Tag Archives: defence

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

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

Corruption will not be tolerated: AK Antony

Leave a comment

PTI | Apr 11, 2012, 02.42PM IST

KOCHI: In the backdrop of the recent storm over alleged corruption in defence procurements, defence minister AK Antony today said the country’s interests were paramount and there will be “no cover up and no vendetta”.

“India’s interests are our only concern. We are not against any company or country. But India’s interests are paramount”, he told reporters on the sidelines of a function at the Indian Coast Guard here.

Replying to questions in the light of Army chief General V K Singh’s recent claim about alleged attempts to bribe him to favour a sub-standard contract, he said “Corruption will not be tolerated. Even if there is suspicion, a probe will be ordered”.

“No cover up, no vendetta is our policy,” he said, adding if there is an iota of doubt, it would be looked into.

Antony said efforts were on to make defence procurement more transparent. “When people do not get contracts, there will be criticism and allegations. Some companies do try to influence officials and if it is proved action will be taken”.

He said six companies from Israel, Russia, Germany and Singapore and two from India had recently been blacklisted.

The Defence acquisition council meeting last week had sanctioned Annual projects, five-year projects and Long Term Plan from 2012-27, he said.

On reported differences between the Army and the Defence Ministry, he said, “Both are functioning from the same building. There is no communication gap, no confrontation. I function as a joint family. I am very comfortable. I respect the armed forces, their commitment, their dedication. I am proud of it”.

Antony said there was so much demand for joint exercises with the Indian defence forces that “everyone wants to do (it) … ,”

Drdo

Call for action against ‘coup’ scaremonger ‘Mischief’ By An Insider, Admits Govt

Leave a comment

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: With the government admitting that “mischief ” by an insider was responsible for the scare over a routine movement of two Army units, the demand for a probe into the matter is gathering momentum amid indications that Army headquarters may itself seek an inquiry.
The issue figured in the meeting of Parliament’s standing committee on defence on Monday. Asaduddin Owaissi of UPA component MIM demanded a probe to get to the bottom of the manner in which a normal military exercise on the night of January 16 was portrayed as a sinister development. TOI had reported on April 5 that the alarm may have been raised by insiders ranged against the Army chief in a bitter factional feud.
Owaisi made the pitch to defence secretary Shashikant Sharma who had to appear before the panel for the second time to clear the air over the way sections of the government cranked up a routine military movement into an extraordinary and dangerous maneuver.
Owaisi’s demand coincided with a similar stand by the BJP. “What has the government done about the mischief makers?” asked party spokesperson Prakash Javadekar. The defence secretary repeated to the House panel the government’s stand: The suggestion that Army units in the exercise were actually flexing their muscle was based on “wrong inference” drawn from “conjectures”.
Tank ammo stocks low, Parl panel told
Presenting a sobering account of long-term as well as immediate challenges, senior IAF and Army brass told a parliamentary committee that while India’s window to catch up with China’s defence modernization thrust could close by 2017 or earlier, stocks of certain tank munitions are down to four days of reserves. Meanwhile, in an extraordinary step, the committee decided to call the three service chiefs to give an account of the state of preparedness of the forces. P 10 ‘MoD nod not mandatory for routine troop movement’
New Delhi: Defence secretary Shashikant Sharma rejected the premise of panic in the government that the concerned Army units did not inform the defence ministry in violation of protocol. Sharma said there was no procedure requiring units to inform MoD of routine movements.
The day also saw retired Army and Navy chiefs, Gen V P Malik and Admiral Arun Prakash, respectively, asking for a probe.
On Sunday, minister of state for defence Pallam Raju confirmed the widespread suspicion in the top echelons of the government that it was somebody, seen as reliable, who misrepresented an exercise by a mere two units consisting of a few hundreds of soldiers as a potentially dangerous situation.
The subsequent alert saw police being directed to slow down the “advancing” columns. Although CRPF sources have denied that their elite COBRA units were deployed and a ‘lookout’ was mounted at railway stations, many in the government consider it frightening that insiders could precipitate such a situation.
Eventually, it took an intervention by defence minister A K Antony to quell the panic. Antony is learnt to have dismissed the alert sign hoisted by the authorities as misplaced.
Significantly, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi parried a question on Raju’s statement in a TV interview.
Sections in the government seem to have come around to suspect that the artificial scare may have been scripted to prejudice the government against the Army chief, General V K Singh As it happened, January 16 was also the very day when General Singh had, in an unprecedented development, moved the Supreme Court to challenge defence ministry’s rejection of his claim for the revision of his date of birth.
Several senior military officers are of the belief that the government should promptly fix responsibility and take action against those who created the unnecessary scare over routine military movements. The “apolitical and disciplined” Army has been “insulted”, either because of ignorance or deliberate design, they contend.

