Tag Archives: India

Drdo

LIVE INDIA EXCLUSIVE

1 Comment

Live India News Desk | Written on 5 Apr, 2014 at 20:51 in India |Ghadar-Aaj-Raat

Live India exposed how national security is compromised by the goverment. Itis related to Balco i,e Bharat aluminium company limited located in Korba,Chattisgarh.
The story talks about a chinese company named SEPCO being awarded a contract for setting up of a power unit inside BALCO, a Navratna company. At BALCO,DRDO’s research and development centre is in operation.They are making aluminium alloys like AA2014 ,AA2219 etc for different kind of missiles.
They are also producing various kinds of aerospace material for ISRO and Vikram Sarabhai space centre.Apart from this missile casing,designing and assembling is also being done here.
Vedanta,a UK based company,being the majority stake holder(51 percent) took the arbitrary decision of giving the contract to a chinese company SEPCO for setting a power unit inside BALCO thus compromising the national security interest.Interestingly SEPCO went a step further by subletting construction work to a company called Gannon Dunkerley.
This company claims to be an Indian company but it has its business interest mostly in Dubai,Abudhabi,Gulf and middle-east. This was done despite govt of India’s instructions that contract should be given to an indian company.The Govt of India remained a silent spectator to Vedanta’s decision.No action was taken.
Prior to entry of the chinese a shocking incident took place at BALCO. Missile proof and design were stolen from BALCO.Adding to that Vedanta,the 51percent stake holder in Balco sold missile assembly line under the pretext of it being oldwith taking due permission or clearance from defence ministry and other security agencies.
A congress MP Dadai dubey wrote a letter to then prime minister and home minister about it.But no action was taken.Now the govt has approved complete disinvestment of BALCO in favour of Vedanta.Finance minister P.chidambaram was non executive director of Vedanta from Nov 2003 till 22nd may,2004 a day before formation of UPA1.
He was given finance portfolio in the UPA govt.Allegation is that he facilitated complete disinvestment of BALCO, a Navratna company in favour of Vedanta.

Drdo

High Court bars coaching institute from using Brahmos name in test

Leave a comment

STAFF REPORTER – The Hindu – 3rd March 2014

Holding that Brahmos is a well known and reputed trademark for supersonic missile in the aerospace industry, the Delhi High Court has restrained coaching institute FIIT JEE from using it for its online aptitude test. It said it gives an impression to the engineering students that the institute’s test is affiliated with Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd under the Ministry of Defence.

Brahmos Aerospace, in which the Government of India is a majority shareholder, had moved the High Court after it started receiving queries from engineering students if they would be given any preference for employment in the company by taking the Brahmos aptitude test conducted by the FIIT JEE.

Passing the interim order, Justice Manmohan Singh said: “There is no valid justification given by the defendants (FIIT JEE) before this Court how this trademark Brahmos hit upon them except false and frivolous submissions. It is adopted and used by the defendants deliberately in order to take the advantage of the mark Brahmos of the plaintiff (Brahmos Aerospace).”

Brahmos Aerospace is a joint venture between India’s Defence Research & Development Organisation and Russia’s Military Industrial Consortium NPO Mashinostroyenia.

The FIIT JEEhad been advertising a course and an aptitude test for engineering students by the name of Brahmos in conjugation with the phrase ‘will give you top 03 career options as per your inherent aptitude’.

 

Drdo

डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने उठाए रक्षा बजट पर सवाल

Leave a comment
  • महानिदेशक ने रक्षा बजट में रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट से अधिक आयात को तवज्जो देने पर जताई चिंता
  • हथियारों के सेंसर देश में ही बनाने की योजना

देहरादून: तमाम रक्षा उपकरणों में सेंसर प्रणाली उसकी सटीकता को कई गुना बढ़ा देती है। अब तक सेंसर के लिए भारत फ्रांस व इजराइल समेत विभिन्न देशों पर निर्भर है। इस निर्भरता को खत्म करने के लिए रक्षा मंत्रलय ने देश में ही सेंसर तैयार करने का निर्णय लिया है। पत्रकारों से रूबरू डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक अविनाश चंदर ने बताया कि रक्षा उपकरणों में अपने ही देश में निर्मित सेंसर लगाने के लिए करीब 700 करोड़ रुपये की योजना पर काम चल रहा है।

