Tag Archives: A K Antony

Drdo

Antony talks tough, says will cancel ‘murky’ deals

Leave a comment

TNN Mar 30, 2012, 01.32AM IST

NEW DELHI: India will not hesitate for a moment to cancel any defence deal, even if it’s in the final stages of finalization after technical and commercial evaluations, if any malpractice or corruption is found in it.

With murky wheeling and dealing in arms deals again resurfacing after Army chief General V K Singh’s allegations as well as some unsubstantiated charges of irregularities in the $20-billion MMRCA project doing the rounds, defence minister A K Antony on Thursday made it clear that action would be taken even if the contract had already been inked.

India, said Antony, had enough safeguards like the “integrity pact” to protect its “interests and money” in already-inked contracts worth over Rs 100 crore. “We will take strong action if any malpractice, corruption or lobbying is established…there will be no mercy, there is zero-tolerance for corruption,” he said while speaking at the inauguration of the ‘DefExpo-2012’ here.

As for the MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project, under which final commercial negotiations are now being held to acquire 126 French Rafale fighters after elimination of other contenders, Antony said an inquiry was being conducted into an MP’s complaint of alleged wrongdoings in it since the government has to be “careful” at every stage to ensure “no foul play”.

Two of the 15 members in the defence ministry’s Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) have questioned the methods adopted to conclude that Rafale was cheaper than Eurofighter Typhoon in lifecycle costs.

“But the matter was resolved, with the observations of the two being recorded…all committees face dissent from one or more members…it does not mean the process will come to a stop,” said a senior official.

Antony said the CNC would take at least six months to conclude. Then, there will several layers of scrutiny at different levels, ranging from finance to the Cabinet Committee of Security, to vet the deal.

“We do not throw any complaint into the dustbin. There is a parallel inquiry also going on to inquire into the MP’s complaint. If we are satisfied that there is no foul play, then only will we go forward…We will proceed only if everything is clear,” he said.

Drdo

Tatra truck deal: Antony faces jail for neglect of duty?

Leave a comment

Manoj Mitta, TNN Apr 1, 2012, 06.13AM IST

NEW DELHI: Defence minister A K Antony had better come up with a “reasonable excuse” for waking up to corruption allegations in the Tatra deal two years after they had been brought to his notice. For, he would otherwise be liable for a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

The belated registration on Friday of a CBI case related to Tatra indicates Antony violated a legal duty when the bribery allegations had first been brought to his notice in writing by his party colleague Ghulam Nabi Azad in 2009 and then verbally by Army chief Gen V K Singh in 2010.

His prolonged failure to take action on the issue till it came out in the open flies in the face of the duty cast on “every person” by Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

When anybody becomes “aware of the commission of or of the intention of any other person to commit” any of the range of offences listed in Section 39 CrPC, he “shall … forthwith give information” to the nearest magistrate or police officer of “such commission or intention”.

The offences which every person is thus required to report immediately include those related to “illegal gratification”, which come under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Violations of Section 39 CrPC are punishable under Section 176 of the IPC, which prescribes a maximum six months is jail. It penalizes whoever is “legally bound” to give any information relating to “the commission of an offence or… for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence”.

The only loophole available to Antony is to cite some “reasonable excuse” for his failure to refer the Tatra issue immediately to the CBI. But then, Section 39 CrPC is so stringently worded that it casts a “burden” on the person concerned to prove the reasonableness of his excuse for not performing his duty.

It is doubtful whether Antony can cite the absence of written complaint by Singh as a “reasonable excuse” for not acting promptly. The Army chief, too, is liable under Section 39 CrPC for assuming he can leave it to Antony to initiate the legal process. Since the law requires him to report the matter, he cannot cite his communication to his superior as a “reasonable excuse”.

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

Antony tells defence PSUs to get their act together

Leave a comment

Antony tells defence PSUs to get their act together

TNN Feb 15, 2007, 01.36am IST

NEW DELHI: Perform or perish. defence minister A K Antony used the platform of an awards function on Wednesday to deliver this blunt message to defence PSUs, ordnance factories and, of course, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

In fact, the minister virtually asked DRDO — which is into making juices and mosquito repellents as well as tanks and missiles, as earlier reported by TOI — to concentrate only on “high-technology” areas of “strategic importance”.

“I am not satisfied with the work of some PSUs, ordnance factories and others. They must change. Otherwise, it will become difficult for them to survive in this era of competition,”said Antony, addressing an audience of chiefs and chairpersons of defence PSUs, shipyards and DRDO.

After handing over “awards for excellence”to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Bharat Electronics Ltd, which are being conferred with the “navratna” status, Antony said defence organisations “must adapt and transform to the changing environment of the defence industry brought about by globalisation”.

Drdo

DRDO lets loose ‘missiles’ at armed forces

2 Comments

DRDO lets loose ‘missiles’ at armed forces

TNN May 27, 2010, 04.40am IST

NEW DELHI: After public bickering among Cabinet ministers, here comes the sharp divide in the defence establishment.

With PM Manmohan Singh, defence minister A K Antony and others watching, the faultlines that underlie the embittered DRDO-armed forces relationship erupted into plain view on Wednesday.

Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V K Saraswat, speaking at the National Technology Day awards function, tore into the armed forces for failing to overcome their “temptation” to induct the latest weapon systems from abroad.

