Tag Archives: chief

Uncategorized

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing

Leave a comment

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing
08-01-2015
CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), in an unprecedented assault on the spirit of the Right to Information Act, under whose provisions the commission is set up, called in the city police to arrest an applicant for refusing to remain standing up and asking to be allowed to sit down in front of a two-member bench hearing an appeal by the applicant at the commission’s headquarters in Teynampet here on Wednesday.
There is no rule that an RTI applicant should remain standing during an appeal, but when NGO Satta Panchayat Iyakkam (Legal Panchayat Movement) president Siva Elango asked for a chair during the hearing of a second appeal after TNSIC rejected his RTI application and first appeal, chief information commissioner K S Sripathi and commissioner S F Akbar refused to accede to the request.
When the SPI president took a chair, the commissioners informed the Teynampet police and lodged a formal complaint. Police picked up Elango from the TNSIC headquarters and booked him under IPC Sections 353 (preventing a government servant from discharging his duty), 294 (b) (obscenity) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).
Police presented Elango in a magistrate’s court, which remanded him in judicial custody for 15 days. Elango is currently in Puzhal Central Prison here.
RTI activists seeking to expose corruption have been at the receiving end of threats and attacks by politicians and bureaucrats, and some of them have even been murdered for their efforts, but this is the first time that a state information commission has gone out of its way to stymie an appeal for information and intimidate an applicant, activists in the city said.
Elango, who has filed several RTI applications and represented various applicants, said TNSIC members and staff have routinely sought to derail his petitions for information and harass him. “On Wednesday commission staff even deflated the tyres of my motorcycle,” he said.
Wednesday’s hearing of Elango’s second appeal was on an RTI application he filed on February 22, seeking details of advertisements issued by the state government from 1991 to 2014. “I approached TNSIC after the government failed to reply to my application,” he said. “Instead of penalising the PIO concerned for not providing the information on time, the commissioners have been misbehaving with me during the proceedings.”
Chief information commissioner Sripathi was unavailable for comment, but commissioner Akbar said TNSIC had given Elango “sufficient opportunities” to obtain the information he requested. “He did not follow some procedures,” he said. Asked what specific procedures he was referring to, Akbar said, “I cannot divulge everything that happened during the hearing.”
SPI general secretary Senthil Arumugam said information commissioners in the state continue to be lax even after applicants protested against them. “They should treat applicants with some dignity. Unfortunately, they safeguard errant PIOs instead,” Arumugam said.
Enraged by Elango’s arrest, RTI activists said they will organise a sit-in protest at the TNSIC headquarters on Friday. Lok Satta Party (TN) spokesperson N Narayanan issued a statement condemning the TNSIC after Elango’s arrest.
Activists have been urging the commission to webcast proceedings on its site and allow applicants to record proceedings. In July 2014, SPI released a video that captured commission member P Thamilselvan abusing an applicant during the hearing of an appeal.
TOI recently reported that the number of RTI appeals disposed of by TNSIC plunged by more than 50% in 2014 from the previous year. Statistics from the commission’s website (Tamil Nadu Information Commission) show the number of appeals the commission attended to dropped from 19,889 in 2013 to 8,121 till November 2014. The commission receives an average of 60,000 RTI applications a year.

Chennai: Police arrest RTI applicant for refusing to stand at hearing – The Times of India

Bloger

MEET THE SYCOPHANTOSAURUS

3 Comments

Bikram Vohra -Dec 02 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
Sycophancy actually has classic Greek antecedents which makes sense because it is a classic act. The first sycophants were those who reported to the courts in ancient Greece about who was doing what to whom largely without proof… nothing much has changed since then and our army of lick spittle and belly crawlers have refined it to a science and an art.
In fact, with this capability being of the essence for survival it is pretty much on the cards that one day very soon it will be a post graduate course in a good university . You see, sycophancy or toadying up to the boss is a highly functional option to hard work and industry because bosses love it. Endless flattery to keep the ego swollen, gales of laughter to accompany frightful jokes, sprays of praise drenching the CEO, the more blatant the better. Even the bosses who pretend to have the intellect to ‘see through it’ enjoy the fantail of fawning Uriah Heeps who act as a backdrop for them. And it is not just about politicians, it is across the board.

