Tag Archives: DRDO

No extensions sans ACC okay: Government to DRDO

By Aman Sharma, ET Bureau | 27 Sep, 2014,

NEW DELHI: In a message to the Defence Research Development Organisation that has over a dozen scientists working on tenures beyond 60, the government has frowned at the tendency of giving extensions to scientists without consulting the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC).

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to be unhappy with DRDO’s functioning and had recently advocated that five out of the 52 DRDO labs be manned by young scientists after reports with the government revealed that as many as 358 scientists had quit DRDO between 2009 and 2013.

A government note sent on Friday to nine ministries and departments which have specialists in scientific or medical fields, including DRDO and Department of Space, the Department of Personnel and Training has said that the ACC headed by the prime minister has observed that in some cases, departments have unilaterally extended the service officers beyond the age of superannuation without obtaining the approval of ACC.

“It is reiterated that in absence of specific approval of ACC towards extension of services beyond the date of superannuation, an officer should stand retired on his date of superannuation and under no circumstances should the Ministry/Department extend his services beyond superannuation unilaterally without approval of ACC,” the note says. This also comes on the heels of the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission where Modi had praised scientists at ISRO for the feat.

In Friday’s note, the policy drawn up by the NDA government in 2002 was pointed to, which said that any tenure extensions to scientists should be “only in really exceptional circumstances” and only if the retiring specialist “is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest”.

That policy also said that too many cases of extensions are likely to cause “frustration and affect morale of upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments.” In 2012, DRDO admitted that 37 scientists — 12 of whom were in distinguished category — were on extended tenures. This was despite the Rama Rao Committee, which carried out the first external review of DRDO in 2008, calling for a younger profile of top scientists. DRDO secretary Avinash Chander is also working on an extension.

ET had reported on August 23 that Modi was not happy about this situation and had sought all details after he was told about the high attrition rate among younger scientists. Friday’s note also goes out to the departments of Atomic Energy, Science and Technology, Scientific and Industrial Research, Information Technology and Environment Ministry.extension dopt

RTI-DOPT- DRDO Extension Buisness

To                                                                                                               26th September 2014
Sh Subandhu Basu,
US (SM-I), CPIO,
Room no. 23, North Block,
New Delhi -110001

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of OFFICE MEMORANDUM  F.No.22/35/2011-EO (SM.II) 24th September, 2014 Sub: Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.  In Para 1 – The ACC has observed that in some of the cases, the Departments are not taking timely action to reconstitute the Departmental Peer Review Committee (DPRC) and are unilaterally extending the service of the officers beyond the age of superannuation without first obtaining approval of the ACC.

  1. Provide the name of officials and name of their respective departments who were get extension in service beyond superannuation for two years without first obtaining approval of the ACC from January 2011 to till date as mentioned in above OM
  2.  Provide the name of officials and name of their respective departments who were get extension in service after 62 to 64 years without first obtaining approval of the ACC from January 2011 to till date as mentioned in above OM.
  3. Provide the total number of DRDO officials granted extension for two years 60 to 62 years from January 2010 to till date.
  4.  Provide the total number of DRDO officials granted extension for two years 62 to 64 years from January 2010 to till date.

 

Regards
 
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number     DOP&T/R/2014/63933

बहुत देर भई नन्द लाला (पाण्डेय जी) रिपोर्ट कब सबमिट करोगे, समय निकल जायेगा

To                                                                   26th September 2014
Dr D C Pande,
Scientist ‘H’, Outstanding Scientist,
 Chairman 2nd Fact finding Committee constituted for DMSRDE corruption
LRDE, DRDO, Bangalore   

 

Dear Pandey Ji,

As you very well aware the complaints against Dr.Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and estimated amount involved in corruption is about 7.5  crore is a tip of ice berg only.

Sh. Avinash Chander (Padam Shree) appointed 1st FFIC under Chairmanship of Dr.S.S. Negi, Scientist ‘H’ as Chairman and Shri Manoj Bali , Scientist ‘G’ and Shri Jagdeep, Scientist ‘F’ as members of FFIC. This FFIC visited DMSRDE, Kanpur on 13-14 March 2014 and submitted FFIC report in a speedy manner in April 2014. This illegal committee submitted fake report as directed by Shri Avinash Chander who patronage Dr. AK Saxena and in lieu of obedience both Dr.SS Negi and Manoj Bali were awarded by big boss.