This did not go down well with the forces, represented as they were by Air Chief Marshal P V Naik, Admiral Nirmal Verma and General V K Singh as well as other officers in the audience. Some officers told TOI that DRDO “promises too much” but delivers “too little, too late” and the forces are “forced” to push for import of weapon systems to maintain operational readiness.

“Some awards given today, for instance, are for Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, Nag anti-tank guided missile and Astra air-to-air missile. These are still not operational despite years, if not decades, of trials,” said an officer.

The spat comes just two days after the Navy chief held “a long meeting” with Antony to stress that it was high time DRDO got its act together, said sources.

Wednesday’s award ceremony began normally enough, with Saraswat listing out achievements ranging from launch of India’s first nuclear submarine INS Arihant to the planned test of the 5,000-km range Agni-V ballistic missile in 2011. But then, Saraswat let loose a couple of heat-seeking missiles. It’s grossly unfair to hold only DRDO responsible for the poor level of self-reliance in defence systems, he said.

“The responsibility should be shared by all stake-holders of defence ministry and cannot be placed on DRDO alone, which neither has the power to impose its products on its customer (forces), nor the mandate or capacity to produce

the developed systems all by themselves,” he said.

“Services also must understand that while the temptation may be overwhelming to field proven, state-of-the-art imported systems, they too have a role to play in the country’s economic and industrial growth. No foreign system can be customised to completely address our long-term requirements,” he added.

There is, of course, a lot in what Saraswat said. The armed forces certainly need to fully support DRDO to ensure self-reliance in critical weapon systems, the supply of which from abroad can easily be choked in times of crisis.

But it’s equally true DRDO projects cannot continue to be bedevilled with huge time and cost overruns.

The PM, on his part, said, “We should be able to acknowledge and learn from our setbacks. It’s a fact some projects have been delayed and others have faced difficulties during operational induction.”

 

Readers’ opinions

a.ravi. (chennai)

20 Jul, 2010 02:56 PM

defence ministry and the govt should wake up from sleep. all the defence projects should be with foreign tie ups. regards .a.ravi.

John (India)

27 May, 2010 08:59 PM

Its very essential to develop weapons indigenous. But instead of spending money and valuable time on conventional weapons which was already in use by other countries, our DRDO has to research on new kind of weapons which will give us upper hand in a war. Or our weapons should be next generation. All our weapons should be fully automated, computer controlled and should have some kind of artificial intelligence. We should prove ourselves and show to the world that we have capabilities in destroying enemy satellites and have the capability to protect our own satellite in case of a war which may give a upper hand in a war. We should have Predator UAV’s which should be more capable than other countries.

N.Shekar (Bangalore)

27 May, 2010 08:38 PM

DRDO is a white elephant eating away the Tax payer’s money. DRDO should be used only for research and Development and not for bulk manufacture as they simply cannot do it. For most of the employees of DRDO, it is just a past time job and none except a few work seriously. There is no team work and the employees and the management is just busy playing politics. There has been no headway made in the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Nag anti-tank guided missile and Astra air-to-air missile. These are still not operational despite having spent countless amount of money. Every time the Defence minister visits the DRDO offices he sanctions crores of rupees and there is no accountability. Until and unless the so called DRDO is made accountable, nothing will be achieved and there is no use in cribbing that the armed forces are encouraging foreign Arms and ammunition.

raju (surat)

27 May, 2010 06:46 PM

Best thing is to privatise DRDO, we all know how government offices work. Most of the time goes in chatting, sipping tea, smoking, preparing tambacu etc. How will they produce cutting edge tech and time bound deliveries. With the best brains in the world we should put them to use in the right way and Private sector can only do that.

Narendra (Hyderabad)

27 May, 2010 06:36 PM

Ok wise guys,

harpreet (chandigrah) replies to a.ravi.

13 Aug, 2010 02:52 PM

there are many Indian companies which have better research and development capabilities, and they can produce much better arms and ammunition.ex-mhaindras and the tatas, all they need is a chance and we need to give them a fair chance. pinika multi barrel rockets are good example of this.

Milan Dutta (Kolkata)
27 May, 2010 06:12 PM

Armed forces must accept that this missile was right on target

A.P.MISRA. (Hyderabad)
27 May, 2010 05:47 PM

Blaming is very easy.No doubt DRDO moves at snails speed because they dont have a time bound programme to delver the goods.There are also lot of personnel politics involved in assigning the projects.There are very good scientists in the organisation who are dedicated to their work.The output of DRDO has to be translated by the Defence Production Units who owe equal responsibility for it.Corruption is one of the major factors which some how creeps in and ensures that the quality desired dosnt come out.vested interest of beneficiaries cannot be ruled out. 

Hussain (Hyderabad)
27 May, 2010 04:57 PM

DRDO is a Burden on our country. we pay thousands of crores of Rs for our scientist who has promised this country that they will stop all weapons import.I must admit Mr.Gopal has rightly said DRDO is an elephant. DRDO is nothing but a same old Govt office where files are fed to termites and buried.

Keviv (Bangalore)
27 May, 2010 04:47 PM

Right name of DRDO should be Delayed Research and Defective Organization. To top that they act high and might like there developing something very great. To see that a person need to come to Bangalore and see wastage of Tax Payers Money.