Tag Archives: government

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

Tatra trucks have performed well for Indian Army: DRDO chief

2 Comments

ANI | Mar 31, 2012, 04.54PM IST

NEW DELHI: Defence Research Development Organisation ( DRDO) chief V. K. Saraswat on Saturday defended the use of Tatra trucks in the Indian Army, saying the vehicles had performed rather well.

Describing the Tatra trucks as “outstanding” and not at all of sub-standard quality, Saraswat said the trucks have been used to launch missiles like the Prithvi and the Agni.

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

“The performance of these vehicles has been good in the armed forces and we have no complaints about it. 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,”Saraswat said.

He also described Defence Minister A K Antony and Chief of Army Staff General V.K.Singh as good people who should handle their differences, if any, with more caution.

Readers’ opinions

Victor (Hyderabad) 
16 hrs ago (06:11 PM)
Please investigate Saraswat. His son-in-law, joined a company making missile components under contract from DRDO and the company went from BIFR status to over 100 crores. Dont trust his statements.

Drdo

Making Quite A Bomb

3 Comments

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279925

Making Quite A Bomb

How workers without intel clearance get into an explosives lab

A Defence Lab Breached?

  • The High Energy Materials Research Lab (HEMRL), Pune, has outsourced the production of TATB, an explosive, to a private firm, Viswaat, with which an ex-director of HEMRL is associated
  • The firm does not have a licence to manufacture explosives
  • Worse, the workforce—which does not have intelligence clearance—enters the HEMRL facility to carry out the work
  • Local auditors have questioned payments, attendance records etc
  • Based on anonymous complaints and these audits, the CBI is investigating all work undertaken by Viswaat Chemicals

What Is TATB

  • TATB (or triamino trinitro benzene) is an explosive yellow powder
  • Being extremely stable, it’s called for in high-risk situations
  • One use of TATB is as a primer in nuclear warheads
  • Mixed with fuel oil or other binders, it can be used for bomb-making by terrorists When the CBI begins to investigate a premier defence research institute, the findings can be explosive. Quite literally so, in this case. Imagine the production of a restricted explosive substance being outsourced by a specialised government lab—that too to an unlicensed private firm. It’s just such a flagrant security lapse that was involved when the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, run by the venerable Defence Research & Development Organisation, parcelled out a production contract for the explosive triamino trinitro benzene (TATB) to Viswaat Chemicals. The storyline is by now familiar from other scams: a former director of HEMRL, Dr Haridwar Singh, is associated with Viswaat. The CBI probe began on anonymous complaints and local audits citing the conflict of interest. But especially worrisome is the security angle. One, Viswaat allegedly does not yet have a licence for producing explosives; and two, the workforce it provides does not have intelligence clearance.TATB may be a relatively lesser known one in the roster of explosive acronyms, but it packs quite a punch: it weighs in under rdx on the impact scale, but above TNT. Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (retd), an explosives expert, says, “In the current scenario—take Monday’s terror attack in a high-security zone in Delhi—substances used to make explosives must always be guarded. If anyone manages to smuggle TATB out of the factory, it can be used for any purpose. The purpose of intelligence checks is to prevent free accessibility. Also, untrained personnel may, without knowing the implications, sell the stuff, leading to disastrous consequences.”Viswaat is said to have applied for the relevant manufacturing licence to the Union industries ministry’s chief controller of explosives, headquartered in Nagpur. (It issues licences under laws governing the manufacture, use and transport of explosives, petroleum products and flammable substances.) The non-issuance of a licence may well be attributed to procedural delay. But it’s the fact of the workforce supplied by the firm not having intelligence clearance that experts cite as a serious internal security threat. In such circumstances, uncleared employees—or anyone claiming connections to Viswaat, for that matter—could gain access to the high-security HEMRL facility.Vidya Krishnan, an SP with the Pune branch of CBI, which is in charge of the probe, confirmed the firm and the lab were being investigated but said “revealing anything beyond this wouldn’t be possible at this stage”. However, sources said Viswaat has been working with DRDO since 2000 on what are known as government-owned, company-operated (GOCO) projects, taking on assignments outsourced by the Advanced Centre for Energetic Materials (ACEM), Nasik, and the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Jagdalpur. Those close to the investigation said all contracts obtained by the firm are now under the scanner. The amount isn’t comparable, say, to the Devas–Antrix deal—it’s no more than Rs 15 crore—but the security angle, given that explosives are involved, helps it take on immense gravity.Before the CBI took on the case, local-level government auditors had in 2009-10 raised serious objections to the contracts, pointing to discrepancies in allocation of work and the bill claims made for the workforce. One report, for example, says: “Please intimate the costing formula adopted for fixing the price of TATB at Rs 11,000 per kg and whether any concurrence has been obtained from audit authorities”. They had also sought inspection of documentary proof of raw material being brought into HEMRL by the contractor for producing TATB and the roster of employees deployed for production schedules, saying there was no uniform system for maintaining attendance records. That is a security gap even accounts auditors homed in on, though they were looking at it only from the payments angle: records say Viswaat had provided less manpower in Jan-Feb 2010, but payments made to it weren’t calculated accordingly. Similarly, there were no records of the entry and exits of vehicles the contractor was supposed to provide; again, the auditors looked at it from the payments angle, but the security angle looms large.
  • Dr Singh put on a brave face when asked to comment. “I am aware of the CBI inquiry against Viswaat—these days an inquiry can be initiated against anyone,” he said. “But I know I’ll come out clean.” And although investigators believe he heads Viswaat, Dr Singh maintains his role is that of independent director, and hence “very limited”, which is why he doesn’t know much about the contracts obtained by the company. About the explosives licence, he says, “I think the company was not into explosives earlier, and then started working in the field, so it had to apply for one. I’m not involved with the company directly, so I wouldn’t be part of the process. They requested me after retirement to join them, so I did, as an independent director.”