Having done much research on this cadre and the potential it has for success, promotion and tangible perks I have divided the tribe into five categories which you may recognise or actually belong to without realising it.

THE OFFICE BUTT KISSER

He is unctuous, cloying in his shameless praise of the superior’s ideas, always grovelling and nodding his head in premature agreement, willingly rendering space, scuttling about doing the big man’s bidding, and bowing and scraping like a windshield wiper, all of it wrapped up in servile body language and that throat catching gasp of awe in his voice: sshh, the CEO is on his way . Like Thor was coming down from Olympus.

THE GREAT POLITICIAN AND PRETENDER

He spends his life networking and, like a crazed bee, flitting from flower to flower picking up pollen laced with malice.Dangerous to those who cross him his only aim is to have the chief ‘s ear and retain it.This he manages by snitching, sneaking, backstabbing and other such genial exercises camouflaged with a thin patina of friendliness as he shoves the knife in. For some reason the top bosses depend on him for the dirt that shores up their inherent insecurity so he becomes indispensable.

THE ERRAND BOY

He manipulates the boss through the family. Sir I brought five kilos of rice from our own farm. Pedas from Mathura. Fresh gur from his uncle’s factory.

Does madam’s shop ping. Takes the kids for tennis. Drops visiting relatives to the airport, takes them sightseeing. Fetch and carry , a sort of ADC cum flunky who then wins back favours by making the cut every time there is the 5 o’clock HR letter moment.He is just too vital to the boss’s comfort zone to be sacked.Ergo, he crawls up the ladder.

THE UNTIRING OVER WORKER

This is the cleverest guy of the lot. He creates this great charade doing nothing. Comes early , goes late, attends office on Sundays and holidays, makes sure the boss does see him grinding away , writes copycat reports, creates power points and spiral bound idiot scenarios with equal dexterity to show he is a company man but the moment there is real tasking he falls sick or passes the hot little buck down the line.

THE PROFESSIONAL APPLE POLISHER

Slick as hair gel. Smart but lazy , he uses guile and style and smoke and mirrors to conceal his major flaw….complete lack of talent. Dresses like the boss, takes up golf if the chief plays golf, bridge if that’s his game, learns to lose deliberately , goes to the right places, power dresses, acts and plays the role and becomes a sort of dressed-up lackey whose presence pleases the top guy .

Until the falling at your feet, Sir, is just his way of pulling the rug because you have outlived your usefulness and there is a new boss on the way .Then our friend will be at the airport with a bouquet to receive him.

TIME TO TACKLE THE GREAT INDIAN CHAMCHA

Ever encountered The Great Indian Chamcha? His greasy tentacles are spread across all strata of public life. We see him most often in politics, lauding the unimaginable, flattering for favour, defying self-respect and logic. In offices, he will invariably be the one singing a boss’s praises and ending sentences with “sir jee“.So set your wits at work and tell us about your encounter with the chamcha. Upload funny photos, videos, cartoons, jokes and any other rib-tickling material around the chamcha on facebook.com Great Indian Circus or twitter.com The Great Indian using the hashtag #TheGreatIndianChamcha.

The best, funniest entries will get a chance to feature in The Times of India and will also stand a chance to win exciting prizes. So, what are you waiting for sir jee?

Drdo

Dire need to speed up DRDO’s output

Leave a comment

Lt Gen Harwant Singh (retd), Hindustan Times  Chandigarh, August 29, 2014

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called upon Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to speed up projects and advance delivery schedules. He has said that India can be world leader in defence technology and show the way forward to the world.

These are very high expectations and there is nothing in the DRDO’s past performance to generate such great hopes. In fact, the record of this organisation is extremely dismal.

