NEW DELHI: In view of some Western countries unwilling to part with strategic defence technologies, the government on Tuesday said it would further strengthen the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) for providing strategic defence with suitable delivery systems.
Amid concerns expressed by members of a Parliamentary consultative committee on defence on project delays and poor quality of some products developed by DRDO, defence minister A K Antony told MPs that the research organisation has put India in an elite club with the development of interceptor ballistic missile system.
The latest round of user trials has made it clear that even after 30 years of development, Arjun Tank comes nowhere near meeting minimum operational requirements of the Army.
However, what is worrying the top brass is that DRDO’s insistence on inducting larger numbers of the indigenous tank will come in the way of a newer, better “Main Battle Tank (MBT) of the future” that is now required by the Army.
While Army HQ is not even thinking about extending its original order of 124 Arjun Tanks for two regiments, given that it is unacceptable for induction in the present form, the top brass is concerned that continued DRDO efforts on the Arjun will delay its requirement of a futuristic MBT.
The Army has now told DRDO that there is no point bickering about the past and the Arjun Tank should be treated as a technology demonstrator and a platform to work on a totally new tank design for the future.
Ads by GoogleRC Helicopters Bye Bye Trex 450 An all new 450 class heli.www.sshelicopters.coReal Estate @ 99acres.com Buy,Sell,Rent all kinds of Property Over 200000 Listings. Search Now!www.99acres.comSobha Aspire Residential 2 & 3BHK Apts with Modern Amenities Near Proposed Metro Stn. Book Now!SobhaDevelopers.com/
There is a certain degree of urgency in the Army’s demand as it is aware of an increasing void in the tank armoury and its requirement of 3,500 tanks to replace the ageing T 72 MBT.
“After 30 years, the Arjun has not fructified, and now we need to start with a new design and a new tank. We have always said that a next (generation) tank has to come out in due course of time. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, who till February was Director General of Mechanised Forces at Army HQ, said.
The current round of winter trials, where the German-origin power pack of the tank failed four times within a run of 1,000 kms, is the latest in the series of setbacks that have dogged the project since its inception in 1974.
The Army is disappointed that the tank has failed to deliver on every single count that was citied for the prolonged indigenous research project. The engine, tracks, transmissions and gunners sight — that together account for 60 per cent of its cost — are all imported.
“When we placed the order, 60 per cent of the components were imported. It was going to cost us Rs 25 crore at a time when the T 90 was available for below Rs 10 crore. But it was an indigenous effort, so we agreed for 124 tanks. But not much has changed. We still remain dependant on foreign firms, and there is a lot of unhappiness as it has not met operational requirements of the Army,” feels General VP Malik, who was the Army chief during the Kargil conflict.
The Army is not just questioning the technology of the tank but is also worried about Arjun’s reliability factor given that various components of the tank have not been tested in harsh climatic conditions and terrain unique to India.
As demonstrated during the ongoing Accelerated Usage-cum-Reliability Trials (AUCRT) of the Arjun tank (crucial to clear it for bulk production), the German engine failed four times as it had never been extensively tested by the Army in desert conditions in the past.
Besides, the Army also found “unacceptable” the chipping of the gun barrel during firing trials. The old problem in the hydro pneumatic suspension system also resurfaced.
The next litmus test for the Arjun comes on May 5 when DRDO will make a presentation at Army HQ to explain the defects and the steps taken to rectify the engine faults. Ironically, the DRDO, which was supposed to clarify on the trials this month itself, delayed the presentation by close to two weeks, saying it needs more time to prepare a report. After the DRDO presentation, the Army will take a call to either repeat the third round of AUCRT trials or proceed to the fourth “summer round” of the trials.
EXPERTSPEAK
• General VP Malik, former Army Chief “I can see a lot of unhappiness with the quality of the tank. It is primarily because of very long delay. Even at the end of it all, the tank has not come up to the operational satisfaction of the Army. I am all for self-reliance but we have to make the Arjun more indigenous than it is today.
Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat, former DG, Mechanised Forces No point bickering over past. It is gone. Tanks have a certain shelf life, and now we need a new design looking into the future. Ultimately, it is the men who have to use the tank. If they have confidence, they will love the equipment.
• Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies I don’t really see a major future of the Arjun as the MBT of India. Over all, the Arjun tank has not met certain major parameters. However, the Army had expected that the two regiments to be inducted would meet requirements so that extensive trials could be carried out.
• AV Singh, former defence secretary Regardless of the shortcomings, we must encourage it as an indigenous effort. As far as opening development to the Indian private sector is concerned, it will add to the competition, improve quality and will shorten the development time.
There is a time in the life of many a business establishment — and a marriage — when the realisation dawns that things are not working. The only options are to close shop or get a divorce. Government behemoths are a tad different, but even then, we think the time has come for terminating the already estranged relationship between the country’s armed forces and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Since the armed forces cannot, and should not, do without a defence research organisation, the option of shutting shop is not there. But divorce and remarriage is a distinctly desired option. The way to go is to dismantle the organisation as it exists now, spin off its laboratories to defence public sector units, and reconstitute its core. What should result is a lean and mean defence science set-up that will provide conceptual inputs and funds to private and public labs to service the needs of the armed forces and the country.
This may seem to be a harsh solution. But in my view, it is an absolutely necessary one. Two years short of its 50th anniversary, the DRDO’s record is not just shabby, it is a disgrace. The annual budget of the 25,000-strong outfit has risen from Rs 500 crore in 1988-9 to nearly Rs 5,000 crore today. Yet there is not a single major or minor product, barring an excellent sonar system and the INSAS rifle, that has found usage in the armed forces. In sum, the Indian armed forces have been forced to do with less, and suffered more, because of the inadequacies of the DRDO.
The jawans in Kashmir were compelled to design their own steel plated patka, or headgear, in place of the helmet, which is awkward in insurgency firefights. The paramilitary devised their own light armoured vehicles, and the DRDO’s heavy steel bulletproof vest was no less cumbersome than medieval armour. For 20 years, the armed forces have been tackling improvised explosive devices and mines. But the DRDO has only recently, after 9/11, discovered robotic systems to do the job.
A great deal of the responsibility for this rests with A.P.J. Abdul Kalam who was the head of the missile development programme from 1982 to 1992, and then the chief of the DRDO till 1999. During this period, the DRDO made it a practice to claim that it could provide services in, and make any product related to, aeronautics, armaments, electronics, combat vehicles, engineering systems, instrumentation, missiles, advanced computing and simulation, special materials, naval systems, life sciences, training and information systems. So while DRDO budgets grew exponentially, the armed forces were forced to do without products because they were either interminably delayed, or never performed anywhere near the claims made by the DRDO. The result has been that the country’s defence system has suffered from several dangerous gaps during the last decade and a half.
The Agni missile that you see on parade on Republic Day is nothing but a mock-up model; but you won’t see that written on the placard. The DRDO claims the Agni as its great success. Yet the reality is that the tardy programme — whose only useful launchers are made by the Isro — is not yet a fully operational system. At least not good enough for the missile to have been tested on a land target — a vital requirement for a mature product.
The Arjun tank that is being displayed for the past 15 years is not a dummy. But it has come into limited service in the army riding on the back of a political fiat. For the second time in its history, the army has a tank it cannot allow, in good conscience, to be sent into battle in a real war. Its antiquated rifled barrel main gun cannot fire missiles, and is not optimal for fin-stabilised anti-tank munitions. Worse, the Arjun’s sophisticated (German origin) pneumatic suspension system is fed nitrogen gas through pipes that are, to put it delicately, not protected by its armour, and hence even small-arms fire can bring the 58-tonne monster to a grinding halt.
On Kalam’s insistence, the government would have shoved this down the army’s throat as the Main Battle Tank (MBT). But in the early Nineties, Pakistan acquired some 300 T80UD tanks and the army put its foot down. Like the T-90S — which is now our MBT — the Pakistani tank has a very effective tandem-warhead missile that can be fired through the gun tube and can knock out an adversary tank well before it can bring its tank gun to bear.
The third case where DRDO delays cost the country dearly was in the case of the artillery location radar. After having promised to make a system based on the British Cymbelline, the DRDO failed. By the time they acknowledged it in 1998, the US, which was offering its AN TPQ/37 system, had put an embargo on India. The result was that the army had no means of locating Pakistani artillery units during the Kargil war of 1999.