Drdo

DRDO contradicts Army chief, says Tatra trucks ‘outstanding’

2 Comments

PTI | Mar 31, 2012, 08.18PM IST

NEW DELHI: Contradicting Army Chief General V K Singh, DRDO chief V K Saraswat on Saturday said Tatra trucks were “outstanding” and there was nothing substandard about the vehicles used as base for launching all important missiles like Prithvi and Agni.

“Tatra truck is an outstanding truck… They have a very good cross country capability and can move at good speeds,” Saraswat said at a press conference at Defence Expo here.

He was responding when asked about the performance of Tatra trucks in view of the Army Chief’s contention that these vehicles were substandard.

Noting that the launchers of all important missiles like the Prithvi and Agni are based on these trucks, the DRDO chief said the performance of these vehicles “has been good in armed forces and we have no complaints about it.”

Saraswat said “we will have more of them” if there was any further requirement of these trucks. However, if the government gives direction against using them, the premier research organization will stop doing so.

Asked to comment on the perceived tussle between defence minister A K Antony and the Army Chief, he said both were good people and should handle their differences, if any, with more caution.

“The harmony within the defence ministry with respect to our functioning and image is very important. I give my advise on technical issues but as a citizen of this country, I would say that I have known both the defence minister and the Army Chief and both of them are very good people.

Readers’ opinions (274)

sunny (Paris)
4 hrs ago (06:27 AM)
DRDO Chief is not a automobile engineer but a rocket propulsion scientist. Nice certificate for a truck, mate.

Joseph Stanis (India)
5 hrs ago (05:10 AM)
Hello DRDO Chief, Is it not your duty to also ensure that the price is right.The Internet price of a Tatra truck is about Rs 40 Lakhs but we are shelling out a Crore of Rs. Does it mean you will pay for a good item the moon? We are talking about cost effective defence equipment.The best for the least price. All these great defence organizations of the Nehruvian area are taking the nation for one BIG ride.

FREETHINKER (Switzerland)
8 hrs ago (02:10 AM)
IF THE DRDO THINKS TATRA TRUCKS ARE OUSTANDING THEN THERE IS SOMETHING RADICALLY WRONG WITH THEIR LEVEL OF STANDARDS. THIS IS THE SAME ORGANISATION THAT HAS MADE SEVERAL LOUSY PRODUCTS FOR THE ARMED FORCES STARTING FROM THE INFANTRY RIFLE TO ARJUN TANKS. NOT TO MENTION THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED HAS NEVER BEEN ON TIME. THE DRDO SHOULD SHUT UP LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THE ARMY TO DO SO THROUGH POLITICIANS.

Surinder Jeet (USA)
8 hrs ago (02:03 AM)
V K Saraswat has not answered the general’s allegations. The general has said that Tatra is too expensive. DRDO has not disputed it. That Tatra is delivering the service is like saying Bofors Guns are firing. They should. Can Tatra or similar truck be bought from other suupliers? Will they give more for the same money or will they cost less. DRDO would be wise not to drag itself into lime light. As it is it is in trouble for its own scandals and poor performance. My question now is,”why did they enter the fray?. What is their interest”?

jk (delhi)
9 hrs ago (01:48 AM)
Everybody is trying to cover their as***, DRDO is a joke, even after many decades what indeginious product has come out of their stable?, even if there is one or two, are they being mass produced and are they world class that they are being exported?. This and other public sectors are a drain on the economy. I have a feeling DRDO’s palm has been greased and money exchanged to go for these trucks.

RAhul (Delhi)
9 hrs ago (01:35 AM)
DRDO is scinetists are just feeding on tax payers money.If we need to procure defense equipment from pverseas suppliers…Why not close down DRDO.

mahe (india)
9 hrs ago (01:09 AM)
I thought DRDO is a Reasearch and Development organisations, only now I understand they procure equipments and review the procurements..

ajay (delhi)
10 hrs ago (12:53 AM)
precisely, that is why we have outstanding things being manufactured by DRDO after being allocated huge budgets! its a shame that DRDO has failed to match with or come at par with other countries R& D wings!