There is no accountability and it has never been put through a science audit, in spite of repeated demands.

On the urging of the parliamentary committee on defence, a revamp of DRDO was carried out. Nothing much happened, except for some cosmetic changes, which are of little consequence.

We continue to import even low-technology equipment where over 70% of weapons and equipment is imported. Think of the outflow of foreign exchange and the jobs lost.

While the Prime Minister is unaware of the DRDO capabilities and potential, but surely, Arun Jaitley, the part-time defence minister, who has been in Parliament for a long time and is expected to have paid attention to debates on defence matters, ought to know better and, therefore, should have briefed the Prime Minister to lower his expectations from this organisation. In the past, these false hopes of delivery by DRDO have kept in limbo the deployment of private industry in this field.

DRDO budget

The DRDO budget has been 5% to 7% of the defence budget with allocations for major projects such as LCA, Arjun tank, etc being over and above this budgeted figure. Much of this amount has gone into civil works. If any proof of this lavish expenditure is required, one need go no further than have a look at the DRDO office complex at the rear of South Block and then of course see Sena Bhavan as well.

Those in the ministry of defence (MoD), who exercise control over DRDO, are blissfully ignorant of what defence equipment is all about. In weapons, they can’t tell a gun from a howitzer, and in engines, a cam shaft from a crank shaft. Projects can hang fire for decades while those responsible for these continue to move up the promotion ladder and so do those of the MoD who control them.

There is little understanding and mutual confidence between the DRDO and the defence services. The Prime Minister is aware of the disconnect, and that is why he impressed upon the DRDO to involve user in the development of military weapons and equipment.

The DRDO never spells out its technological status in relation to the equipment to be developed. With the result, GSQRs are prepared without proper interaction with the DRDO, but keeping in mind what is already in the market.

The DRDO never seeks the scaling down of the GSQRs to a level at which it can handle projects, in the full knowledge and belief that the project can be dragged on endlessly and that no one will be called upon to account. Once a project is taken on, complete secrecy prevails and service officers posted with these establishments are kept out of the loop.

Little achievement

The DRDO in stand-alone mode has achieved little and will not be able to meet the future needs of the armed forces. It has shown little skill and capability in the field of even reverse engineering of comparatively simple equipment. This is legacy of the Nehruvian policies of entrusting all this to the public sector (DRDO in this case). Since then vested interests have opposed any change in this moribund policy.

When the USSR broke up, some governments of east European countries offered to shift state-of-the-art defence industries to other countries. India spurned these offers, while China took two thousand scientists and some of the defence industrial units. In India, there is a politico-bureaucratic nexus which has successfully thwarted such moves, for obvious reasons. There is so much money to be made in imports, the Augusta helicopter being the more recent example.

However, the government did go in for military technology cooperation with the Russian government and later with some others for joint development of cutting-edge defence technologies. So far, this has been a one-sided affair, ending, essentially in transfer of technology and the attendant cost.

Measures to be taken

If the new government is to make a positive impact on the future indigenous development of defence technologies, production of such equipment within the country and its export, it need shed the hope of achieving this with only the DRDO efforts. It needs to consider some of these measures:

Close down those establishments of DRDO which are busy re-inventing the wheel, and those whose tasks can best be done in the private sector. Get it out of the control of the MoD. Equally do away with most of the defence ordnance factories. Pass on production of such equipment to the private sector.

It is DRDO component grouped with the navy that has performed well. This has essentially been due to direct control that the navy has exercised over this component. Of the three establishments, one is always commanded by a naval officer and the other two have a number of naval officers on their establishment. Thus a series of projects have been successfully completed: some on their own and some others as part of collaboration with certain foreign companies. Nuclear submarine is one such example.

Restructure the MoD as an integrated organisation, consisting of bureaucrats, defence services staff, scientists and financial experts. It would ensure better coordination, cutting out duplication and triplication of work, improved efficiency and speedy decision-making. Integrated defence planning and defence technology development have become an inescapable necessity. Such a step will be opposed, tooth and nail, by the bureaucracy but it is the political executive which must take the final call.