    As for the DRDO, its public interface director, Ravi Gupta, was circumspect: “The contract related to production of TATB was awarded after following duly laid down procedures. It won’t be appropriate to make any further comments as the matter pertains to sensitive defence projects.” That really seems to be the whole point. Should a sensitive issue like this be handled in such a fancy-free manner?

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

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Leave a comment

Antrix: Ex-ISRO chief Madhavan Nair banned from future govt job

Anubhuti Vishnoi : New Delhi, Wed Jan 25 2012, 00:56 hrs – Indian Express

In an unprecedented disciplinary action, four of the biggest names in the space community, including former chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) G Madhavan Nair, have been barred from occupying any government position — current or in future — for their role in the Antrix-Devas deal, in which a private company was accused to have been wrongfully allotted S-band frequencies for radio waves.

A Bhaskarnarayana, former scientific secretary in ISRO; K R Sridharmurthi, former managing director of Antrix which is the marketing arm of ISRO; and K N Shankara, former director in ISRO’s satellite centre, are the others who have been penalised, according to an order issued by the Department of Space on January 13, 2012.

Nair, during whose tenure the contract was signed, is the recipient of the Padma Vibhushan. He is the chairman of the board of governors of IIT Patna.

The order, a copy of which is with The Indian Express, is signed by Sandhya Venugopal Sharma, director, Department of Space. While it does not specify the allegations against these scientists, the order says that the decision comes after the government “carefully considered” the report of the high-powered review committee set up on February 10, 2011 and that of another team set up on May 31, 2011.

The order, sent to all Secretaries of the Government of India and Chief Secretaries of state governments and Union Territories, says that these “former Officers of the Department of Space shall be excluded from re-employment, committee roles or any other important role under the government”.

Further, the order states that “these former officers shall be divested of any current assignment/consultancy with the government with immediate effect”. Ministries and departments concerned have been asked to communicate necessary action taken towards the same to the Department of Space.

The deal involved a contract that Antrix Corporation — whose mandate is to market technologies developed by ISRO — had signed with Bangalore-based Devas Multimedia in 2005. The multi-million dollar deal gave Devas bulk lease — 90 per cent — of transponders on two yet-to-be-launched satellites for supporting a range of satellite-based applications for mobile devices through S-band frequencies. For this, the company was given access to 70 MHz of the 150 MHz spectrum that ISRO owns in the S-band.

The Cabinet approved the building of these two satellites — GSAT-6 for Rs 269 crore and GSAT-6A for Rs 147 crore — in 2009. The cost of the launch of satellites was to be Rs 350 crore. Interestingly, the Cabinet was not informed that these two satellites were meant to be used by Devas, a fact admitted by ISRO.

