Nowadays, DRDO’s Corporate Directors are running the organization like their own personal fiefdom, with AFHQ cadre personal acting as their courtiers.
DRDO is rapidly heading towards a downward spiral; the organization’s Corporate Director shows no regard for the institution and is blatantly flouting rules to engineer new arrangements that secure personal perks and safeguard their own future.
The current nexus of DRDO’s Corporate Directors is with the help of the Additional Financial Advisor, who, for unseen reasons or vested interests, also appears to support these Corporate Directors. The DG BrahMos agenda is an open example, where the Additional Financial Advisor attended the Board meeting and supported the DG BrahMos for an unprecedented proposal, which, as alleged, formed part of an anti-institutional agenda involving the removal of DG MSS from the BrahMos Board.
As Additional Financial Advisor, he was aware that Mr. Nanda Company opposed the proposal and resigned because it was against the laid-down provisions of the Company Act.
• The same Distinguished Scientist promotion case is also the same: its own rules are being ignored, disregarding the DRDO’s laid-down rules, because no one is taking responsibility for running the organization properly.
This happening is also giving a new thought to DRDO Chairmanship aspirants: if they want to become DRDO Secretary, they should follow the DG BrahMos’ steps — you have to not approach the Minister, but make happy the Minister’s son and OSD, especially political OSDs, etc.
It is not a secret thing; only observe the tenders, works allotted by the DG BrahMos since he got the post.
Each order, whether Lucknow BrahMos, from constructions to till date — who got the order, then sublet to whom — everything, from pin to missile parts, each order was rigged and is still going in the same manner.
This is up to GOI that it can be verified thoroughly by calling records and other available means, with the help of a dedicated IB officers. Only if the DG BrahMos is focused upon, that will prove how many new vendors were created by the DG, what their backgrounds and experiences are, and, specially, how much production was actually completed during his tenure. And the best part is, it is observed that since last one year, the Russian part is not certified even for one single missile till date.
Hope it is enough to open the eyes of MoD.
Rest still waiting for Honorable Prime Minister’s blessing for DRDO.
The agenda proposed for the 31st August meeting on the restructuring of BrahMos raises serious questions and, if approved in its present form, could prove to be a major setback for DRDO and the institutional architecture that has supported BrahMos since its inception.
How?
The whole world knows that on 12th February 1998, under the visionary leadership of Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, a Joint Venture was formed as a partnership between India’s DRDO and Russia’s Military Industrial Corporation, NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM).
The first successful flight of BrahMos was launched on 12th June 2001. Since then, BrahMos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. has developed and produced multiple variants and has also entered the international defence-export arena.
There is numerous success stories associated with BrahMos, including its outstanding operational performance and the significant role attributed to the system during Operation Sindoor.
Unfortunately, according to the concerns and allegations raised in this matter, a former Chairman of DRDO made a controversial decision amid what has been described as an influential internal lobby and selected J. R. Joshi as DG BrahMos.
Most significantly, it has been alleged that J. R. Joshi was the junior-most among 7 eligible candidates. The selection was challenged before the CAT, and the Tribunal reportedly rejected the justification offered for the selection, including the explanation that the decision had been made on the basis of alphabetical order. Such an explanation has understandably raised serious questions, particularly when it concerns a premier national defence institution. The appointment was consequently quashed by the Hon’ble CAT.
Here, one important allegation requires serious examination: it has been claimed that information regarding the proposed appointment of J. R. Joshi was communicated to a particular individual one day before the selection interview and that this matter was duly brought to the attention of the Chairman, DRDO.
If established, such a sequence of events would raise serious questions regarding the transparency and credibility of the selection process and the confidence of the internal network involved. It is further understood that a stay was obtained from the Telangana High Court. Following extensive arguments, including submissions involving the ASG, the matter reportedly remains pending, with the verdict reserved since 8th July 2026.
The central question now is: what happens to the institutional ecosystem that has developed under J. R. Joshi if the High Court ultimately vacates the stay?
There are also serious concerns being raised regarding BrahMos production, with claims that production has already declined to approximately 25%. already because of continues inductions of non-skilled/low-skilled scientists with great profile could be Eco Intel from IB will justify.
Similar concerns have also been raised regarding continuing transfers and terminations involving individuals who are allegedly not aligned with the existing internal influential lobby. These allegations deserve transparent examination rather than being dismissed without inquiry.