You are aware that Dr. SS Negi has been appointed as Director, IRDE, Dehradun and Shri Manoj Bali, Scientist ‘G’ is promoted as Scientist ‘H’ superseded 55 senior scientists as his senirity roll no is 71,  despite several honest and eligible scientists have been ignored.

You have been appointed as Chairman of 2nd  FFIC by big boss with same hope that you also show your loyalty and obedience towards him but your honesty came in path and you still not submitted the report to big boss and not giving clean chit to Dr. AK Saxena who is very close friend of mini DG & DOP Dr. A.K. Singh. Thereby your name is not in today list of promotes for the year 2014 for Distinguished Scientist. May be it will come in supplementary list?

You are fully aware that now Government has been changed and our Prime Minister is not happy with DRDO’s Chalta hai attitude,   for FFIC as maximum time for submission report is three months as per DOPT Inquiry Manual, CVC expects preliminary investigation to be completed within three months.

You have visited DMSRDE, Kanpur on 09-10, July 2014 and completed the FFI. Now third month is coming to end soon and Director (Vigilance), MOD has sought Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO for consolidated report by his letter dated 04 August 2014.

In recent judgment of Madras High Court, Hon’ble justice commented “Scientist have no excuse that they have no administrative knowledge” and thereby two great senior officials have been sentenced three week imprisonment. Although DRDO हाथ क़ानून से भी लम्बे है today they filed SLP in Supreme Court and got time further with the help of poor tax payers money. पर कब तक ?

Don’t worry sir, one chance still there for you with for being DS in case you submit true report solely based on voice of your sole. You remember that “गरीबों की सुनो वो तुम्हारी सुनेगा, इस साल नहीं हुआ लेकिन अगले साल प्रमोशन होगा”.

क्योंकि अगले असेसमेंट तक अविनाश चन्दर जी तो होंगे नहीं मोदी जी २ अक्टूबर को झाड़ू लगा कर भारत को स्वच्छ बनाने का अभियान छेड़ रहे , भाई साहेब अब सफाई तो होगी ही उसको कोई नहीं रोक सकता ।

You submit the report to justice with poor tax payers money so that culprits of corruption in DMSRDE could be punished CVC and higher authorities.

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal
21-Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun-248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com, website 
www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

HOLI PREETI SANDHYA – 2014 -‘Murkhadhiraj Award” मूर्खाधिराज सम्मान

Navyuwak Mandal organised Holi Preeti Sandhya 2014 on 17th March 2014 at Sri Marwari Thakurbari premises. Indian Idol – 4 Finalist Naushad Ali Kaba and young singer Naveen Acharya were the attraction of the evening. Smt. Manju Sharma also performed outstandingly.

The Star attraction was Great Indian Laughter Challenge Champion Laughter King Sri Suresh Albela, who won many hearts by his poetic laughter doze.

Renowned Social worker and Industrialist of Jorhat Sri Akhechand Mohata was honoured with ‘Murkhadhiraj Award“. Hon’ble MLA of Jorhat and Gen. Secy of INA Sri Rana Goswami was honoured with Mr. Jorhat Award. Mr. Goswami recieved this Honour from 2013 Mr. Jorhat Sri Anand Agarwal.

Murkhadhiraj-Award
Murkhadhiraj-Award

 

8 experts in electronic warfare to be feted

Bangalore, Sep 18, 2014, DHNS DECCAN HERALD

The Association of Old Crows, India chapter, will honour eight people for their contribution to the field of Electronic Warfare (EW) at an event to be held in the City on Saturday.

The best contributor award in EW from Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be presented to J Manjula, Scientist ‘H’ and Director, DARE, DRDO, Bangalore and Dr M Lakshminarayana, Scientist ‘G’, DLRL, DRDO, Hyderabad.

Best contributor award in EW from Indian Armed Services will be given to Capt Babu Joseph, Indian Air Force, presently Project Director (RWR & UEWS) at DARE, DRDO, Bangalore and Capt Rishi Mohan, Indian Navy.

The best contributor award in EW from public sector units will be presented to Dr Ajith T Kalghatgi, Director (R&D), Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and Philip Jacob, Executive Director, Central D&E, Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore.

The best contributor award in EW from private industry will be given to V Anuradha, Vice President-Designs,

Rangsons Defence Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore and Col (Retd) Ramachandran Mahesh, Program Director (C4I &EW), TATA Power SED, Hyderabad.
DH News Service

manjula taxi bill DLRL
Ms J Manjula’s Taxi bill samples simultaneously Claimed Transport allowance

In Between ISRO and DRDO- Where Lies the Difference?