D. Shaw (UK)
10 hrs ago (12:40 AM)
Mr. Sarsvat, isn’t a shame that India has to depend on import of major requirement of weapons and army equipment from abroad? Isn’t a shame for the scientists and technicals experts of DRDO that after fifty years’ in existence it cannot meet the Indian military’s major weapons requirements? How is that a small country like Israel without any major resources invents and manufactures most sophisticated weapons and a country of 1.2 billion people has to import such weapons from Israel inspite of the fact the India spends millions of dollars on its research organizations like DRDO? Obviously, there is something rotten in working of these government research organziations which work like any other government organization. They are managed by corrupt and third rate bureaucrats appointed by corrupt politicians. Even the Almighty creator cannot save India unless the corrupt and criminal politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen are prosecuted and hanged in public.
“If they have any differences, they should be handled with most cautious approach,” he added.

jyoti (up) replies to D. Shaw 
8 hrs ago (02:37 AM)
last year i did my summer training at drdo. there what i found, most employees come to office for time pass and chip food.

DRDO (Jeopardy ) replies to D. Shaw
9 hrs ago (01:25 AM)
Pity, these so called scientists from DRDO cann’t even reverse engineer the imported arms. Chinese are way ahead of these wannabe resaerch organization.

Suv (US/Mum) replies to D. Shaw
9 hrs ago (01:18 AM)
congress already cleaned the honest heads from DRDO.. (the resignation of scientists).. the ones that remains now are congress puppets.. can’t expect anything more from DRDO… wait few mroe days.. new Army cheif (Congress puupet) will say everythign is better thn expected..

Ram (Doha, Qatar) 
10 hrs ago (12:36 AM)
DRDO took more than 30 years to develop one missile with 1000s of staff ‘working’. It is yet another white elephant to the the state’s exchequer and most corrupt. The DRDO Chief seems to be in a hurry to cover up DRDOs role in supporting these trucks.

krishan (Pune.)
10 hrs ago (12:34 AM)
Now DRDO chief Saraswat is backing the Govt. just trying to be a ‘Chamcha’ of the govt. Or received a big kickbag few crore rupees.Now, every body knows that Gen.Singh is retiring and his opinion is not important. This is a bad Luck of India that good people are never appreciated only thing is appreciated. In India always is important money…money..monnneeey.

raja (india) replies to Vijay Veer

tatra trucks may be good, but the problem is they are not supplying the trucks, instead it was sold as CKD(completely knocked down kit) by the vectra group (ravi rishi- broker) to BEML inturn they assemble the trucks and supply it to army… the main problem is even a new truck supplied by BEML has fault spare parts such as old battery, old tyres, the life of the spares is very low, it takes two years to replace a spares and it costs ten times more than that of other trucks…..

aks (USA)
11 hrs ago (11:43 PM)
EXcept one or two divisions in DRDO all others are either doing nothing or are useless for nation, the so called scientists go to office to search internet play computer games and to gossip… I have tonnes of friends in DRDO and what I am saying here is there daily routine Most of the things made by DRDO is either obselete or useless for army and airforce… therefore we have to go for an MMRCA or BARHMOS as DRDO is incapable ….even the engine for LCA has still to come …DRDO is a political agency , where people know how to make comments like our incapable , despicable politicians

dkddn2 (delhi)
11 hrs ago (11:35 PM)
Saraswat should be ashamed of heading of an organisation that cannot create anything but rebrand the foreign products. Is he not ashamed of the fact that DRDO had not been able to identify an Indian manufacturer for these missiles ? DRDO is infact a middleman now.

Arif (India)
11 hrs ago (11:28 PM)
That shows intelligence of DRDO chief. Either he is on drugs or does not understand issue. Issue is about :(1) Bribe (2) Middleman (violation of rule) (3) When Tata and Ashok Leland can produce better trucks then why Tatra?

kumar (delhi)
11 hrs ago (11:06 PM)
This DRDO never completed one project on time , project which needs to complete in 5 years , they are taking 15 years and now this crook is saying about performance and quality. Definitely for DRDO its good truck . In DRDO scientists are preparing for engineering services examination or doing some private work . They are not developing any thing and they are even not scientists , they are clerk managing imported missiles and equipment files. performance

sambhav (gurgoan)
11 hrs ago (11:04 PM)
DRDO waalon ki ek goli bananey ki toh aukat hai nahin….yeh toh choro ki sabsey badi organization hai