Implement the Arun Singh Committee report, as accepted by the cabinet, and adopt the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) system. The DRDO needs to be placed under the CDS, which will result in mutual confidence and better interaction with the services and bring in efficiency and good performance.

Pending adoption of the CDS system, DRDO’s various establishments need to be grouped with the army and IAF on same lines as for the navy.

If we are serious in attracting high-tech equipment manufacturing companies to collaborate with Indian companies, then the FDI limit will have to be increased to 51%. The FDI limit of 49% announced by the finance minister was perhaps on the advice of the babus and urgings by others with vested interests. The Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to the US must throw open invitation to American defence industry to establish manufacturing facilities in India, in collaboration with Indian companies.

Unless the above listed steps are urgently taken, and the status quo broken, the Prime Minister’s expectations of India developing high-end defence equipment and becoming self-sufficient in this field and being an exporter of such equipment will remain a distant dream.

(The writer, a former deputy chief of army staff, is commentator on security and defence matters. The views expressed are personal)

Uncategorized

DRDO tests positive for nepotism

1 Comment

dna 19.02.2014

VK Saraswat and defence minister’s former scientific advisor among accused

Pradip R Sagar @pradiprsagar

New Delhi: At least 10 top scientists of the country’s premier defence research agency, the DRDO, are accused of flouting rules and misusing their positions to recruit family members in the organisation.
Among the accused are M Natarajan, former scientific adviser to defence minister AK Antony and VK Saraswat, India’s Missile Man and former DRDO chief.
Antony was apprised of the matter in November last year
by Sameer Kumar Khare, joint secretary and chief vigilance officer (CVO) in the defence ministry.
Khare, in his report (dna has a copy), recommended “criminal action against top functionaries of DRDO for committing irregularities in the recruitment of officers/officials, including their kith and kin, in DRDO by misusing their position of power”. Based on his report, Antony handed over the investigations to the CBI in November.
Apart from Natarajan and Saraswat, charged with nepotism, the other big names in the CVO’s report are W Selvamurthy, former chief controller, R&D, Arun Kumar, former director, recruitment & assessment centre (RAC), AK Bansal, former director,AK Bansal and SM Veerabhadrappa, senior scientist.
“The brazenness with which systems and procedures have been overridden, it would not be prudent to believe that these are isolated cases,” Khare said in his report.
“The malice may have spread to wider areas hence causing to raise doubts that the integrity of the whole recruitment systems as such might have been compromised. This situation warrants a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the recruitment system, structure and cases of criminal misconducts of similar nature, including the present cases, by the CBI.”
Antony had said in November: “DRDO may be directed to put in place an appropriate recruitment system with adequate checks and balances. They may consider bringing the system under the purview of UPSC.” All recruitments were done through the UPSC till 1982, after which DRDO’s recruitment & assessment centre handled it. The ministry said DRDO could take a professional agency’s help to come up with a foolproof recruitment system.
Ravi Gupta, DRDO spokesperson, told dna that he could not comment as the CBI is investigating the matter.

Published Date: Feb 19, 2014DNA 19 FEB

Drdo

DRDO disowns chief controller, says he is retired

5 Comments

DRDO claims Dr Pillai has retired even though its website shows otherwise

ABHINANDAN MISHRA New Delhi | 17th Nov 2012               Sunday Guardian

The Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) has refused to acknowledge that Dr Sivathanu Pillai is the chief controller of research and development in the organisation, despite the fact that Pillai is still very much a part of DRDO. Pillai’s post is regarded as the second most senior defense scientist post in the country, just after the position of Scientific Adviser to the Defense Minister.

Dr Sivathanu Pillai

His name also does not feature on the list of senior scientists who are presently serving on an extension with DRDO. Pillai, who is also the Chief Executive Officer of Brahmos Aerospace, was granted his third post retirement extension last year.