जागरण संवाददाता, देहरादून: डिफेंस रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट ऑर्गेनाइजेशन (डीआरडीओ) के महानिदेशक व रक्षा मंत्री के वैज्ञानिक सलाहकार अविनाश चन्दर ने रक्षा बजट के विभाजन पर गंभीर सवाल खड़े किए हैं। उन्होंने कहा कि रक्षा बजट में रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट के मामले में भारत फिसड्डी है। कुल रक्षा बजट का महज 5.5 फीसद हिस्सा ही आर-एंड-डी पर खर्च किया जा रहा है, जबकि 25 फीसद से अधिक बजट का प्रावधान विदेशों से रक्षा खरीद के लिए किया जा रहा है। इसका प्रतिकूल असर देश के रक्षा अनुसंधान पर पड़ रहा है। उन्होंने इंडियन सोसाइटी ऑफ इंडिया के स्वर्ण जयंती समारोह के उपलक्ष्य में आयोजित अंतरराष्ट्रीय सम्मेलन में कही। बुधवार को राजधानी देहरादून स्थित यंत्र अनुसंधान एवं विकास संस्थान (आइआरडीई) में ऑप्टिक्स एंड इलेक्ट्रोऑप्टिक्स विषय पर आयोजित अंतरराष्ट्रीय सम्मेलन का शुभारंभ करते हुए डीआरडीओ प्रमुख ने स्वीकार किया कि अमेरिका, इजराइल, रूस, फ्रांस व चीन के मुकाबले रक्षा अनुसंधान में भारत को अभी लंबा सफर तय करना है। यह तभी हो पाएगा जब रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट की तरफ विशेष ध्यान दिया जाएगा। चिंता की बात यह है कि इस मोर्चे पर देश बेहद पीछे चल रहा है। अपने देश में रक्षा बजट का महज 5.5 फीसद भाग आर-एंड-डी पर खर्च किया जाता है, जबकि चीन में यह दर 20 फीसद है। इसी अनदेखी के कारण रक्षा हथियारों की खरीद के लिए भारत को दूसरे देशों पर निर्भर होना पड़ता है। यदि हथियारों की खरीद के लिए रक्षा बजट के 25 फीसद हिस्से का बड़ा हिस्सा रिसर्च एंड डेवलपमेंट पर लगाया जाए तो विदेशी सहायता की जरूरत नहीं पड़ेगी। सम्मेलन में डीआरडीओ के महानिदेशक (ईसीएस) एसएस सुंदरम, व ऑप्टिकल सोसाइटी के अध्यक्ष बीपी पाल ने माइक्रो ऑप्टिक्स, नैनो ऑप्टिक्स आदि पर विस्तृत व्याख्यान दिया। साथ ही कई रिसर्च पेपर भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। इस मौके पर सोसाइटी की स्मारिका का विमोचन व ऑप्टिक्स व इलेक्ट्रॉऑप्टिक्स प्रदर्शनी, ऑप्टिकल व फैब्रिकेशन भवन का शुभारंभ भी किया गया। कार्यक्रम में आइआरडीई के निदेशक डॉ. एके गुप्ता, डॉ. एसएस नेगी, एलएन हाजरा, अनुराग शर्मा, अमिताभ घोष, अभय कुमार उपस्थित थे।

DRDO chief also raised questions on the defense budget Instruments Research and Development Establishment, IRDE, Dehradun organized the International Conference on Optics and Electro-optics Inaugurating DRDO chief admitted that the U.S., Israel, Russia, France and China's defense research still a long way to India have to.
DRDO chief also raised questions on the defense budget
Instruments Research and Development Establishment, (IRDE), Dehradun organized the International Conference on Optics and Electro-optics Inaugurating DRDO chief admitted that the U.S., Israel, Russia, France and China’s defense research still a long way to India have to.

 

Bloger

Management Development Institute suspends professor for plagiarism (Scientific Fraud:Stealing)

2 Comments

Akshaya Mukul, TNN Aug 22, 2013, 01.39AM IST

Prof CNR Rao (India’s science adviser C. N. R. Rao has apologized for not noticing some copied text in a paper published last year.)
Dr R A Mashelkar (CSIR), suspended
Prof. Amit Kapoor (IIT Delhi) Suspended and many more, found guilty as Plagiarism.