The fourth case is the one under current discussion — the Trishul missile. In the late Eighties, Kalam had promised that the air defence of a new class of Brahmaputra-class ships of the Indian Navy could be provided by the Trishul, which he said would be able to down aircraft, as well as in-coming anti-ship missiles. The naïve navy, which had had a major success in a DRDO-designed sonar, accepted this. But when the frigates started coming up, there were no signs of the Trishul. For two years, anti-aircraft protection was given to these expensive ships through hand-held missiles that infantry-men or guerrillas use. Things would not have changed but for the Kargil war when the navy was compelled to point out the needless risk it was taking of sending a fleet to battle-stations without adequate protection against Pakistan’s very potent French- and American-supplied anti-ship missiles.
Even today, the country’s air defence system is severely hampered by the DRDO’s failure to produce the Trishul and Akash surface-to-air missiles. All vital areas across the country, as well as combat formations and the naval fleet, are protected by a multi-layered air defence system. The first layer is fighter aircraft of the IAF, which seek to either destroy enemy air bases or shoot down their aircraft when they enter our air-space. If these aircraft get through, they hit the second layer, which has Surface-to-Air Missiles (Sams) with ranges from 2-30 km. Since the Seventies, Soviet-origin missiles — with specific variants for the army, navy and air force — did this job. The Trishul and Akash were designed to replace these systems beginning from the mid-Nineties. It is now 2006 and the missiles are not there, which means 50 of our cities and industrial zones are more vulnerable than they should be to air attack, as are our armed forces.
In 1996, the government had grandly announced that Kalam would chair a “Self Reliance Implementation Council” that would take the level of indigenous equipment in the armed forces from 30 per cent to 70 per cent by 2007. By that time, just months away, the target is far from being achieved, even though Kalam will have finished a term in office as President of the Republic.
The time has come to make painful choices. The continuance of the DRDO in its present form will not only not reduce India’s painful dependence on foreign weapons systems, but will also leave critical gaps in the country’s ability to defend itself. The culture of bureaucracy is so deep in the DRDO that mere restructuring or overhaul will not yield any result. The time has come for surgery, and a drastic one at that.
The CPIO
Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV)
R.No.202, North Block, D/o. Personnel & Training, North Block
New Delhi
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021 granted extension/re-employment as per rule laid down wide OM DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977 for Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules
Please Provide me the copy of proposal of extension in respect of Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL with copy of certificate of Integrity along with the DoPT prescribed Annexure-I (Enclosed)
In the recommendation for extension of his service beyond 60 years whether any confirmation/ information regarding pendency of any criminal/ civil case against Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC (R& D), Director HEMRL is mentioned or Not.
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after
No. 26012/6/2002-Estt. (A)Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training )
New Delhi, dated 9th December, 2002
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Grant of extension/re-employment to Central Government servants beyond the age of superannuation – issue of instructions regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that the criteria for grant of extension/re employment to Central Government employees beyond the age of superannuation are laid down in the DoPT O.M.No. 26011/1/77-Estt.(B) dated the 18th May, 1977. After May, 1998 and when the age of retirement of the Central Government employees increased from 58 to 60 years, some of the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 18th May, 1977 referred to above have lost their relevance. Accordingly, it has been decided to revise the instructions relating to extension/re-employment to Central Government employees.
2. In the absence of specific orders to the contrary by the competent authority, a Government servant must retire on the due date. The date of superannuation of a Government servant is known in advance and ordinarily there should not be a question of failure to make arrangements for his release sufficiently in advance. It is the responsibility of the administrative authority concerned to ensure that the Government servants under their control retire on the due date.
3. Extension: F.R. 56(d) states that no Government servant shall be granted extension of service beyond the age of 60 years. However, provisions exist in the rules to grant extension of service to certain category of Government servants only. Therefore, it must be ensured that no Ministry/Department should propose to grant extension in service unless the case is covered by the Rules.