When contacted, Ravi Gupta, the spokesperson of DRDO said that Pillai’s name is not on the list of senior scientists who have got extension because he has retired from DRDO after getting two extensions as no further extension is possible beyond the age of 64.

However, the DRDO telephone directory of 2012 mentions Pillai’s name and carries his designation as CC of R&D in DRDO on page number 4 and his Delhi number has been listed there. Similarly, the invitation card of National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, that was held last month, where Dr Pillai was the chief guest, mentions his designation as CC, R&D in DRDO.

Gupta also added that Pillai’s name will be removed from DRDO’s website. However, even after three weeks of this correspondent speaking to Gupta, DRDO’s website still shows Pillai as the CC of R&D.

This mysterious disappearance of the name from the seniority list and the fact that DRDO is denying that Pillai is still a part of DRDO has raised questions about why the government is not “acknowledging” that a third extension has been given to Pillai.

Third extensions are given very rarely, if at all. This was acknowledged by Gupta too, who said that third extension beyond the age of 64 is not possible. Pillai was given his first extension in 2007 by Defence Minister A.K. Antony.

Drdo

Oldies of DRDO cling on to their jobs post retirement

2 Comments

 Gautam Datt   |   MAIL TODAY  |   New Delhi, October 25, 2012 

P.S. Krishnan and Avinash Chander.

Dozens of top scientists at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) are working on extended tenures despite the government disfavouring the policy of retaining officers or specialists after their retirement.

According to guidelines, tenures can be extended only in “exceptional circumstances”. The DRDO, however, justifies the extensions, saying only valued experts whose replacements are not easy to find are given the privilege.

In response to an RTI query, sought by Rajeev Chauhan of Meerut, the DRDO released a list of 37 scientists – 12 of them in the distinguished category – who are working on extended tenures. This was disclosed only after the intervention of the chief information commissioner following an appeal.

Defence scientists retire at the age of 60. The department of personnel and training (DoPT) rules for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields mention the problems in giving such experts extra tenure.

Oldies of DRDO

“Not only does the next man miss promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy,” the department noted.

Keeping this in mind, procedures were evolved to ensure that extensions to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances, the guidelines said.

The main conditions are that the “retiring specialist should not just be one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest, or the other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job”. The DRDO, however, claims that while it largely adheres to the DoPT rules, they are not strictly applicable to the strategic community which also includes ISRO and atomic energy.

Sources said the DRDO has 7,000 scientists out of which extension to 37-odd experts is “minuscule”. The DRDO follows merit- based flexible complementing scheme for promotions which is not linked to availability of vacancies, they said. They feel that most people at 60 are still active and gain substantial wealth of experience in highly specialised areas that needs to be tapped.

Some big names are on extended terms and are vital to the success of their respective programmes.

Topping the list is Avinash Chander, chief controller of missiles and strategic system, who is steering the long range strategic missiles programme.

The list of 37 scientists includes 12 distinguished scientists, 13 scientists “H” and remaining 12 scientists “G”. While detractors allege that extensions indicate a system of favouritism, the DRDO says every case passes through two expert panels which approve the move.

According to govt guidelines, tenures can be extended only in exceptional circumstances.

Drdo

Tatra deal: CBI raids houses of two retired Army officers

Leave a comment

Neeraj Chauhan, TNN | Apr 19, 2012, 03.55AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Central Bureau of Investigation raided residences of two retired Army officers in connection with the Tatra-Vectra deal while investigators are also pursuing leads pointing to a nexus between Vectra head Ravi Rishi and the top brass of Indian public sector firm BEML.

The CBI on Wednesday carried out raids at the residences of Brigadier (retd) P C Das in Vasant Kunj and Colonel (retd) Anil Dutta in Noida. Das was also questioned at the CBI headquarters while the residence of a Vectra executive Anil Mansaramani at Noida was also searched.

CBI sources said they suspect Das and Dutta as having worked as conduits for Vectra head Rishi who is a London-based businessman. The agency feels that the two retired officers were liasioning for Vectra that is a crucial link in supply of Tatra trucks to the Army that is now under a graft cloud.