NEW DELHI: The HRD ministry’s allegation that Management Development Institute (MDI) associate professor Amit Kapoor had plagiarized from a secret Expenditure Finance Committee note and later claimed copyright over it has resulted in widespread action.
Kapoor has been put under suspension by MDI and Harvard University has promised to carry out an investigation and take appropriate action. Harvard comes into the picture as Kapoor was till recently the honorary chairperson of the Institute of Competitiveness, India, which has been recognized by the Institute of Strategy and Competitiveness at Harvard Business School.

In fact, Kapoor was also given the Competitiveness Hall of Fame award by Harvard University. HRD ministry brought Kapoor’s plagiarism to the notice of Michael Porter, professor of Harvard Business School and an authority on competitiveness, requesting him that the Indian affiliate should be disassociated as well as the Competitiveness Hall of Fame award and any other recognition to Kapoor be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, sources in MDI said Kapoor has explained that most of the so-called secret documents were shared with him by the Planning Commission as it wanted him to prepare an index of competitiveness.
Pawan Agarwal, advisor, Planning Commission, told TOI, “The moment HRD ministry brought plagiarism to our notice, we checked the facts. We have sought his explanation.”
Agarwal admitted there was a case of copyright violation. However, sources in the Planning Commission said, “Kapoor’s presentation on the Rashtriya Uchatar Shiksha Abhiyan plagiarized slides from the HRD ministry’s EFC document but was not meant for public consumption. Planning Commission had shared the EFC note for his views.”
In July, HRD ministry officials were invited to Pennsylvania State University (PSU) to address Academic Leadership Academy (ALA) on Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) and other initiatives of the Indian government. Kapoor was also slated to speak as an invited faculty.
When Kapoor’s presentation was shared with HRD officials, it was found that at least four slides of his presentation were direct lifts from the HRD ministry’s EFC note on RUSA. Plagiarism from HRD documents is all over Kapoor’s presentation, be it summary of the RUSA programme, outcome/outputs for RUSA and even the equalization formula is a direct lift with some changes in the weightage.

Plagiarism by the Mashelkar committee?
Posted by Abi
Filed under: Ethics, Law, Misconduct / Fraud
* * *
Update: From the comment on this DesiPundit post, we have this link to the Alternative Law Forum’s web page devoted to the controversy surrounding the Mashelkar committee report. In particular, you will find the ‘original’ Shamnad Basheer report. To make life easier for you, there is a short table which compares the key conclusions of the Mashelkar committee report and those of the original. Quite revealing.
* * *
Chan Park and Achal Prabhala have two op-eds today: the Hindu and the Times of India. In both, they have levelled charges of plagiarism on the committee headed by Dr. R. A. Mashelkar (ex-CEO of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) that looked into some technical questions about our patent laws as they relate to pharmaceutical companies. Guru has a nice summary.
Park and Prabhala don’t stop with charges of plagiarism; they also attack the substance of the Mashelkar committee’s conclusions. While the issues are technical (about whether TRIPS, the intellectual property-related agreement that India is a signatory to, allows its member countries some flexibility in deciding what is patentable), they are also political: your position on these issues would depend on your view of pharmaceutical companies, how much of innovation is actually attributable to them, and how fair they are in dealing with poor people. There is a lot of room in the political spectrum for people to choose a spot to sit on.
My own views are informed by the article titled The Truth about Drug Companies by Marcia Angell, ex-Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. In it, Angell also builds a compelling case that a big part of the real innovation actually happens in universities (and small start-ups spawned by them) with public funding. She also mounts a scathing attack on the Big Pharma companies, which appear to spend a lot more money on how to rig the system in their favour than on innovation through drug discovery.
And here’s something from today’s NYTimes on the nexus between pharma companies and doctors:
The pharmaceutical industry spends $12 billion a year marketing to doctors, and much of that money is in the form of free samples delivered to doctors’ offices, often accompanied by lunch for the entire staff. When the University of Michigan health systems banned such lunches in 2005, they calculated that the lunches had been worth $2.5 million a year.
The free drugs are samples of the newest and most expensive branded products. The drug industry hopes that by starting patients with free samples, they will remain on the more expensive medication rather than using a cheaper generic. And there is evidence that doctors who have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry prescribe more of the expensive drugs.