Friday, September 26, 2014, 9:01 [IST]- Oneindia news

After the initial euphoria over the emphatic and the most incredible success of ISRO’s Mars Mission has settled down, it would be interesting to do some analysis as to why ISRO stands apart from other similar organizations when it comes to crossing one milestone after another and that too in a field where very few dare to venture.

Space research is not everyone’s cup of tea and even though most of the major economies of the world have their own independent space research programmes, only a handful have been successful in making a significant mark in this field.

The Milestone Machine named ISRO

Even before the envious milestone of reaching Mars in its very first attempt, ISRO has been known for having had more than 100 launches and with the ISRO workhorse namely the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) alone having been responsible for launching 65 satellites into the orbit out of which 30 are of Indian origin and 35 of foreign origin.

Earlier this year, ISRO also succeeded in taming the unruly horse namely the GSLV or the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle with the launch of GSAT-14 weighing 1982 Kg by GSLV-D5 rocket. Today ISRO is not just known for its flawless but frugal engineering and space research credentials but also for making the impossible achievements possible with a fraction of the budget that NASA has.

The Big Question- What Sets ISRO Apart and Where Does DRDO Falter?

So what sets ISRO apart? What makes ISRO so globally competitive and how is it possible that a nation which can on its own make a spacecraft and make it travel for more than 660 million Km, finds it difficult to make a quality combat aircraft?

Isn’t it strange that a nation which has outsmarted NASA in terms of frugal engineering and low cost Mars Mission finds it difficult to retain its own engineering talent? Is it not a reality that ISRO has succeeded where DRDO has faltered if not failed?

In fact one should remember what Prime Minister Modi had to say to the top brass of DRDO in the month of August this year. He had expressed his anguish at the ‘Chalta Hai’ attitude of DRDO for its inability to finish projects on time and made it clear to them that the world would not be waiting for them.

Modi had stated to the top brass of DRDO no unclear terms, ‘”The world will not wait for us. We have to run ahead of time. We should not say in 2014 that a project conceived in 1992 will take some more time,” (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/World-wont-wait-for-you-PM-Narendra-Modi-tells-laggard-DRDO/articleshow/40550218.cms).

Clearly Modi was referring to DRDO’s numerous long delayed projects including that of the Light Combat Aircraft as well as that of its failure with several others including the Kaveri Engine, the Advanced Light Towed Array Sonar (ALTAS) projector the agonizing delay in the Long Range Surface to Air Missile or LR-SAM, which it was doing in collaboration with Israeli Aerospace Industries.

One though cannot deny the success of DRDO for materializing the Agni and Prithvi range of missiles and making some reasonable progress with some others such as Akash, Prahaar, Shaurya, Brahmos and with the anti ballistic missile systems. Barring the missile projects, the success rate of DRDO has been extremely unsatisfactory.

The other key problem with DRDO is its inability to realize its areas of core competence and concentrate on them. Instead it tried to put its hand on everything and ended up failing in many. On the contrary ISRO is known for its core competence and sticking to it.

Not Just DRDO but all Defence PSU’s and Ministry of Defence should be Blamed as well

In fact the blame should not just be with DRDO but equally with all the Defence PSUs and the Ordnance Factory Boards (OFB) who all suffer from similar laid back attitude and producing flawless quality products has not their hallmark.

At a time when ISRO has exemplified how a Mars Mission can be made successful at with fund less than what was used for even some of the top line Hollywood flicks, DRDO and its brethren in defense production are masters in cost overrun, delays and snail pace.

A major part of the blame for the sheer difference in the performance of ISRO and DRDO has to taken by the Ministry of Defence as well. The Ministry of Defence has failed to evolve with time and is manned with bureaucrats devoid of any specialized knowledge of strategic and defence affairs.

Their idiosyncratic tendency to cancel tenders at the whiff of a gossip of a wrong doing, without taking the issues of national security and priority for weapons, their tendency to manage issues of technology with a bureaucratic mindset and sheer inability to harness the potential of the private sector has done much harm.

The Real Reason for ISRO’s Success- No Bureaucratic Red Tape and Meddling in its Affairs

The real reason for which ISRO has succeeded is because it always had the free hand to perform without the needless bureaucratic hurdles to throttle their work.ISRO works directly under the supervision of the Prime Minister as part of the Department of Space and is managed by specialized technocrats rather than generalist bureaucrats. The ISRO website states:

‘The Space Commission formulates the policies and oversees the implementation of the Indian space programme to promote the development and application of space science and technology for the socio-economic benefit of the country. DOS implements these programmes through, mainly Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), National Atmospheric Research Laboratory (NARL), North Eastern-Space Applications Centre (NE-SAC) and Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL). The Antrix Corporation, established in 1992 as a government owned company, markets the space products and services.’