Love my Country (Austin,TX)
12 hrs ago (10:56 PM)
Corrupt societies produces such institution [DRDO] , to support its’ onslaught without any responsibility. Just wanted to give my personal experience, for the Cost of Guns .. I had been to my Arms show [ very common in Texas] and there show guns of all kinds and first time in my life I saw guns so accessible and so very in-expensive. Semi-automatic , AKs , krinkov , Rugers and many Guns which were in range of 500$-1200$. I bought one at 780$ [AK56 of Bulgarian made] .So the question is I can procure this gun at the price I told, so how is Govt. [ which buys thing in bulk] cannot get at the price said. Its’ anyone’s guess How much these guns would have been bought by Raksha Mantralaya. So, people Enough is Enough… Throw this system out …

Surinder (Delhi)
12 hrs ago (10:55 PM)
So we are supposed to believe the word of a DRDO babu who has reached the top by just being a sycophant instead of an army general who is fighting a corrupt congie govt.

DRDO Sux (India)
12 hrs ago (10:51 PM)
incompetent agencies like DRDO is responsible for our pathetic situation for trillion dollar Arms imports. They are the one to speak about quality.

Noname (India)
12 hrs ago (10:49 PM)
V.K. Sarswat’s bank account should be checked now to find out how much he has been paid to give such a generous certificate!

TN (india)
12 hrs ago (10:39 PM)
Looks like this DRDO chief has some vested interest in this deal. Why this idiot is trying to divert the attention from the main subject. Its not the question of quality here ( that needs lots of testing and confirmation) its the question of bribe.Some one please tell this idiot not to poke his nose and try to defend a corrupt retired General. Please tell this DRDO chief to look after the inefficient and corrupt white elephant – DRDO

harimohan (India)
12 hrs ago (10:22 PM)
DRDO scientists are jack of all but masters of none. DRDO has done nothing to produce the the defence Equipments indigenously. They are simply functioning as inspectors and certifying agents for the equipments being imported . yes, they have successfully produced the half cooked packed food items for soldiers but to be produced by private industry. All the claims of DRDO are bungus and Untrue. If by any chance some thing is assembled in DRDO LAB , it the just variant of imported item with zero reliability. Basically DRDO creats the the employment opportunity for the under qualified and low IQ children of politicians and the babus of various ministries because there is no accountability and efficiency criteria for service and promotion. The real scientists feel suffocated in DRDO and that is why the brilliant scientists just get away after some years and join foreign or private industry. The claim of DRDO CHIEF for the best vehicle as heavy transporter for tanks etc is false and misleading a DRDO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUITABILTY of TATRA in the hand of user ie ARMY. DRDO CHIEF – please do no mislead the nation. Had DRDO BEEN EFFICIENT, INDIA SOULD HAVE PRODUCE SERVICE WORTHY ARJUNA TANKS AND DEPENDENCY ON RUSSIAN TANKS SHOULT HAVE BEEN ZERO and TATRA like vehicles should have been produced by now.

peetee (delhi) replies to harimohan
12 hrs ago (10:45 PM)
Basically DRDO Scientist are from mediocre institutions,and not from IIT,S,as such. Which is the biggest drawback in totality. When we count the achievement of an individual as well as the institution of reckon,we definitely go by the standards,which can deliver and prepare its product to prove beyond doubt,thus DRDO HAS EVEN FAILED TO PRODUCE OR DEVELOP TRUCKS LIKE TATRA FOR ARMY FORGET TANKS AND ANY OTHER HARD METALLURGY AND ITS AVIONICS…………..?????????????

BOLD TONGUED (Chennai) replies to peetee 
11 hrs ago (11:40 PM)
perhaps iitians will come to drdo if its core objective of maximum employment (for mantri sabs’ and babus’ beta betis) is given up in terms of time bound programmes with enough money for all resources for trial and error R&D, and provided all those wasters who made entry with dubious merit, due to influence, were kicked out with a two month pay as compensation to open pan bidi shops, and keeping only the unfortunate few with zeal and merit wrongly strayed into DRDO.

A CONCERNED CITIZEN OF INDIA (Mumbai)
12 hrs ago (10:21 PM)
Dear Sir, DRDO’s certificate about Tatra Truck is very surprising. The Army Chief’s remarks are contradictory and confusing.. A thorough enquiry needs to be undertaken to find out the truth. No substandard material must be tolerated at any time.