CBI hopes to make more progress when Army chief Gen V K Singh meets investigators after April 19 and his statement is recorded. The chief had set the cat among the pigeons by alleging that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe for the “underperforming” vehicles.

The agency questioned BEML chairman V R S Natarajan for almost six hours on Wednesday and sources said the probe was at a delicate stage as definite leads have emerged regarding BEML and Rishi in the Tatra trucks procurement process.

CBI reportedly asked Natarajan if he tried to verify, when BEML signed a contract with Tatra Sipox (UK), if any of the parts for making Tatra trucks were available with another company in India, said sources. Natarajan was also asked if BEML tried to find out the nature of Tatra Sipox (UK) contracts with other countries on supplies.

Natarajan and Rishi have refuted the allegations of any wrong doing.

Vectra, which has controlling stake in Tatra Sipox UK, and is at the centre of CBI investigations into alleged irregularities in the supply of all terrain vehicle components to the public sector BEML which assembles and supplies these vehicles to the Army. Along with Natarajan, Rishi was questioned for the ninth time on Wednesday.

It was in the light of information provided by Natarajan and Rishi, the agency found it necessary to search residences of the retired Army officials and the Vectra employee to try and gather documents that could help the agency. sources said. The CBI is looking for a link between Lt Gen (Retd) Tejinder Singh – who the army chief claims offered him a bribe — with Rishi through the two retired army officers.

Drdo

AK Antony and the problem of corruption

Leave a comment

KP Nayar

Wednesday, 11 April 2012 09:47

“Will Minister Antony resign?” More than any other, this is the one question that I have been asked by Americans in recent weeks about the defence minister who has been in the news for the better part of this year. Most of the people asking this question have some connection with the military-industrial complex in the United States of America or the country’s defence and strategic community.

The reality, howsoever unpalatable, is that few defence ministers can survive after incurring the personal displeasure of an American defence secretary, unless they are defence ministers in Russia and China or in countries like Iran or North Korea, which are in various stages of confrontation with the US.

A.K. Antony attracted the wrath of the Obama administration last year by his determined refusal to receive the then defence secretary, Robert Gates, who tried to inject himself into a US delegation that was to travel to India for the second round of the “strategic dialogue” between New Delhi and Washington. Gates wanted to lobby with Antony on behalf of American companies, which were then in the running for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft being sought by the Indian air force, the biggest military aviation deal hitherto.

Antony made it clear to his cabinet colleagues, who were persuaded by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to plead the case of the Pentagon’s civilian head, that if Gates arrived with Clinton he would go to the remotest location in Kerala where even his mobile phone had no signal for the duration of the American’s stay in New Delhi. Kerala was then in the middle of its state assembly election campaign, which gave Antony enough of an excuse to be in his home state.

The defence secretary did not give up. Gates used the ruse that he was demitting office in July and that he wanted to make a farewell call on Antony: at that point, April was being considered for the strategic dialogue, which eventually had to be postponed because of the defence minister’s insistence that he will not meet Gates as long as the aircraft contract was at a sensitive stage in the acquisition process.

Pentagon officials have told reporters on background that “the defence secretary was informed that it would be suicidal” for Antony to meet Gates and that this message was conveyed by Indian diplomats in Washington, who were negotiating the strategic dialogue arrangements with the Obama administration at that time.

At the end of April 2011, American companies were eliminated from the race for the multi-role combat planes, the US ambassador, Timothy Roemer, resigned the next day, and Gates lost any further interest in making his farewell call on Antony. The strategic dialogue eventually took place in July last year without a top-level defence participation.

After an unstated policy of having no ministerial exchanges in defence for 50 years — except on a solitary occasion, that too botched — US defence secretaries have lately taken exceptional interest in their Indian counterparts and senior Indian ministers in the last decade. The most famous of such exchanges was when Donald Rumsfeld, who was predecessor to Gates, called on the deputy prime minister, L.K. Advani, at his hotel on a Sunday in a well publicized effort to highlight a new chemistry in their ties.