Contrast this with the ad-hoc manner in which Ministry of Defence operates and the arms length distance it keeps from the end users of defense products, i.e. the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy. The Ministry of Defence completely lacks a strategic intent and has failed to create a Defence Commission on the lines of Space Commission to formulate policies and oversee implementation.

Further, it has failed to create a dedicated cadre of personnel with impeccable understanding of defense issues and issues related to the importance of development of indigenous capabilities. Fact of the matter is that defence PSUs or the DRDO were never taken to task everyone was happy with the lackadaisical approach and the dependence on imports.

Put DRDO directly under Prime Minister’s Supervision, just like ISRO

One cannot deny the success of DRDO in terms of making India capable of making developing missiles but at the same time, one also cannot overlook its sheer failure in other areas of defence research. The best thing to do, to salvage the situation would be to directly bring DRDO under the supervision of Prime Minister’s office.

In fact the whole Department of Defence, much on the lines of Department of Space should be directly under the Prime Minister and should ideally be supervised by a Defence Commission manned by defence experts and technocrats. Only that can salvage India’s defence research and bring it at par with its space research feats. DRDO has immense potential and talent to make excellence a norm like ISRO. All that it would take is to put it right under the supervision of Prime Minister and release it from the clutches of bureaucratic meddling.isro org

 

Two top DRDO scientists awarded jail term by Madras high court for contempt of court

A Subramani,TNN | Sep 25, 2014, 02.00 PM IST

CHENNAI: While the science community behind Mangalyaan’s success is still basking in glory, the Madras high court on Thursday awarded a three-week jail term to the nation’s two top scientists for contempt of court. The court also imposed a fine on them and directed the Centre to initiate stringent action against the duo.

V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to the minister of defence and director general of research & development, DRDO, and G Malakondaiah, director of Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) in Hyderabad, have to surrender to police in a week and start their three-week jail stint. If they fail to do so, an arrest warrant shall be issued to get them under custody, ruled an irate division bench of the high court.

“The government is directed to take appropriate departmental action against them for the reckless negligence and wilful disobedience of the orders of this court,” said the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice P N Prakash on Thursday.

The two DRDO officers were found guilty of civil contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They were sentenced to a simple imprisonment for three weeks and directed to pay a fine of Rs 2,000 each.

“We are aware that they are occupying very high positions in the government, but ensconced in a pedestal, their vision became blurred when it came to the travails of an ordinary employee who was suddenly thrown out of employment, for no fault of his. Even during the course of the contempt proceedings, there was no tinge of remorse or an attempt to correct the mistake,” the court said.

On August 13, 1985, Joseph Raj was appointed clerk-cum-store keeper initially on an ad hoc basis in the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) under the ministry of defence. He acquired his B.Com and master of library and information science degrees later, and when a librarian post fell vacant in the school, he was selected on merits. CVRDE School, started at Avadi here in 1978, was sought to be closed in 2001 and staff members were issued termination notices.

Since then, Joseph Raj won several rounds of litigations in the administrative tribunal, the high court and then in the Supreme Court as well. As he was not reinstated or given job in another unit, he then filed the present contempt of court proceedings, pointing out that the authorities had misled even the apex court.

Narrating the travails of Joseph Raj in detail and convinced that the two officers had done everything to deny him employment for more than a decade, the judges directed the Centre to give a job to Joseph Raj according to the 2004 judgment that favoured him.

It also rapped the two top DRDO officers quoting the Supreme Court’s words: “Non-acceptance of a mistake is not a heroic deed. On the contrary, it reflects flawed devotion to obstinacy. The pink of perfection really blossoms in acceptance.”

Scientific Nexus – RTI – DRDO

To,                                                                 25th September 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Project- Fabrication and characterization of substrate for patch antenna by using nano magneto-dielectric materials for the nano magneto-dielectric materials. The project was sanctioned to Dr Atul Thakur , Shoolini University, Bajhol, Solan-Oachghat-Kumarhatti Highway, Solan, HP. The Sanctioned amount of project is Rs 9.9 Lakh plus equipment of worth Rs 50 Lakhs for the period of 2012 to 2014.