Now comes the most consequential point. The proposed agenda appears to have been placed for approval through the present DRDO leadership. The concern is whether the complete institutional, technical and governance history of the BrahMos Joint Venture has been adequately considered.
Why should the DG MSS be removed from the Board?
Why has the DG MSS historically been associated with the Board/directorship structure of the Joint Venture?
The reason is fundamental: the DG MSS ecosystem is responsible for major missile R&D capabilities. The achievements of India’s missile programmes have been built upon the collective contribution of multiple missile-complex laboratories and their associated R&D infrastructure.
Now the agenda puts which shows that approve by RM through temporary DG DRDO, who don’t know the complete JV MoU, removal of DG MSS from the Board why DG MSS heading board directorship of JV because responsible for R&D and because of this India achieved 87% indignation of various and all missile complex labs under DG MSS have the credit.
Now our genius JR Joshi, current CEO ad MD BrahMos wants that BrahMos R&D will be in house at BAPL with just 20-30 low expertise scientists as you know what expertise are them.
However, the same indignation by DRDO since 2001 to till date Under DG MSS achieved 87% has contribution of more than 300 scientists in last 26 years of the history of BrahMos.
what will Joshi achieve with these small chunks and without R&D infrastructure, the help of DRDO missile complex laboratories and DGMSS Who is the Director General all missile complex laboratory cluster in Hydrabad. Can our dear Defence Secretary know this points basically they ignoring the vision of Dr. Kalam and misleading the RM.
Against this background, the proposal that BrahMos R&D should effectively be brought in-house with a limited team of approximately 20–30 scientists raises a fundamental technical question: can such a small group replicate the depth, infrastructure, laboratories, specialist manpower and institutional knowledge available across the established missile R&D ecosystem?
This is the point that must be examined carefully. From 2001 to the present, the established missile R&D structure under DG MSS and associated laboratories has contributed substantially to India’s missile-development achievements. What additional capability would be created by fragmenting this established ecosystem and attempting to recreate R&D capacity inside BrahMos with a comparatively small scientific team?
Can our Defence Secretary and the Raksha Mantri be fully apprised of these technical and institutional implications before any restructuring decision is taken? If not, there is a real risk that the original vision of Dr. Kalam and the founding leadership of BrahMos could be diluted through administrative restructuring rather than strengthened through scientific and technological integration.
As the agenda reportedly indicates that the Russian side’s responsibilities remain unchanged, a fundamental question arises: what is the compelling strategic necessity for such a significant change on the Indian side?
Russian Board:
• Dr. A. A. Dergachev – Chairman, Board of Directors, JV BrahMos
• Mr. Aleksander Maksichev – JMD
Indian Side – Board of Directors
Earlier:
• CEO, MD & DG BrahMos – currently J. R. Joshi, whose position is the subject of ongoing legal controversy.
• DG MSS –J Nayak (who voluntary withdrawing to support J R Joshi without considering the organization and national interest because of he is fascinating with JR Joshi dictatorship appearance and dreaming DRDO chairmanship with help of JR Joshi influential lobby support. He got this DG MSS post also the same lobby support because he is not a missile field man.
The proposed restructuring reportedly seeks to establish J. R. Joshi as the Chairman for the Indian side of BrahMos. This raises an important governance question: does the existing MoU of BAPL expressly provide for such a self-created or separately designated Indian-side Chairmanship?
If no such provision exists in the governing framework, the proposal requires careful legal, contractual and governance scrutiny before implementation.
Indian corporate-governance history would find it highly unusual if one Joint Venture were to operate with two separate Chairmen without a clear contractual and statutory basis.
Practically, a Board can only have one presiding Chairman at a time. In this point BAPL CS Mr. Nanda not agreed and resigned.
One Chairman and one Vice-Chairman may be a conventional governance structure, but any alternative arrangement must be clearly supported by the MoU, Articles of Association and applicable corporate law. The decision should therefore be based on institutional logic, legal provisions and national interest—not on individual aspirations or expectations regarding future appointments or extensions.
Now comes the proposed new MD position. Sources have told that the post may be offered to Mr. Arvind, Director, CFEES Delhi and CEO will be given to Sambhashiv Prasad, his old colleague, friend and Deputy CEO post will proposed to Mr. Parveen Pathak who is currently director market promotion and exports who started his career in BrahMos as Russian translator. All three individuals required proper IB clearance with Eco Intel.