Rahul (Raipur)
12 hrs ago (10:20 PM)
The credibility of DRDO and their Men can be well known from the fact that inspite of spending billions of dollars to develop a homemade defence system ,We are world’s largest importer of arms and Ammunitions and import nearly 95 % of the weapons … Tanta commission must be shared among DRDO ..& MOD as a bonus for non performance…

Deepak (India)
12 hrs ago (10:12 PM)
It a shame for DRDO that we are buying trucks from a czech republic with population less than Mumbai alone and GDP of $ 218 billion (India is $1.8 trillion economy) Building such trucks is not rocket science. And yes, we already are experts in rocket science and IT. Then WTF is DRDO doing?. As per news Rishi(Tatra’s promoter) misused his position in the board of Tatra Czech [the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of Tatra trucks] to enable Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, a company Rishi’s Vectra Group incorporated in 1994 and now owns, to buy knock down trucks from Tatra Czech at below production cost. Tatra Sipox then sold the trucks to India’s BEML at a profit, causing huge losses to Tatra Czech since profits from the sale were being made by Rishi’s company, Does DRDO not understand that Tatra trucks are brought below production cost and sold at inflated cost to BEML. Sab chor mile huwe hai.

gd (india)
12 hrs ago (10:09 PM)
Have these jokers in DRDO and BEML ever heard of a company called Oshkosh?Just imagine the guts of BEML MD when he says Tetra technology is the best in the world! Do these clowns think that others have dropped from the sky yesterday!Disgusting!

Prof. D P Misra (IITK)
12 hrs ago (10:06 PM)
Sarasvat is one of the most incompetant people around to head DRDO. He has done nothing except delivering some failed missiles to India, which can blast in the Barrel and never hit the target, if they fly. DRDO has never been able to deliver any successful product which is useful for Nation and its army therefore a white elephant. His integrity is obviously doubtful because he is giving certificate to Truck, where he doesnt not possess any domain knowledge. May god help India, where people like him call all the shots in various spheres of science and engineering.’

MP (US)
12 hrs ago (10:02 PM)
The whole world knows that the Indian politicians and bureaucrats are corrupt from head to toe. Any substandard hardware not sold anywhere else in the world is easily dumped in India, and at a higher price. Tatra Trucks are good only in name, those supplied to India are handicapped lacking in specifications and quality, with very poor maintenance facilities.Gen. VK Singh is right; he knows better than the sycophant DRDO Chief. They are trying to protect their corrupt deal. It has always happened in the Army since no previous Army Chief had the courage to blow the whistle as Gen. VK Singh had done. Hope the succeeding Army Chiefs will maintain this tradition of honesty.

S Rajendran (Chennai)
13 hrs ago (09:37 PM)
VK Saraswat , the DRDO Chief must be investigated on his connections with Tatra organisation. I have heard employees of BEML opining that the Tatra Trucks is a con job and made over to the Army on an understanding reached between Ravi Rishi, owner of Vectra, the shell company that promotes Tatra to the Indian Army and makes the pay-offs.

venkat (dubai)
13 hrs ago (09:20 PM)
DRDO chief is lying as DRDO is specialised in missile technology and not automobile technology. It is like a sattelite technologist giving certificate to the booster Wrocket manufacturer which have separate technologies.DRDO , DMRL,DRDL which comes under MOD are white elephants.When DRDO chief gets salary from MOD he has to side with MOD and not the Army.

spati (noida)
13 hrs ago (09:18 PM)
Because of DRDO our country is not self sufficient. You 1st explain why DRDO is not able to produced these types of trucks which is a basic transport for defense after thousands of crores spend in the name of research?? Who are you to say about the quality? Only the arm-force who are actually using it can comment. So we can trust the army chief not a DRDO official. Those officials satisfy 10 janpath are appointed there.

KMR (Overseas)
13 hrs ago (09:05 PM)
This DRDO chief V K Saraswat (or BEML chief) making statement to fool the public with a spin as usual without touching the sale price of truck which is more than double, ie. cheating. These guys are un-trustable, probably he in the loop of beneficiaries and it’s evident from timing of his statement that he in support of top crooks ……. Now I really doubt this Prithvi and Agni what he is talking about is fire-crackers or missiles!

spati (noida)
13 hrs ago (09:03 PM)
Can the DRDO answer why truck like TATRA cant not be produced after 30-40 yeras even though a technology transfer agreement is in place? Why the tatra trucks are still left handed drive? Why the company selling it around 1 crore to indian army while anybody can purchase it around 40 lakh on open market? Can he informed us how many trucks are dumped because of shortrage of spare parts? If the trucks are so efficient then why they are offering bribe? We all know the credibility of DRDO. Just shot your mouth. The truth is out dont try to cover it. We all are with general v.k.sing.