“Ideally, that should have been explicitly mentioned but it was not done,” ISRO chief K Radhakrishnan had told reporters last year when the matter had broken out.

Following allegations that the contract was awarded to the company without competitive bidding, ISRO had set up a committee to review the contract in November 2009, soon after Radhakrishnan had taken over as ISRO chairman from Madhavan Nair.

On the recommendations of that committee, the deal had been scrapped. Devas has gone to court against that decision and the matter is pending in court.

While deciding to scrap the deal, ISRO was also guided by the fact that strategic and societal needs of the S-band spectrum had changed radically from 2005 when the contract was signed, and therefore, it was not imprudent to hand over such a large band of spectrum to a private company.

Former head of NASSCOM Kiran Karnik, who had served as an independent member on Devas Board, had, however, strongly defended the contract. In a letter to the Prime Minister, he had lamented the fact that the government had not done enough either to defend the agreement or the reputation of ISRO.

“In terms of processes, as far as I know, this agreement went meticulously through every step… If cabinet approval was not sought for the deal, the question is whether it was at all required and whether past transponder deals with private parties has gone through any such specific Cabinet approvals,” Karnik had asked.

After the controversy broke out, Karnik resigned from the Devas Board. He had told The Indian Express that he did not have the time or the energy to spend on offering explanations, particularly to the media.

Reader’s Comments(2) | Post a comment

ISRO TOO !

ISRO_EMP | 25-Jan-2012

IS ISRO ANOTHER CWG AND IS THIS ADEQUATE? IS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO BE SHIELDED IN THE NAME OF STRATEGIC DOMAINS?

Antrix: Ex ISRO chief...

K. K. Cherian | 25-Jan-2012

Sir, ISRO is one of the most prestigious organisations in the country. A chance to head such an organisation is an extraordinary achievement for any Scientist. It is shocking and Paradoxical that Mr. Madhavan Nair who was one of the most respected individuals in the country should have indulged in such a shameful and deceitful act. The action taken is probably too small a punishment for the heinous crime he has committed. One can only hope and pray that ISRO would never again face the ignominy of such individuals heading it

Drdo

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

Leave a comment

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

TNN | Jan 17, 2012, 12.47AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked for a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report pointing out alleged irregularities in the purchase of intelligence equipment byNational Technical Research Organisation(NTRO), which was set up in 2004 to provide critical data relating to threats to the nation.

Solicitor general R F Nariman assured a bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad that the government had already initiated action against erring officials on the basis of the CAG report but petitioner V K Mittal’s counsel Jayant Bhushan wondered why the Centre was shy of bringing the alleged irregularities into the open by placing the report in Parliament.

The bench asked Nariman to produce the CAG report on NTRO scam in a sealed cover by March 19. This is the second time within a year that the apex court has asked for a CAG report, the first being on the irregularities in the allotment of 2G spectrum and licences during A Raja’s tenure as telecom minister.

Nariman was belligerent in trashing Mittal’s PIL, not only accusing the latter of attempting to serve a personal interest but also alleging that his correspondence with the authorities revealing top secret projects with their location could help countries inimical to India.

Bhushan countered Nariman by alleging that the government was deliberately keeping the matter under wraps in the name of security to shield the culprits. But the bench said, “It is not a case where the government has put the issue in cold storage but promised that it was being looked into. We will not pass an order but request the SG to produce the CAG report in a sealed cover on March 19.”

Mittal had alleged that a major portion of the Rs 450 crore NTRO scam pertained to purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from an Israeli firm allegedly at a very high price without the mandatory approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

NTRO, which functions under the Prime Minister’s Office, has been entrusted with the task of missile monitoring, satellite and airborne imagery, cyber patrolling and security, cyber offensive operations and communication support systems including cryptology.

It was on the complaint of Mittal, a former joint director in the government of India who had also served in NTRO, that the PMO had ordered a probe into the scam and later, CAG was asked to look into the organisation’s accounts. Nariman alleged that Mittal wanted to head the NTRO and filed the PIL when he did not succeed.