Drdo

RTI – Regarding Appointment of SA to RM, DG, DRDO, Secretary, Defence R&D

8 Comments
To                                                                                   30th  January 2014
Sh. Subandhu Basu, CPIO,
US (SM-I),
Room no. 23,North Block,
New Delhi

Hello,

Shri Avinash Chander, DS & CCR&D (M&SS) was appointed as Secretary Department of Defence Research & Development-cum Director General, Defence Research & Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri vide order No.12/9/2013-EO(SM.1) dated 31st May 2013 of DOPT. Dr. VK Saraswat was SA to RM, DGR&D, DRDO and Secretary (DR&D) from 01st September 2009 to 31st May 2013. Shri M. Natrajan was SA to RM, DGR&D, DRDO and Secretary (DR&D) from 31st August 2004 to 31st August 2009.

In reference to the above kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Provide copy of Minute Sheet & File Noting of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approval for appointment of Shri Avinash Chander as Secretary Department of Defence Research & Development-cum Director General, Defence Research & Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri with effect from 31st May 2013.
  2. Provide copy of Minute Sheet & File Noting of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approval for appointment of Dr. V.K. Saraswat as Secretary Department of Defence Research & Development-cum Director General, Defence Research & Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri with effect from 01st September 2009.
  3. Provide copy of Minute Sheet & File Noting of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approval for appointment of Shri M. Natrajan as Secretary Department of Defence Research & Development-cum Director General, Defence Research & Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri with effect from 31st August 2004.
  4. Criteria adopted for selection of SA to RM, DGR&D & Secretary (DR&D) in appointments of Shri M. Natrajan, Dr. VK Saraswat and Shri Avinash Chander. (Seniority or Personal achievements & Qualification or any other)
  5. Provide the copy of guidelines and rules for selection and appointment of the candidate as SA to RM, DGR&D & Secretary (DR&D) as per orders & procedures of Government of India
  6. The tenure and age for which DGR&D, DRDO, SA to RM and Secretary, DR&D could remain on this post.
  7. Reasons & Justification mentioned in appointment for giving three ranks/posts to a single person in DRDO by Government of India.
  8. Whether any person except SA to RM, DGR&D, DRDO and Secretary, DR&D) at top level/Secretary level under Govt of India has been assigned three ranks/posts simultaneously till so far. (Yes/No)
  9. If answer to point (8) is yes then provide the post/rank and name of the persons holding three posts simultaneously.

Regards

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

Registration Number            DOP&T/R/2014/60398 

Drdo

RTI- DMSRDE

1 Comment
 To                                                                                  17th January 2014
Central Public Information Officer
DRDO, Ministry of Defence
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
Delhi-110054        

Hello,

Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of DMSRDE, Kanpur.

  1. Government of India constituted ‘National Investigation Agency’, (NIA) under ‘NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008’.  Para 6. (2)Chapter-II of this act states that:
  • Subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, officers of the Agency shall have throughout India in relation to the investigation of Scheduled Offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein.

2.   Para 6. (4)Chapter-II of this act states that:

  • Where the Central Government is of the opinion that the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency, it shall direct the Agency to investigate the said offence.

3.    The Act clearly states that only Government of India can constitute any enquiry that is detrimental to the security of nation. In case of Ministry of Defence, only and only Defence Minister can refer such cases to ‘National Investigation Agency’, (NIA).

4.     Two separate interviews of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE at Kanpur, have been published in a local Newspapers, “DANIK JAGRAN, Kanpur” and ‘HINDUSTAN, Kanpur” on 16 January 2014.  The clips of news are enclosed as ‘Annexure-I’ and ‘Annexure-II’. Kindly provide the following information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.