If this is indeed the proposal, the country deserves to know the objective criteria, technical expertise, leadership credentials and selection process that justify such an appointment.
Now country can assume what type of qualities JR Joshi has.
It’s humbly requested to RM, please thoroughly considered the above points and This JV is between two countries Indo-Russia and international impact will be there so Kindly root through PMO and NSA for final restructuring of BrahMos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd.
Rest: Please see the 115th BM agenda sheet reportedly placed for approval before the Raksha Mantri.
Defence Secretary, RM should go thoroughly all 105pages line by line So they can assess the manipulation of J R Joshi and his influential lobby.
There is a particular kind of silence that settles over an institution when it stops being managed and starts merely being administered. That silence has now hung over DRDO for months. An organisation tasked with the country’s missile systems, its aeronautical programmes, its strategic technology base, has been running without a dedicated chief since the start of June — and the closest thing to an explanation the public has received is a bureaucratic holding pattern.
It is observing by all national mind peoples that how serios GOI looking DRDO fate.
This is not a minor administrative gap. It is a signal.
In Jan 2024, the MOD (Ministry of Defence), acting under the direction of the PMO, constituted the Raghavan Committee to overhaul DRDO. The mandate was serious: an organisation with a well-documented record of missed timelines needed structural reform, not another internal review.
What followed instead was a familiar bureaucratic reflex. Subcommittees were formed to study the committee’s findings. Those subcommittees spawned further subcommittees. Officer Scientist and Distinguished Scientist-level personnel — among the most senior technical talent in the country — were pulled into cycles of review, re-review, and internal consultation that consumed months and, by extension, crores of public money.
Where did it go? That is not a rhetorical question. It is one the Ministry of Defence and the PMO owe the country a direct answer to. If the recommendations were implemented, where is the documentation of that implementation? If they were shelved, on whose authority, and why was the public never told?
If public want to see the effort of senior DRDO scientists with respect of Raghavan Committee, it can be only possible to see the dustbin of DRDO, MOD and PMO.
Silence is not an acceptable substitute for accountability on a reform effort of this scale.
The facts here are not in dispute. Dr. Samir V. Kamat’s tenure as DRDO Chairman ended with his retirement on 31 May 2026 with two year unfruitful extension. In his place, the Defence Secretary was handed additional charge — a stopgap measure explicitly described as temporary, pending a “regular” appointment.
The Ministry interviewed five shortlisted candidates for the post on 3 July 2026. That was over six weeks ago. As of this writing, DRDO remains without a permanent chairman.
An organisation responsible for the country’s strategic technology base has now gone more than two and a half months without a dedicated head, through a selection process the government itself initiated and has still not concluded. If this is efficiency, the Ministry should explain what inefficiency would look like. If there is a legitimate reason for the delay, the public — and the scientists working under this uncertainty — deserve to hear it stated plainly, not left to infer it from silence.
Beyond the vacancy itself, a pattern has been alleged by scientists and observers within and around the organization — one that the Ministry has never publicly addressed:
Why have promotions and appointments within DRDO’s leadership repeatedly drawn allegations of being steered toward a particular network, rather than decided strictly on domain expertise and merit?
Why has a senior appointment reportedly moved a person with a missile-technology background into a post overseeing aeronautical systems — a shift that, on its face, invites the question of whether technical fit was the deciding factor?
Currently the blessed lobby manipulating the promotions and appointments without justifying like DG MSS no field of missile technology and who is man of missile become DG Aero what a joke but it is only possible in DRDO because 56% MSC chemistry is responsible to manipulating this, and his other qualification and experiences at the time of joining can verified from office of The AFHq, CO, A1B.
What is the status of the police complaint reportedly pending with Uttarakhand Police over the printing of a national flag upside down on an official publication? A pending complaint is a matter of public record, not a private matter — the public is entitled to know its status.
How many honest scientists have raised concerns internally, only to find their careers stalled rather than their concerns investigated? And how many court cases now exist as a result? Only way to see the great achievements, please go through the agencies reports silently.
None of this is cynicism for its own sake. It is a demand for the basic mechanics of accountable governance: that a reform committee’s findings be published and acted on, not buried; that a leadership vacancy at a strategic institution be filled with urgency, not left to drift; and that allegations of favoritism and credential fraud, once raised, be either formally investigated and closed, or shown to be baseless — not simply left to hang over the institution indefinitely.
DRDO does not need another committee. It needs an answer to the ones it has already commissioned. JAI HIND.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