4. The proposal for grant of extension in service to the categories of personnel referred to in the first, second and third proviso to F.R. 56(d) -2- shall be referred to the Estt. Division of Department of Personnel and Training two months prior to the date on which the individual concerned is due for superannuation. The procedure for grant of extension to the Scientists is laid down in DoPT d.o. letter No. 28/19/2000-EO(SM-II) dated the 10th July, 2000.
5. Procedure for consideration of cases for extension of specialists in the medical and scientific fields:- It should be appreciated that even in the case of extension to specialist in the medical or scientific fields, it is not only the next man who misses promotion but often several people miss consequential promotions all along the hierarchy. Thus, too many cases of extension in service or reemployment are likely to cause frustration and affect the morale of the upcoming scientists who have exposure to latest technological developments in connecting fields. Keeping in view these circumstances, the following criteria and procedure has been evolved with a view to ensure that extensions in service to the superannuating scientists are resorted to only in really exceptional circumstances. The overriding consideration for the grant of extension is that it must be in the public interest and in addition satisfy one of the following two conditions:-
i) that the retiring specialist is not just one of the outstanding officers but is really head and shoulders above the rest; or
ii) that other specialists are not ripe enough to take over the job.
Test (ii) would be satisfied only if there is shortage in particular specialization, or if it is not possible to find a suitable successor or if the specialist is engaged on a work or project of vital importance, which is likely to produce results in a year or two. If specialists in the next lower post are not eligible for promotion on the ground that they have not put in the minimum service in the lower grade prescribed under the rules, no promotions can be made to the higher grade, unless such specialists put in the requisite length of service. But specialists who are eligible for promotion to the post against which extension is recommended, should not be rejected solely on the ground that they do not have as much experience as the retiring specialist. They should be considered for promotion according to the -3- recruitment rules and if they are found suitable they should be promoted to the posts being vacated by the retiring specialists.
6. Whenever any specialist is considered for grant of extension, his character roll and personal file should be carefully scrutinized and all other relevant information that may be available should be taken into account to judge whether the specialist had good reputation for integrity and honesty. In cases where the specialist is not considered to have good reputation for integrity and honesty, he should not be considered for grant of extension in service. The appropriate authority in the Administrative Ministry should furnish a certificate of Integrity along with the Annexure-I as follows where it proposes to grant extension of service.
“Having scrutinized in character roll and personal file of
Shri/Smt./Kum._____________________ and having taken into account all other relevant available information, I certify that he/she has a good reputation for integrity and honesty.”
7. While making proposals for extension of service in higher posts, it is all the more necessary to apply higher standards of efficiency to persons whose appointments to the higher posts are recommended for approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. The number of top posts is bound to be very limited and a few persons should not have them for too long. No Government servant who is on extension of service after the prescribed date of retirement should be promoted to another post during the period of extension of service.
8. No extension of service should be considered on the ground that a suitable successor is not available unless it is established that action to select a successor had been taken well in advance but the selection could not be finalized in time for justifiable reasons. A proposal for the grant of extension of service based merely on the consideration that the specialist’s predecessor had been given extension should obviously not be accepted. -4-
9. Re-employment: No proposal for employing a government servant beyond the age of superannuation of 60 years shall be considered. It is also clarified that no person can be appointed/ reappointed to Central Government service after the age of superannuation of 60 years through contract.
10. Re-employment of military pensioners who have not reached the age of superannuation for Central Government employees will not be governed by these instructions.
11. Appointment of Consultant:-
Detailed instructions have been issued for appointment of consultant vide DoP&T’s Office Memorandum No. 16012/7/97-Estt.(Allowance) dated 13th February, 1998. Hindi version will follow.
Sd/-
Mrs. Pratibha Mohan
Director (E-II)
To
All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
(As per standard list)
Annexure-I
Performa for sending proposals for approval of Department of Personnel & Training for grant of extension to Government servants beyond the age of superannuation.
1. Designation of the post
2. Duration of the post :
3. Scale and terms of the post and perquisite attached, if any:
4. Whether financial sanction for the creation of the post/continuance of post for the duration shown at (2) has been obtained:
5. Method of recruitment:
6. Name and the terminal date of appointment of the outgoing incumbent of the post:
7. Name of the specialist proposed for appointment and the service to which he belongs:
8. Full service particulars of the Officer with date of birth and pay drawn:
9. Names of other Officers considered:
10.If promotion post, whether copies of proceedings of a D.P.C. are being enclosed? If not, why not?