Shirish (Mumbai)
13 hrs ago (08:58 PM)
This DRDO officer is doing chaplusi of the corrupt Defence ministry officals…..DRDO is one of the laziest organisation in India……this idiot has been told by Govt. to speak against General V.K Singh!!

RAJA (CHENNAI)
13 hrs ago (08:58 PM)
DRDO dont certificate other countries sub-standard product…, your duty is to improve innovation and improvement in indian defence technology….., let CBI investigate DRDO chief V K Saraswat first………… why every officer in BEML and now DRDO is certifying the czech trucks??????? i think TATA and ashok leyland are paying to low to these officers( increase the bribe amount)………………….

 

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

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

“Today, 85% of NBC defence inventory held by armed forces has been developed by DRDO, and produced by defence PSUs and around 60 private companies,” said DRDO chief controller Dr W Selvamurthy.

1 Comment

9th January 2012

Good Morning Dr Saraswat Ji

                                                               A very happy new year and I pray to almighty that you get well soon.

I was exclaimed along with the common people of India when Honorable Prime Minister was talking for a fundamental change in scientific development to match the development of science at least equivalent to China.

Our CC R&D Dr W Selvamurthy sang the coras and announced that DRDO has supplied items costing 1200 crores for defence applications.

Sir, nobody can digest and appreciate because DRDO with 28000 strong professional manpower, annual budget of 7000 t0 9000 Crores and with a infrastructure of One Lakh Twenty Thousand  Crores Rupees, only delivers 1200 Crores worth products. What is this R&D. The bank interest for total asset and annual expenditure comes ten thousand crores, please rethink.

DRDO needs total restructuring of charter of duties of individual Labs and the mission mode activities to address the defence requirements and needs.

With the achievement of SATCOM microwave communication link lost the attraction as SATCOM was cheaper than microwave communication network. If DRDO have microwave activity on its charter of duty a sensible effort was needed for transform the microwave activity for other than communication as the developed nations preferred to use microwave from kitchen to battlefield.

Thanking you

Regards

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun 248008
Phone – 0135-2787750, Mobile 9411114879
E-mail id prabhu@dandriyal.com Website –  www.corruptionindrdo.com/

Drdo

DRDO gets it right when it works unlike DRDO

Leave a comment

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Seven

DRDO gets it right when it works unlike DRDO

Amitav Ranjan
Posted: Sat Nov 18 2006, 00:00 hrs
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 17:


For all its defences against non-performance, the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO), ironically, has only to look within for ready templates of distinction. Programmes that have met targets are an isolated few but they worked well because their ethic symbolizes a fundamental breakaway from the tedium of the larger organisation’s default approach. Self-reliance, a term battered by DRDO’s track-record on showpiece programmes, shines beneath the hood in the Navy’s sonars, avionics and electronic warfare systems on IAF fighter aircraft and missiles developed under corporate foreign joint ventures.
The first two were developed on time because of the labs linking up with the armed forces right from the initial stages and, significantly, leadership that keeps young scientists on their toes. The latter, because international partnerships mandate a more professional approach to programme completion.
One of the most successful DRDO laboratories is also one of the least known, tucked away silently in the Trikkakara suburb of Kochi, fomenting applied research and technology to give the Navy real self-reliance in critical sensor systems.

The Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), the only DRDO lab to win both the Silicon Trophy and Titanium Trophy for excellence, has, in the last two decades, given the Navy an impressive 87 per cent self-reliance in acoustic sensors for warships and submarines. All Navy warships, including foreign ones, as a result, are fitted with DRDO sonars like the APSOH, HUMVAD and HUMSA, and the Navy does not need to import. Now, it is putting its finishing touches to the USHUS sonar for the Navy’s Kilo-class submarines and the Mihir dunking sonar for HAL’s Advanced Light Helicopter, all well within their projected timeframes.

Vice Admiral Madanjit Singh, formerly the Navy’s Southern Commander at Kochi, said, “The NPOL’s success is from user involvement right from the word go. The steering panel is headed by a serving Naval commander who sets the agenda, efforts between the DRDO and Navy are joint.”