During the last hearing, Bhushan had alleged that Delhi High Court had dismissed Mittal’s writ petition on April 6, 2011 after the Centre filed a probe status report in sealed cover assuring prompt action against the guilty officials. However, no action was taken till date, he claimed.

Mittal’s petition stated that the independent body answerable only to the national security adviser was allotted approximately Rs 8,000 crore since 2005, but there was no accounting of the spending.

Drdo

Chavan writes to Antony, seeks his intervention

1 Comment

Chavan writes to Antony, seeks his intervention

By Aakriti Vasudeva  Posted: Sat Jan 07 2012, 01:33 hrs Mumbai: Indian Express

Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan has sought the intervention of Defence Minister A K Antony in the issue of disposing toxic waste from the erstwhile Union Carbide factory in Bhopal at the incinerator facility of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) in Nagpur. Nearly 346 tonnes of toxic waste has been lying at the plant since the 1984 gas tragedy.

Chavan said in his letter to Antony that the DRDO filed an affidavit in the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the toxic waste could be processed at its Nagpur facility “without addressing any of the environmental concerns or taking into account the technical capacity of the plant.” He said, “It is a matter of grave concern that neither the state government nor the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, both important stakeholders, had been consulted in this matter.”

The state government has also represented against the DRDO’s submission. The court had, on December 21, taken cognisance of the pollution control board’s objections of a non-functional incinerator and non-compliance of inter-state hazardous waste transport rules and turned down the Centre’s plea to conduct a trial run of burning waste at the DRDO facility. However, it is only a temporary relief as the Centre can file pleas on behalf of the DRDO against the board’s objections. The next court hearing is on January 17.

“I seek your personal intervention in the matter to ensure that the DRDO does not take any steps in contravention of the existing laws and regulations. I also seek your assistance to review this decision as it was taken without following the process of consultation with important stakeholders in the state and is in violation of the existing environmental laws and regulations,” Chavan wrote to Antony.

The Chief Minister took up the issue following a request from Vilas Muttemwar, the Congress MP from Nagpur.

It was on July 12, 2011, that the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed disposal of the toxic waste from the Union Carbide factory at the Nagpur facility on a 2004 public interest litigation seeking a directive to make Dow Chemicals clean up the toxic waste.

Drdo

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’ – Outlook BY SUNDEEP DOUGAL ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

Leave a comment

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2673

SUNDEEP DOUGAL

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’

In their various pronouncements since the censorship controversy broke, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Sachin Pilot, the minister and minister of state respectively in the ministry of communications and information technology, have been vocally insisting that the government does not want to resort to censorship and believes in the constitutional right of free speech.

These pieties were once again repeated today by the two ministers after meeting representatives of social media companies, including Google, Facebook and Twitter, for what is now being spun as an “open dialogue to empower individuals and citizens” while reliable sources also reveal that their ministry “is mulling forming an inter-ministerial group to work out a mechanism to monitor and avoid uploading of any defamatory material on Internet.”

At the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) blog, Pranesh Prakash points to the government’s patent insincerity because this sudden talk of ‘transparency’ and ‘dialogue’ came only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies.

He also underlines the clandestine manner in which the government wants Internet companies to ‘self-regulate’ user-uploaded content. One of the reasons for this arm-twisting is to prevent the sort of embarrassment caused by the Google Transparency Report which had demolished the government claims of wanting to curb “hate speech” or that affecting “religious sensitivities” as it tabulated that out that as many as 255 (71%) of the 358 complaints made to Google in the last six months, were about ‘government criticism’ and only 8, or 2.23% were about “hate speech”.

With self-censorship, there would be no need for these requests for removal in the first place, nor will sites have to be blocked officially using the IT Act.

In the article we carried yesterday, Who Plays Judge, Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama provided a reasonable hypothesis about Mr Kapil Sibal’s recent actions:

one of my fears is that something as draconian as pre-censorship may actually be used to make the IT Rules look justifiable, like something of a rollback. People will be furious about suggestions to pre-censor the web, but in comparison, perhaps be willing to accept arbitrary and opaque post-censorship, which is what the the IT Rules allow. The IT Rules need to be amended as well.