INFORMATION SOUGHT

  1. Has Dr. A. K. Saxena taken mandatory permission for this press briefing from either Director General (NS &M) or Director of ‘Directorate of Interface’? (YES/NO)?
  2. Please provide the copy of  permission letter from competent authority for briefing the press by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, if any
  3. Please provide the copy of approval of competent authority of DRDO Hqrs for the statement of Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE given to the news papers.
  4. Has the Minister of Defence referred any such case against some of employees of DMSRDE to NIA? (YES/NO)
  5. If the answer of query 1 is YES, then please provide a copy of such communication.
  6. If the answer of query 1 is NO, then has Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE Director misrepresented the facts in his press briefing to the correspondents of ‘Danik Jagran, Kanpur’ and ‘Hindustan, Kanpur’? (YES/NO)
  7. If the answer to query 3 is YES, please provide the rules and the details thereof that have been broken by Dr. A. K. Saxena.
  8. If the answer of query 4 is YES, then provide a copy of such communication.
  9. If the answer of query 4 is NO, has Dr. A K Saxena breached the rules, regulation and guidelines issued by ‘Directorate of Interface’ (YES/NO)?
  10. Keeping in view, ‘PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988’’, ‘CENTRAL VIGILANCE ACT 2003’, recently passed ‘LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT 2013’ and pending PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION TO PERSONS MAKING THE DISCLOSURE BILL, 2010, Does any communication  on matter of CORRUPTION constitute passing of SECRET/CONFIDENTIAL information (YES/NO)?
  11. If the answer to query 8 is YES, has Dr. A K Saxena made a fictitious and false statement (YES/NO)?
  12. As claimed in the interviews by Dr. A K Saxena, has secret information has been leaked out by some scientists / employees of DMSRDE other than malpractices, subversion of purchase rules in the procurement of stores (YES/NO)?
  13. As claimed in the interviews by Dr. A K Saxena, has he communicated the list of scientists / employees of DMSRDE to Headquarters (YES/NO)?
  14. If the answer to query 11 is YES, please provide the names of these officers and employees.
  15. If the answer to query 8 is YES, please provide the details of secret information
  16. All the ACTS mentioned in Para-7, authorize the Head of an Organization, i.e., Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri to take suo-moto cognizance of CORRUPTION ISSUES. Has Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri taken suo-moto cognizance of corruption, subversion of DRDO PURCHASE MANUAL 2006 rules and regulation and the malpractices perpetuated  by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director DMSRDE  (YES/NO)?
  17. If the answer of query 10 is YES, has an enquiry committee been formed to look into massive corruption perpetuated by Dr. A K Saxena in DMSRDE (YES/NO)?
  18. If the answer of query 11 is YES, then please provide the details of such enquiry committee, including chairman and all the members been
  19. If the answer to query 10 is NO, also that DRDO does not take suo-moto cognizance of CORRUPTION till the corrupt officer is caught red handed and arrested by CBI, than please provide the details of the existing mechanism for eradication of CORRUPTION MENACE in DRDO
  20. The information sought is pertaining to Establishment matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.
  21. This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
  22. Besides purchase and establishment matter the information sought is pertaining to allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005.

Registration Number –  MODEF/R/2014/60109

Uncategorized

Desi defence showpieces powered by videshi parts

Leave a comment

Rajat Pandit, TNN Jan 13, 2014, 01.39AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Tejas light combat aircraft, 30 years in the making, is just 60% indigenous as of now. The story of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank is even worse. First sanctioned in May 1974, 55% of the tank is still made of imported parts. This is the recurring theme across India’s fledgling defence industrial base (DIB), with the government failing to whip DRDO and its sprawling empire of over 50 laboratories as well as the five defence PSUs, four shipyards and 50 ordnance factories into shape.
The defence ministry, with its constant flip-flops, has also failed to spur the domestic private sector into entering the defence production sector in a big way. Neither has it managed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), notching up a measly $5 million in the last 14 years.toi1

AK Antony may often tom-tom “indigenisation” as one of his guiding mantras, which he feels can curb corruption, but the ground reality has hardly changed in the over seven years he has been at the helm in MoD. India continues to wallow as the world’s largest arms importer, with the armed forces still getting around 65% of their military hardware and software from abroad.
In sharp contrast, China has emerged as the fastest growing arms exporter around the globe after assiduously building a strong DIB. It’s now hawking fighter jets, warships, missiles and smaller arms to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia and Zambia.