VK Aatre, former NPOL director who went on to become DRDO chief, agrees. “When I was there, we could not distinguish between designers, Navy personnel and production engineers,” he said. “We shared an excellent rapport. The difference here was that the user was part of the design team.”

The lab’s current director V Chander, an IIT-IISc alumnus, has espoused applied research like no other DRDO establishment, working not for idealistic invention, but delivering quality, fool-proof sonar systems to the Navy. How?

First, he’s rechristened the HR cell as People, Academics, Research & Training. He’s made sure young scientists get to spend time with the Navy for extended periods of time rather than labour away only in their laboratories. Third, he’s made sure that the level of involvement with warships and the Navy is so high that projects are either completed or prudently foreclosed before despondence and lassitude can set in.

Vice Admiral Singh, as DG Defence Planning in 2000, recommended to the Task Force on the Reorganization of Higher Defence Planning, that the country’s R&D labs be rationalized on the lines of NPOL. What ensued, another story entirely, was a turf war that saw the idea quietly dissipate. Another area where DRDO has shone despite itself is avionics and electronic warfare systems for IAF fighter aircraft.

The IAF’s most advanced fighter, the Sukhoi-30 MKI, flies with avionics developed by the Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) in Bangalore, and has proved so good that the new British Hawk advanced jet trainers and the license-produced units of the upcoming contract for 126 foreign fighters, will be armed with DARE avionics and electronic warfare systems.

For now, in addition to the Sukhois, these arm IAF Jaguars and MiG-27s which, combined, have over 30 DARE electronic systems, including mission computers, electronic warfare suites, laser rangers and multifunction advanced cockpits.

A testimony to DARE’s work: in 2003, the Royal Malysian Air Force ordered radar computers worth Rs 21.15 crore (75 per cent of DRDO’s officially declared export value of Rs 27.93 crore) from DARE for its Sukhoi-30MM fighter fleet, and is interested in buying more.

Air Marshal JS Gujral, formerly IAF Central Air Commander and Deputy Chief in charge of acquisitions, feels DARE has done an excellent job in a world where such technology is simply too advanced to share. “DARE’s projects have succeeded also because of deep interfacing with the IAF. They have maintained a high mark in defence output and timeframes compared to DRDO’s other not-so-successful ventures. Across the board, the avionics and electronic warfare systems by DARE match up with the best in the world. The IAF has been very happy with what they have provided us,” Gujral said. DARE Director RP Ramalingam said, “DRDO has realized that if there is a WW III, the winner will be the side that can best control the electromagnetic spectrum, and has therefore placed India as a competent force in the world map of avionics.”

Foreign joint ventures, on the other hand, have compelled DRDO to put out more realistic predictions on time and cost. The BrahMos missile project, which began development in 1998 as a corporate joint venture with Russia and resulted in a world-class cruise missile that other countries now want to buy, was completed in just six years at a cost of Rs 667 crore – no time and cost overruns.

Similarly, the new generation Barak-II surface to air missile for the Navy, being developed by DRDO in a JV with Israel, is officially to cost Rs 2, 606.02 crore and be ready by May 2011, a far more realistic predictive frame than any other missile project under the indigenous IGMDP.

The defence sector does not have a policy for foreign direct investment, but DRDO open to joint ventures with foreign partners. No wonder then, that on June 7, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence said, “BrahMos model should be followed in other projects also. Private sector should be given more opportunities in defence production and user participation should be encouraged from R&D stage.”
Drdo

Will anyone dare audit the DRDO?

Leave a comment

Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Five

Will anyone dare audit the DRDO?

Amitav Ranjan
Posted: Thu Nov 16 2006, 00:00 hrs
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 15:

For a full 20 months now, the Defence Ministry has been sitting on two crucial recommendations of a committee on reforming defence procurement chaired by former Economic Advisor to the Finance Minister Vijay Kelkar. Not only have these not been made public, there’s been no action on any. It’s not difficult to understand why.

These two recommendations have to do with what is unspeakable at the Defence Research & Development Organisation: the need for an “independent audit” of its abysmal record of delay and waste in virtually all weapons programmes, as reported in the ongoing series in this newspaper.

Numbered 6.19 and 6.20 in the report, accessed by The Indian Express, the Kelkar panel, including scientists, officials of the three service chiefs and industry organisations, said that the Defence R&D Board, the apex review mechanism headed by the DRDO chief, should also include representatives from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

This, the Committee noted, was “in order to enable the Defence R&D Board to draw the expertise and experience from institutions falling outside the purview of defence.”