The CIS blog by Pranesh Prakash once again underlines what is wrong with these rules:

These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is ‘disparaging’, ‘relating to… gambling’, ‘harm minors in any way’, to which the user ‘does not have rights’.  When was the last time you checked wither you had ‘rights’ to a joke before forwarding it?  Did you share a Twitter message containing the term “#IdiotKapilSibal”, as thousands of people did a few days ago?  Well, that is ‘disparaging’, and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content.  The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online.  As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse.  Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

CIs’s draft report on the Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 looks at these rules critically. For the purposes of this study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented.

The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediary to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices to suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.

Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritise the allocation of legal resources according to its perceived importance of the expressions.

Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically complies (without application of mind) with the takedown notice.

The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is no recourse for the third party provider of information to have the removed information restored or put back if it does come to his knowledge. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice. There is also no requirement for disclosure or transparency in the takedown process.

These Rules and all this recent talk of ‘self-regulation’ are of a piece with the government’s overall paranoia of the power of the internet and various whistleblower websites that are coming up (eg, consider the recent case involvingcorruptionindrdo.com). Because there are constitutional safe-guards against censorship, surreptitious measures are being adopted in a number of ways. As Prakash points out:

Mr. Sibal’s latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright.  The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious.  The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn’t remove the content that has been complained about.  The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed.  Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content.  The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any ‘due process’ or fair procedure.  Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

POSTED BY SUNDEEP ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

 

Drdo

Letter to Honorable Prime Minister

14 Comments
To                                                                                                            19th December 2011
The Prime Minister
PMO, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
 
1.         Shri A K Antony, Defence Minister
           Room No -104, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
 
2.         Shri.P.CHIDAMBARAM, HOME MINISTER,
             R.No -104, North Block, New Delhi-110011
 
3.         The Central Vigilance Commissioner
             CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, SATARKTA BHAWAN,
             GPO COMPLEX, BLOCK-A, INA, NEW DELHI – 110023.

Honorable Sir,

The government of India is putting all their honest effort to control corruption from all the government machineries. Today‘s the common man of our country is looking for strong Lokpal to restrict the corruption.

As citizen of India I have always raised my voice against corruption whenever I came across any information on corruption. In the 20 years of my service in DRDO, Ministry of Defence, I have witnessed a lot of corruption in my department. In the interest of my country I raised my voice and the fallout was that I am out from the service.

After RTI act, again the Government of India gave power to the common man to fight the evils of corruption and using the RTI I have pointed out several issues of corruption/nepotism/favoritism prevalent among the DRDO top officials. This is the major and sole reason of unproductivity and brain drain from DRDO.

DRDO is an organization which works under the cloud of secrecy and when the situation comes to face scenarios like the KARGIL WAR they simply cry for imported devices/ systems/ subsystems. This has been witnessed by the nation.  Former army chief V.P. Malik, who led the army during the 1999 Kargil war, has said casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) “not come in the way” of acquiring weapon-locating radars.  “We had one or two incidents particularly on the weapon locating radar. If the DRDO had not come in the way we would have got them before the Kargil war and that would have definitely reduced our casualties,” he told CNN-IBN.

I have started a website www.corruptionindrdo.com with the aim to provide a platform to DRDO employees to give feedback about corruption prevailing in DRDO and to generate awareness regarding the power of RTI. With the help and support from different government agencies we will succeed in eradicating corruption from DRDO.

In last 18th months of this mission our honorable defence minister acknowledged the issues and gave instruction for inquiries, CVC registered the cases; CIC also directed DRDO to provide information.

Result was –

  1. The senior officials who were enjoying the DRDO guest house facilities were also simultaneously claiming HRA (It can be confirmed from service records and CDA payment bills).This was stopped and recovery instructions were placed (Huge amount).
  2. The senior officials used government transportations in the name of projects and simultaneously claimed transport allowances (it can be confirmed from service records and CDA payment bills). The best part is that in some cases the vehicles was owned by DRDO officials and the bills were raised for more than Rs 40000- 52000 per month. This was stopped and recovery instructions were placed (amount in lakhs).
  3. Most establishments are now starting precautions in procurement and allotting service contract where earlier they were ignoring all the norms laid down by the government. It is clearly visible in their procurement documents.
  4. CBI is also looking into several issues of corruptions of DRDO.
  5. IB also submitted several reports on these issues.