Rumsfeld felt somewhat proprietary about the new defence relationship that the administration of George W. Bush considerably advanced with India, but luckily for New Delhi, he did not stay at the Pentagon long enough to see Washington’s hope of bagging the much-sought-after combat aircraft deal crumble into dust. There is no saying how the mercurial Rumsfeld would have reacted to such a disappointment. Gates, a man of great dignity, took the setback in his stride, at least in public.

The Pentagon is not alone in being disgruntled by Antony’s ways. He has consistently refused to visit Israel, which interchangeably shares the first or second spots with Russia among the sources of arms imports for India.

As if to add injury to insult, last month the defence ministry blacklisted Israel Military Industries for 10 years for allegedly paying bribes to secure contracts in India. IMI is not just another arms-seller. It is owned by the government in Tel Aviv, a leading weapons manufacturer for Israel’s defence forces.

It was not expected that Tel Aviv will take the ban lying down. Additionally, the ban by Antony’s ministry has cast a shadow over plans by the Netanyahu government to privatize IMI. There are now question marks about the timing of the privatization: if the world’s number one arms buyer — India — has found IMI unsuitable to do business with, it could have ramifications for investors seeking to buy into the company.

Those familiar with New Delhi’s lay of the land in such matters were not, therefore, surprised when grumblings of discontent, which began as whispers after Antony rebuffed Gates, grew louder following the rejection of American bids for the multi-role combat aircraft. It was not entirely unexpected that after the decision against the Israelis, Antony would be put in a spot by a steady flow of news stories and purportedly thoughtful op-ed articles.

The Americans and the Israelis are not alone in being at the receiving end of Antony’s efforts in full throttle to do what he can to curb corruption in defence purchases and create a level playing field. Singapore is a country with which India enjoys a relationship that is totally free of trouble. That has not, however, prevented Antony from banning Singapore Technologies Kinetics from future contracts for a decade.

This land systems and specialty vehicles company has launched an all out bid to clear its name, including recourse to the Supreme Court. It has also threatened to seek international arbitration, creating an irritant in bilateral relations.

Russian defence suppliers who have had a free run of New Delhi’s procurement process for many decades have similarly been slapped with punitive sanctions as part of Antony’s anti-graft drive. The defence minister has further angered Swiss, South African and many more arms manufacturers, lining up a formidable array of forces, all of which would be glad to see him move out of his present job.

Typically, nobody is criticizing Antony for cracking down on corruption. Instead, the strategy of those who want him out of the way is to attack Antony for slowing down the modernization of the armed forces by creating bottlenecks in arms purchases, and for creating a trust deficit between the civilian and uniformed segments of the defence establishment. All in all, the effort is to show up the defence minister as a man incapable of running an enterprise as vast and complex as the one for which he is tasked with providing leadership.

The age controversy about General V.K. Singh, the army chief, was the best thing that Antony’s detractors could have hoped for. Unfortunately for the defence minister, both propriety and constitutionality demand that he cannot truthfully tell his side of the story.

For instance, Antony personally believes that the army chief is not lying about his age and that General Singh was born in 1951. Similarly, the General has been a steadfast ally of Antony in what the latter is trying to do about corruption in the defence establishment. It may be a hard idea to sell, especially after a sensational story about troop movements, but the personal warmth and respect for each other between Antony and Singh are nothing short of total. Which is why there has been no move to dismiss the army chief or get him to resign. Even though Antony believes that General Singh made a mistake about his date of birth, an episode from his own past prevents Antony from doing anything about it except to follow the letter of the law. Antony was chief minister of Kerala when a similar controversy dogged the state government.

Raman Srivastava, an Indian Police Service officer of the Kerala cadre who became director-general of the state police and later headed the Border Security Force, was at the centre of this controversy. A mere five months separate him and his brother, Vikram Srivastava, an IPS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre, who became director-general of the Central Reserve Police Force: a biological impossibility since both the brothers were born of the same mother.