Second, the Kelkar Committee recommended that DRDO be periodically reviewed “for its functioning” by an independent high level committee and the first such review should be initiated in 2005. The reason: “DRDO has expanded considerably and tried to create in-house research facilities for all defence requirements. This, perhaps, is not a very cost-effective move…DRDO, as a research body has also not been reviewed by an external and independent group of experts”, a process the Kelkar Committee said would compel DRDO to “reform wherever necessary”.

Not just Kelkar. In 2004, the Late J N Dixit, then National Security Advisor, had strongly argued for a comprehensive audit of DRDO’s dubiously expensive project record.

However, such advice is blasphemy in the DRDO. So on January 2 this year — nine months after the Kelkar Committee report was submitted — when the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence asked DRDO what it planned to do about new auditing mechanisms, this is how the DRDO replied: “DRDO has enough audit and reviews of the projects at various stages. It is not considered necessary to introduce additional audit and reviews.”

Limited audits of DRDO were conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 1988-89, 1992-93 and in 1997-2001 but these focused on manpower utilization, procurement of systems, all concluding derelict financial management and inexplicable expenditure. These reports were followed up by Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee reports, the last one in August 2005 recording massive wastages in 15 major DRDO establishments.

But the fact remains, there has been no single comprehensive audit of the DRDO or its functioning. Perhaps this is what prompted Comptroller and Auditor General V N Kaul to say today at a seminar in the capital on defence finance…”Defence R&D is an area where accountability often takes shelter under the policy of self reliance, and indigenization becomes a reason for delay…accountability of domestic R&D organizations needs to be re-emphasized to enable better assessment of return from investment. Sensitizing of the defence services to the role of public audit is essential.” But an investigation by The Indian Express into official records and testimonies shows that it will take more than a CAG speech to sensitise DRDO. Consider these:

• Not only has DRDO testified to the Standing Committee in January that it has more than sufficient auditing mechanisms, it wants less interference from the government, and even less accountability. In fact, in what the armed forces call preposterous, DRDO chief M Natarajan told the Standing Committee: “We intend examining the possibility of a structure similar to Space Commission/ Atomic Energy Commission to bring about greater autonomy in our functioning…This may take some time to evolve conceptually, before we could seek government approval for the same.”

• The highest monitoring body for DRDO, the DRDO Research Council (DRC), is in-house and under the control of the DRDO chief, who personally reviews its progress. DRDO has testified to the Standing Committee that it has “no scientific audit of DRDO projects as such”, and justified this by indicating the existence of feasibility studies for projects, decision aid for technology evaluation (DATE), in-house project peer reviews and post-project reviews.

• All DRDO projects costing more than Rs 2 crore are to be compulsorily “peer reviewed” by an expert committee for their viability. The Peer Review Committee (PRC) is necessarily an in-house mechanism.

 

• There are three-tier monitoring boards for all projects over Rs 100 crore. All these boards are under the aegis of the DRDO.

• This September, Army vice chief Lt Gen S Pattabhiraman reviewed 40 DRDO staff projects for the Army and found just three of them on track. Later, in the same month, DRDO chief Natarajan recommended to the Standing Committee that time extensions and cost increases be jointly endorsed with the services for government approval. In other words, DRDO would have sole control over projects but would rather not be accountable all alone.

• In its latest testimony, DRDO has said that accountability “cannot be fixed for loss of time in projects” and that slippages are due to “technological problems and not negligence”. Yet, on September 22, it officially asked the government for the freedom to recommend additional project authorizations, and that the Department of Defence Production (DDP) should ensure compliance.

• Given that the three services are the ones most visibly complaining about DRDO delays and results, DRDO has recommended that equipment trials be conducted by an independent test and evaluation agency, preferably with Integrated Defence Staff or DG Acquisition. In other words, DRDO doesn’t trust the armed forces but puts itself above all questioning.

Audit Mechanism

India

C&AG audits defence expenditure and individual performance of DRDO programmes but ministry justifies with scientific reasons for shortcomings and delays. No independent or external audits for project performance.

USA

US Department of Defence Inspector-General audit, followed by independent technical and performance audit of all programmes. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviews financial prudence.

UK

National Audit Office (NAO) reviews financial performance of defence branches, independent performance audit for programmes