Some example of corruption/nepotism/favoritism of DRDO

  1. Some DRDO top officials use their power and post to induct their wards by manipulating the laid down norms and deprive the available talent of the country. Example

a)    Ms. Swati Srivastava, D/o Dr. Arun Kumar, DOP,DRDO  was selected Scientist ‘B’  through RAC (Recruitment and assessment centre of DRDO)  Adv.no- 66 , item no 34 without having the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement. The required qualification for the post was M.Sc – Biotechnology, where as the qualification of Swati Srivastava is M.Sc in Environmental Biology. Her father Dr. Arun Kumar, was the Addl. Director of the DRDO at that time. One RAC interview board external member of Ms. Swati Srivastava was her teacher.  (Enclosed finding in Details)

b)    Ms. Geetha D/o Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defence (R&D) o/o DRDO  was selected through RAC (Recruitment & Assessment Centre of DRDO) Advertisement no-64 item no-83 – Scientist –‘C’ without completing the required qualification for the post as published in the advertisement as under –

Ms. Geetha is M.Sc (Biochemistry) and submitted her Ph.D during the selection, while she was not awarded the Ph.D degree or not completed three year research experience which is must before the selection of Scientist ’C’.

Her father was the Director at DIPAS/DRDO who constituted / approved the screening / selection committee of JRF (junior research fellowship) and awarded Rs.8000/- per month during JRF to her daughter Ms. Geetha.

It is a clear rule of RAC/DRDO to select the scientist ‘C’:-Essential :-

(i)- At least First Class Master Degree in science subject, mathematics or psychology or first class degree in engineering or technology or metallurgy from a recognized university or equivalent.

(ii)-Three year experience in research or design or development production in the required area.

(iii)- Weightage for higher qualification to be equated as research experience for lateral recruitment as under;

Post graduate degree in engineering – two years.

Doctorate degree in science or mathematics-three years.

Doctorate degree in engineering-four years. [ Encl- 1 ]

Note :- RAC web site clarify that the candidate’s Ph.D degree  should be awarded up to the closing date as given in the advertisement for Scientist ‘C’ post.

Here, I want to clarify that Ms. Gheeta was not awarded Ph..D till the closing date as given in the advertisement

2.           Some DRDO top officials using their position to help vendors. (Details already submitted to honorable minister and it was duly acknowledge vide letter No No 1409-VIP/RM/2011 dated 21st March 2011 & No 1409-VIP/RM/2236 dated 20th May 2011

3.             As per Dr W Silavamurthy, Chief Controller of Defence (R&D) DRDO distributing Rs 900 crores to various institutions government, private, deemed universities, NGO’s etc. there is clear feedback from DRDO officials that in some cases manipulations are going on. Ideally there should be a nodal agency that should do proper scrutiny of funds distributed by various research board of DRDO.

4.           Some DRDO top officials use their position and make money by giving false information like in case of HRA and transport allowances.

The big question is that why did the top officials at DRDO simply wait for 18 months to react against the website. They forget the constitutional rights of India which gives supreme power to the common man.

That main objective of this site has been to fight against the practices of corruption in Defence Research Development Organisation.

That a lot of visitors use this site to put up their views regarding the corrupt practices in DRDO, which after examination on the point of corruption are forwarded to the higher authorities and published  on  the website. Thus this is a work in the interest of the security of the state.

That nothing is affecting security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states,  public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, sovereignty and integrity of India.

That freedom of speech and expression entitles a person to speak without any censorship or restriction. On the website there is already a DISCLAIMER: “The comments submitted by users on this website do not necessarily reflect my opinion. While I believe that everyone should be allowed to express his thoughts and views freely through this online platform, it does not mean that I endorse them in any manner. The information against corruption in DRDO uploaded on this website by me is backed up by appropriate documents, letters and evidences gathered through the Right to Information Act. If anybody wishes to challenge the authenticity of this information, they are welcome to contact me to seek further details. They can also seek direct clarifications from relevant authorities about these evidences. The whole and sole objective of this website is to expose the corrupt elements in DRDO and protect national security interests of the country. Exposing such elements does not mean that it is an effort to malign any individual or party for some personal reason or motive. My campaign is against a corrupt system and if this system is rectified, I will believe that the objective has been achieved and there is no need to take this up further.”