But a “proper ecosystem” has simply not been erected in India. As if the “high import content” in the so-called indigenous projects was not enough, insiders say even the much-touted transfer of technology (ToT) provision build into large defence contracts with foreign manufacturers is a bit of a sham.

“Indian PSUs focus more on just assembling knocked-down kits from foreign vendors instead of properly absorbing technologies,” said a senior official, pointing to the ongoing “licensed production” of the Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI fighters by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL).

India has inducted almost 200 of the 272 Sukhois contracted for well over $12 billion from Russia, with HAL producing most of the fighters. “As per plans, HAL should have begun making Sukhois completely from raw material two-three years ago. But there has been a big delay,” he said.

“Moreover, the cost of each HAL-manufactured Sukhoi is almost Rs 100 crore more than if the same fighter was directly imported from Russia (the last 42 Sukhois ordered cost over Rs 450 crore each),” he added.

DRDO does have a point that funds allocated for defence R&D are not adequate. “We just get slightly over 5% of the total defence budget. The US defence R&D budget is around 12%, while China has 20%,” said a scientist.

But not many are impressed, pointing to huge time and cost overruns in almost all DRDO projects. While the indigenous development of Tejas, Arjun and other weapon systems is certainly to be cheered, the high import content in them remains another source of worry.

Take Tejas, which finally achieved its initial operational clearance last month. It has an American engine, British ejection seat, Canadian canopy sheath and Israeli radar. “A major chunk of its avionics and weapons are also imported. The series production of the Tejas Mark-II version, which is what IAF actually wants, is unlikely to begin before 2022,” said an officer.
The Army, in turn, has inducted 124 Arjun Mark-I tanks, while trials are currently in progress for the Mark-II version with 89 “upgrades or improvements”. The tank is just about 45% indigenous as of now, with its main laser guided missile being the Israeli LAHAT. “Arjun’s missile firing control system, laser target designator, engine transmission, suspension unit and running gear (track) are all foreign,” said an Army officer.

India has fared relatively better on the naval front, with all the 45 warships currently on order being constructed in Indian shipyards. Officials say India has achieved 80-90% indigenisation in the “float” (warship’s structure, hull etc), 50-60% on the “move” (propulsion) and 30% on the “fight” (weapons and sensors) components.

Uncategorized

SATYAMEV JAYATE Jai Ho Jai Ho Jai Ho

3 Comments

 

To                                                                                        20th December 2013
Honorable Defence Minister
Room No – 104, South Block
New Delhi-110011

SATYAMEV JAYATE    Jai Ho      Jai  Ho        Jai Ho

Honorable defence Minister of India on 29th October 2013 ordered CBI inquiry against the corrupt top DRDO officials.

“Also ordered and recommended replacement of Recruitment & Assessment Centre ( RAC) by suitable agency like UPSC”

I congratulate all the honest and innocent workforce of DRDO, who did noticed the misadventures of DRDO Hqrs & Directors of lab and informed the Honorable Defence Minister/ Honorable President of India through registered complaints. These corrupt officials used to write their own constitutions such that they can misinterpret the government laid down rules and misappropriate the government funds for their own benefits, under the shadow of secrecy and OSA 1923, and they swallowed their ugly acts.

God gave me courage to fight against the corrupt officials of DRDO. I have begun this journey just after “KARGIL WAR”. DRDO did consumed thousand & thousand crores, did not delivered any significant product which can utilize in “KARGIL WAR” and then General Malik uttered “casualties in the conflict could have been reduced had the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) “not come in the way”

“It has taken fifteen years to convince the government of India about involvement of DRDO officials/ Directors in neck deep corruption.”

On 28th October 2013 Defence Secretary Sh R K Mathur put up note to Defence Minister with proof of involvement in recruitment of scientists unfairly with manipulation and hiding facts while investigation, trying to close three times the investigation with wrong feedbacks by following top DRDO officials.

