jan 17, 2012, 12.47AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked for a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report pointing out alleged irregularities in the purchase of intelligence equipment byNational Technical Research Organisation(NTRO), which was set up in 2004 to provide critical data relating to threats to the nation.

Solicitor general R F Nariman assured a bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad that the government had already initiated action against erring officials on the basis of the CAG report but petitioner V K Mittal’s counsel Jayant Bhushan wondered why the Centre was shy of bringing the alleged irregularities into the open by placing the report in Parliament.

The bench asked Nariman to produce the CAG report on NTRO scam in a sealed cover by March 19. This is the second time within a year that the apex court has asked for a CAG report, the first being on the irregularities in the allotment of 2G spectrum and licences during A Raja’s tenure as telecom minister.

Nariman was belligerent in trashing Mittal’s PIL, not only accusing the latter of attempting to serve a personal interest but also alleging that his correspondence with the authorities revealing top secret projects with their location could help countries inimical to India.

Bhushan countered Nariman by alleging that the government was deliberately keeping the matter under wraps in the name of security to shield the culprits. But the bench said, “It is not a case where the government has put the issue in cold storage but promised that it was being looked into. We will not pass an order but request the SG to produce the CAG report in a sealed cover on March 19.”

Mittal had alleged that a major portion of the Rs 450 crore NTRO scam pertained to purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from an Israeli firm allegedly at a very high price without the mandatory approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

NTRO, which functions under the Prime Minister’s Office, has been entrusted with the task of missile monitoring, satellite and airborne imagery, cyber patrolling and security, cyber offensive operations and communication support systems including cryptology.

It was on the complaint of Mittal, a former joint director in the government of India who had also served in NTRO, that the PMO had ordered a probe into the scam and later, CAG was asked to look into the organisation’s accounts. Nariman alleged that Mittal wanted to head the NTRO and filed the PIL when he did not succeed.

During the last hearing, Bhushan had alleged that Delhi High Court had dismissed Mittal’s writ petition on April 6, 2011 after the Centre filed a probe status report in sealed cover assuring prompt action against the guilty officials. However, no action was taken till date, he claimed.

Mittal’s petition stated that the independent body answerable only to the national security adviser was allotted approximately Rs 8,000 crore since 2005, but there was no accounting of the spending.