1. Provide the copy of Project Proposal Application Form for the project – Fabrication and characterization of substrate for patch antenna by using nano magneto-dielectric materials for the missile applications. by Dr Atul Thakur , Shoolini University, Solan.

2. Provide the name and designation of DRDO official who has sanctioned the project to Dr Atul Thakur.

3. Provide the date of sanction of the project – Fabrication and characterization of substrate for patch antenna by using nano magneto-dielectric materials for the missile applications to Dr Atul Thakur.

4. Whether the DRDO official who was sanctioned this project to Dr Atul Thakur registered for PhD under Dr Atul Thakur (Yes/No)

Regards

Prabhu Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
0135- 2787750, 9411114879,
prabhudoon@gmail.com www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number MODEF/R/2014/61773

Research-Grant-Shoolini-University-Solan
Research-Grant-Shoolini-University-Solan

 

Supreme Court to examine DRDOs exclusion under section 24

17 Aug, 2014- RTI Foundation of India

On a petition filed by Dr. Neelam Bhalla, a scientist at DRDO, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda of the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre and the DRDO. The petitioner was transferred to a different unit and she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for her transfer.

Her application was turned down by the DRDO and her second appeal was rejected by the Central Information Commission. On failure to get any relief from the Delhi High Court, she moved the apex court contending that only that information which directly affected and correlated to “intelligence and security” could be exempted and the information which were general in nature should not be denied.

She has demanded that records relating to their services should be provided. Bhalla has challenged the interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Information Act in the context of the exclusion of exempted organisations listed in schedule II such as the DRDO.

The petition says that wilful disclosure of incorrect or false or misleading information relating to routine matters such as transfer not only to the petitioner but also to higher authorities, namely the Minister of Defence and the National Commission for Women, to justify their actions, was an offence under the newly enacted Whistle Blowers Protection Act.

Bhalla has alleged that she was a victim of gender discrimination and humiliation at the hands of senior scientists. When she filed a complaint before the NCW against the alleged nepotism and lapses in the policy of recruitment, the task for the recruitment of scientists ‘B’ was selectively taken away from her.

She has sought directions to disclose the reasons for her transfer through the Apex Court. Now the matter would be heard by the SC to decide whether the defence organisations such as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) can withhold information regarding transfer of an employee, claiming exemption under section 24 of the Right to Information Act. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 is reproduced below:

– 24. Act not to apply in certain organizations.-

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

(5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.

RTI-CVO-DMSRDE

To                                                                                            24th September 2014
Sh. Sekhar Ranjan Amin,
U/Secretary & CPIO,
Room No – 340, Office of Director of Vigilance,
B- Wing Sena Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105

 

Hello,

Please refer to your letter No. 11/DO (Vig.)/RTI/2014 dated 05 August 2014, kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information, RTIAct, 2005 in respect of complaints against Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.

  1. Whether consolidated report on the complaints against Dr. AK Saxena & others of DMSRDE, DRDO, Kanpur has been received by Director (Vig.) and CVO (MOD) from DRDO as sought by your MOD ID no. 63/DO(Vig.)/CVC/2014 dated 04.08.2014 to Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO. (Yes/No)
  2. If answer to point (1) is yes then provide the copy of the consolidated report received from DRDO.
  3. If answer to point (1) is yes then status of action taken by Director (Vigilance) on the report received from Director (Vigilance & Security), DRDO.
  4. If answer to point(1) is no then provide the time limit provided to DRDO to submit consolidated report to Director(Vigilance), MOD.

 

Regards
 
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008 
0135- 2787750,   9411114879,  
prabhudoon@gmail.com    www.corruptionindrdo.com

 

Registration Number         MODEF/R/2014/61766

AGNI PUTRI – द्रौपदी को अग्निपुत्री कहते हैं – From pages of history for DRDO friends

Mythical story of Mahabharata told that wife of Pandavas, Draupadi is also called as “Agni Putri” (daughter of fire, the daughter of Agni dev, The God of Fire).

Draupadi literally means the daughter of Drupada. She is also called Panchali, which means princess of Panchala or Punjab.

But she was not the genetic daughter of Drupada. This dark beauty called Krishnaa (कृष्णा) was Agni Putri – the daughter of Agni Deva.

Vyasa poetically says that Draupadi “emerged from the fire”, therefore Draupadi is called as Agni Putri.

(द्रौपदी को अग्निपुत्री कहते हैं).  Dharmaraya Temple in Bangalore is having statue of Draupadi in the temple and she called there as Agni putri

Agni-Putri-
Agni-Putri-