Four Recruitment  Cases of  Mrs T Chandrabanu, Scientist ‘F’, Mrs S Geetha, Scientist ‘C’, Ms Swati Srivastva,  Scientist ‘C’   Ms Dolly Bansal, Scientist ‘C’  

  1. Civilian Padma Awardee 2003, Former Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, DG-DRDO 2004-2008
  2. Civilian Padma Awardee 1998 & 2013, Former Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, DG-DRDO 2008-May 2013, Chairman of The Aeronautical Society of India Hyderabad Branch,  President, C.R.Rao Advanced Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science (AIMSCS)
  3. Former Distinguished Scientist & Chief Controller – R&D (LS & IC),DRDO , President – Amity Science, Technology and Innovation Foundation, DRDO Technology Leadership Awardee (2010), Scientists of the year Awardee 1989, President – Federation of Indian Physiological Societies Father of Ms S Geetha
  4. The then Distinguished  Scientist, CC R&D (NS M & HR)
  5.  Ex- Director of Personal, Scientist ’H’, Outstanding Scientist, Suspended just two hours before retirement from service. Scientists of the year Awardee 2007, Father of Ms Swati Srivastav
  6.  Ex-Director, DTRL, DRDO retired in May 2013, Best Techno Managerial Services/Popular Science Communication Award 2011
  7.  Ex- Additional Director, RAC, DRDO, Father of Ms Dolly Bansal
  8. Ex- Director of Personal, Scientist ‘G’ Scientist of the Year Award – 2003, Ex-Director, Dte of Life Sciences, DRDO HQrs (2002) DRDO, the recipient of Vijnana Rathna jointly awarded by National Centre for Science & Technology Communication, New Delhi and Science Centre, Gwalior in 1991
  9. Ex-Director, DIPAS, DRDO (appointed Director(DIPAS), Delhi, wef 26 April 2002) winner of HH Loescheke Research Prize in Techniques/ Instrumentation- 2002, Maj Gen SL Bhatia Oration Awardee 2006,HH Loescheke Research Prize in Techniques/ Instrumentation- 2002
  10. the then Director, RAC, DRDO 2004, Ex Director, PEACE , 10 May 2001-15 July 2003, was awardee the DRDO Technology Award-1995

 A very strong recommendation from Honorable Defence Minister highlights the incompetence of existing Recruitment & Assessment Centre ( RAC). Honorable Defence Minister recommended the replacement of RAc by suitable recruitment agency like UPSC from financial year 2014-15.

CBI inquiry is big blow for DRDO having lakhs crores  infrastructure, having more than 30000 strong scientific / technical work forces, having 52 labs across the country.

Some of the above top ex DRDO officials’ calls on to Honorable Defence Minister to convince their innocence during last to last week and expressed that CBI inquiry may stop further research work in DRDO. Honorable Defence Minister very well knew that in the last 30-40 years of their scientific carrier what are their ground contribution because DRDO measurably failed to deliver any significant product in our last “KARGIL WAR”. They forgot that before them or after them whatever DRDO achieved or achieving that is because of honest people work force not by their corrupt / nepotism /incompetent group.

DRDO directors demonstrated their incompetency several times but they manage major share in defence budget every year. They do not deserve single penny until unless they are able to develop an import substitute.

With fake degree’s the manpower were selected as charge-man/ technical assistant and become scientist’H’ outstanding scientist, distinguished scientists by purchasing degree from private institutions, deemed universities and also manipulating by DIAT itself, crores of crores rupees were distributed by DRDO every years in the name of scientific development but now by CGDA audit also revealed that this money is routing through private institutes and deemed universities. It also confirmed facts that if any one check DRDO’s M Tech/PhD’s/ honorable degrees then will found that the money connection and degrees allotments like reveri’s by private universities and deemed universities etc. And unfortunately this mechanism also starts following in government intuitions in the name of resource development.

The incompetence of DRDO directors have been observed and felt by services Hqrs. Since inception of DRDO till 1990, DRDO used to work very closely on General staff requirement and Generals were closely monitoring day to day developments of DRDO. But when DRDO started “working on major programs” without prior knowledge of basic science &technology gave assured commitment for product development which never saw the light of the day.

The time has come for sincere and honest efforts by scientific community for an end result/ product development.

Honorable Defence Minister is requested to thoroughly investigate the DRDO procurement policy which has made the scientist a mere suppliers. Every director of 52 Labs has fake companies or associations with suppliers. Investigation will reveal that incompetent suppliers who are in touch with DRDO director beside his knowledge base, if he is rice exporter/ simple computer peripheral sellers /simple traders, he can sell any high-tech missile parts/ high tech laser components / high end software’s or anything which required by DRDO scientists in national interest or strategic applications. Dilemma these high tech information is shared by these incompetent suppliers with their families in kitchen and dining table. This is only for money matter nothing else no national interest, no values, no moral. In last 10 years honorable defence minister and national security adviser also received n numbers of anonymous letter but having truth and IB also gave confirmation reports.