As chief minister, Antony did not allow the Kerala cadre officer to change his date of birth. There is no way he would have acted any differently with General Singh. What is more, it is Antony’s estimate that there are at least 3,000 such cases of incorrect birthdays in government service records. That is a Pandora’s Box, which is best left shut.

-The Telegraph, Calcutta

Drdo

New details emerge on Tatra truck deal

Leave a comment

THE HINDU

NEW DELHI, April 2, 2012

PRAVEEN SWAMI,VINAY KUMAR

CBI questions London millionaire again

Even as Central Bureau of Investigation detectives have begun questioning Ravi Rishi, the London-based millionaire businessman at the heart of the showdown between the Defence Ministry and Chief of the Army Staff V.K. Singh, fresh details have begun to emerge of the truck deal that precipitated the crisis.

Rajan Mukherjee, the general manager of West Bengal-based Ural India, has told The Hindu that General Singh — then General Officer-Commanding of the Eastern Command — had requested the firm to provide trucks for testing in 2008, after Tatra trucks sold by Mr. Rishi’s firm “miserably failed 17 Mountain for performing Quick Reaction Team and reconnaissance duties in [the] super-high altitude areas of northern Sikkim.”

“Defects”

“During the trials,” Mr. Mukherjee said in an e-mail to The Hindu, “the Tatra vehicle developed defects in engine assembly, whereas Ural’s engine performance was satisfactory even after running about 600 km at high altitude.”

Mr. Rishi owns Vectra, a conglomerate which has a controlling stake in Czech and Slovak-based specialist truck firm Tatra, which has supplied the Indian Army since 1986.

Rashi Verma, a Joint Secretary at the Defence Ministry, had said last week that the government had “never received any complaint from the armed forces” — a statement which suggests the Eastern Command either chose not to pass on its problems with the Tatra to the army headquarters in New Delhi, or that its reports were suppressed by higher authorities.

In an exclusive interview to The Hindu published on March 26, General Singh had said he was offered a Rs. 14-crore bribe, which, it emerged, was linked to an officer allegedly representing Tatra to clear a consignment of 600 trucks.

There is no information available so far if Ural India’s trucks were the sole platform tested by the Eastern Command in Northern Sikkim and if so, why. Ural is co-owned by Kolkata-based magnate J.K. Saraf, who knew Gen. Singh during his tenure as Eastern Army Commander. There is no allegation, however, of the relationship having caused improper influence to be exercised.

Mr. Mukherjee’s claims, however, stand in stark contrast to earlier statements by VRS Natarajan, the head of public-sector giant BEML, which co-manufactures Tatra trucks in India. Mr. Natarajan claimed that Ural India’s trucks had been knocked out of competition in the ongoing trials, a claim Mr. Mukherjee has denied in his e-mail to The Hindu, adding that his firm is considering “appropriate action.”

The BEML chief, however, has since been backed by Defence Research and Development Organisation chief V.K. Saraswat, who said Tatra trucks were “outstanding.” Both BEML and Tatra have said they are considering legal action against General Singh, but provided no details of their course of action.

Army sources said the problem encountered in Sikkim could have been related to the Tatra truck’s engine, which is designed for rugged battlefield use, compromising high-altitude performance in return for lower risks of breakdown.

CBI officials refused comment on the issues they had discussed with Mr. Rishi, but the businessman has been barred from leaving India until further notice.

He was earlier questioned by the agency officials last week, soon after the CBI registered an FIR in the case. CBI officials were also poring over and analysing a number of documents seized during raids in Delhi, Noida and Bangalore.

Apart from Mr. Rishi, the FIR refers to unknown officials of BEML, Vectra and the Army. The case was registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy to cheat and under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The investigators are tasked with looking into all purchases of Tatra trucks made from 1997, when Vectra took control of Tatra. Since 1986, the Army has purchased some 7,000 Tatra trucks to transport troops and artillery.

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