11. Whether character roll of the specialist proposed and those considered are being sent. If not, why not?
12. Please indicate:
(i) (a) Whether the post is scientific or medical specialist.
(b) Periods of extension granted earlier to the officer, if any
(c) Date from which extension is to be granted.
(d) Period of extension of service.
(ii) Justification for grant of extension:
(a) The date from which it was known that vacancy would occur.
(b) Action taken to select a successor with chronological details.
(c) If selection is being made, reasons why this could not be finalized in good time.
(d) Can some officiating or ad-hoc arrangements be made, pending fresh appointment by proper selection? If not, why not?
(iii) Whether orders of the Minister-in charge have been obtained?
13. Whether the prescribed Integrity Certificate, from the appropriate authority, is enclosed.
DOPT covering letterintegrity ceritificate - see the date?Dr Arun Kupar's play 1Dr Arun Kumar's play 2Dr Arun Kumar's play 3Dr Arun Kumar's paly 4
Adv. B. R. Barge Dr. R. G. Taware President Secretary Cell No. 9881750682 Cell No. 9423015022
Office: 16, Mata Chambers, Anandnagar, Old Sangvi, Pune: 411027. Phone: 020-27282647.
No. CG/Defence/03 Date: 13th May2011
To,
Mr. A K Antony,
Defence Minister,
Government of India,
104, South Block,
New Delhi – 110 105.
Sub. : Lawlessness and irregularities in the Administration of DRDO
Respected sir,
It is our observation that the esteemed organization of DRDO is being infested with the incapable, inefficient and corrupt officers. Nationalistic spirit is being lost fast and selfish and ego-centric attitude is being cropped up among the ranking officers of DRDO. Many of them are the patients of Acquired Immunity of Inefficiency Syndrome!
Mr. Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal from Dehradun is incessantly bringing out the anomalies and corruption in DRDO through his Website ‘Corruption in DRDO’. He is cleansing the DRDO. He has created awareness among the citizens of India about what is going on in DRDO.
For the efficient administration of DRDO, the administration part of it should be handed over to the IAS Officers. Presently the administration of DRDO is done by the Scientists. Actually, the Scientist should work as Scientist only. They are trained in Research work but not in administration. They lack basic legal knowledge. Even they don’t know the Constitution, CCS (CCA) Rules or CCS (Conduct) Rules. That is why there is inefficiency as well as lawlessness in DRDO.
It has been observed that presently more than 80% of the Scientists of DRDO come from Engineering background / faculty. They are proficient at technology but not at Research work. Technology itself is not a science; it is the application of science. On the contrary, many Science graduates / post-graduates / Doctorates are forced to work as Technical Officers. Thus the Human Resources are not properly utilized in DRDO. The Research workers with Science background should be appointed in as Research Officers / Scientists and not in Technical cadre.
It has also been observed that the Emeritus / Distinguished Scientists are doing the Administrative job without any knowledge of Administration. They are given extensions in service while they are doing administrative job. Actually, extension in service is to be given to the Scientists to complete the Research work in hand. But it is seen that the Directors, CCR&Ds are unnecessarily given extensions. Some of them are working up to the age of 65 years! The IAS Officers are retired at 60 but these administrators, under the guise of Scientists are enjoying extensions even for 5 to 6 years after retirement age. These anomalies need to be stopped immediately in the national interest.
If the DRDO is not cleansed in time, the defence scenario will be different. We do not afford to neglect the danger which is posing a threat to the security of our nation. The corrupt officials are the enemies of the nation. They will not hesitate even to sell out the Country if they get a chance. This scoundrel sect must be dealt with severely.
As a Defence Minister, it is your paramount duty to pay heed to the cleansing process of DRDO taken up by Mr. Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal. Our NGO is firmly backing him for his noble work.
The reins of Defence Ministry of India are in your able hands and the whole nation believes in your leadership.
Thanking you,
President / Secretary
Ramshastri Justice Foundation, Pune
Copy to:-
Dr. V K Saraswat,
SA to RM, DGR&D,
DRDO, New Delhi.
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