Fallout

  1. Several FIRs were registered against me by DRDO officials.
  2. To close the website by any means they lodged the complaint against www.corruptionindrdo.com and alleged that the site is publishing classified informations. The committee headed by Dr Gulshan Rai     Director General, I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division),Department of Information Technology (Husband of Mrs Puja Tenaja Rai, Scientist ‘F’ DIC, DRDO Hqrs.)

Request

  1. As an honest citizen and whistle blower I am requesting you sir please examine all the enclosed documents thoroughly and provide necessary protection to me as laid down for whistle blowers and RTI activist.
  2. Sir, like a disciplined soldier I am ready to give supreme sacrifice for fighting these corrupt DRDO official who are eating the country’s premier organization like termite.
  3. I hope matter will be treated in priority to save the organisation as well as the honest people of India.

Thanking you

Regards,
 Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal   
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,  
e-mail id prabhudoon@dandriyal.com , website- www.corruptionindrdo.com 

Enclosed

  1. Documentary evidences of manipulations in recruitment cases of Dr Arun Kumar’s daughter, Dr W Selvamurthy’s daughter etc.
  2. Procurement cases documentary evidences, DEAL,DLRL,ITR,HEMRL, DIAT etc
  3. Inputs of agencies
  4. Other corruption/nepotism/favoritism relate documentary evidences
  5. News clips about website

Copy for Information and action please

  1. Dr V K Saraswat, Scientific Adviser to RM & DG, DRDO, Room No 531, DRDO Hqrs, Rajaji Marg , New Delhi


Ex-DRDO man plots revenge by online slur – by Raj Shekhar, TNN | Dec 14, 2011, 01.13AM IST

DRDO official files complaint Dec 14, 2011 – JEHANGIR ALI |  

Amar Ujala 15th December 2011 

Sakaal Times

 

Court notice to six top DRDO officials

 

Mubarak Ansari , Thursday, June 23, 2011 AT 12:12 PM (IST)

 

PUNE: A local court has issued process against six officers of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for illegally dismissing a high ranking officer working with city-based High Energy Materials Research Laboratory HEMRL). Now, they have to be present before the court as accused and defend their action.

 

All the accused are attached to DRDO’s Directorate of Personnel (DOP), New Delhi.

 

Dr Rohidas Gopinath Taware (54) of Aundh had filed the criminal complaint in this regard. The accused have been identified as DOP’s Director Dr Arun Kumar, Associate Director VP Pande, Joint Director IB Arora, Joint Director BB Sharma, Deputy Director SB Yadav and Deputy Director Abhinavjeet Ojha. Surprisingly, except for the post of director, no other designation held by the other accused exists in DOP.

 

Taware, a gazetted group ‘A’ officer, was Technical Officer ‘B’ at HEMRL. “He joined service in 1983 and was illegally suspended on August 24, 2009, and then illegally dismissed on December 30 last year. His entire service period is spotless,’ states the complaint. It further added, “The DOP is the highest office which deals with the personal matters of central government servants in DRDO. But, the DOP is not the disciplinary authority of the complainant (Taware). As per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority of gazetted group ‘A’ officer like the complainant is the Director General Research and Development, New Delhi .”

 

“Dr Arun Kumar suspended Taware under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA). But, as per the said rule, Kumar is not competent to sign the suspension order as only DGR&D is competent to suspend or take disciplinary action. Kumar had accepted this fact in his deposition as a defence witness in the inquiry proceedings against

 

Taware. A copy of the said deposition is on record. Prima facie, it makes out the case against all the accused punishable u/s 167 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury) and 170 (personating a public servant) of the IPC,” observed JMFC PK Deshpande in his order dated June 13.

 

The other accused issued memo, penalty order, etc illegally. Taware’s counsel BR Barge said that Taware was dismissed as he had filed civil and criminal cases against his superiors. “In 2008, Taware had filed a civil suit for compensation due to inaction of his superiors who had allegedly erred in their duties. During deposition before a court, his superiors made defamatory allegations. Hence, we filed a criminal case for defamation. Both the cases are pending. A day before the defamation case was to come up for hearing, Taware was suspended for his alleged anti-department activities. His promotion was also put on hold and finally dismissed,” said Barge. The next hearing is on July 22.