Sir, how can you imagine wonders from this mind set the lab directors of DRDO ?  Absolute power, Absolute corruption.

Government of India, Ministry of Defence should reconsider the appointment of Scientific Adviser to RM as it was done through search committee before 1984. A person with a moral values /strong scientific knowledge base known across the globe/ technical leadership/ technology contributions like  Dr. Daulat Singh Kothari,  Prof. Suri Bhagavantham, Dr. Basanti Dulal Nagchaudhur I, Dr. Raja Rammana, etc.

The selection of Scientific Adviser in house the incompetent manpower has damaged the scientific temperament. The current environment / work culture there are no special or outside observation encouragement for innovation, creativity, scientific achievements, etc, only incompetent/ yes man/ are encouraged. Today in DRDO no transparency in recruitments / promotions /procurements is observed, every lab facing nepotism/ yes man culture.

Sir, I want to congratulate you for taking such strong decision and giving signal to all corrupt official of DRDO, in spite of big lobbyist ex – DG, SA to RM who have good connection in PMO.

The decision is timely, well awaited Lokpal has passed honorably from both the houses and Lokpal recommends appropriate punishment for corrupt officials, “They will get their due”

Jai Hind

Drdo

RTI- Hindustan University – DRDO

1 Comment

To                                                                                                          Date 5th December 2013    The CPIO, DRDO HQ                                                                                                                      Room No. 314A                                                                                                                          DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg                                                                                                        New Delhi – 110105


Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India

1.Please provide total amount of funds granted to  Hindustan University, P.O.Box No.1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Padur, (Via) Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103, India since April 2008 to March 2013 for various purposes.

2.Name of scientists of DRDO who enroll for PhD since April 2008 to March 2013.

3. Name of scientists of DRDO who joined Hindustan University

4. Copy of NOC, Copy of No Objection” for the proposed post retirement commercial employment has   been obtained from the cadre controlling authority and from the office where the officer  retired. Copy of vigilance clearance from the competent authority of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy, Director (Research) at Hindustan University, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far.

Note: – above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule II. As you aware the recruitment case of Mrs T Chandra banu, Scientist ‘F’, DRDO Hqrs (wife of Dr. Ilavazhagan Govindasamy) has been recommended for CBI inquiry by honorable Sh A K Antony, Defence Minister on 29th October 2013.

Regards

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

 Registration Number – MODEF/R/2013/61035

Drdo

India-Israel joint venture to manufacture missiles fails to take off

Leave a comment

Jatinder Kaur Tur, TNN Nov 14, 2013, 12.01PM IST

HYDERABAD: The joint venture between India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Israeli Aerospace Industry to manufacture Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LR SAM) and Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MR-SAM) has turned out to be a non-starter.

The long range missiles were to have been delivered to the Indian Navy by 2012 while the medium range missiles should be in the Indian Air Force weaponry by 2017. However, both the delivery schedules are way behind schedule and show no signs of meeting them even in the near future.DRDO officials are blaming the lack of progress in the joint venture due to lack of transparency and non-transfer of technology by their Israeli counterparts. And the recent trials that were conducted by the Indian defence organization failed to meet the standards of both the IAF and the Indian Navy. The entire cost of Rs 12,500 crore of the joint venture is being funded by India and the inordinate delay and lack of progress in the project has turned into a big cause of worry in the defence ministry.

According to sources, the LR-SAMs project was commissioned in 2006 and the delivery of the missiles to the Indian Navy should have happened by 2012. Similarly, the MR-SAM venture was signed in 2009 and the missiles are to be delivered to the Indian Air Force by 2017. Both both the projects are way behind schedule and show no signs of making progress.

“Frankly speaking, right now, not much is going on in the joint venture due to various issues between the two sides. Expecting Israel to share its technology with India is unfair. But such things should have been clarified before the joint venture was entered into,” said an official.

DRDO is maintaining that it is because of the lack of transfer of technology that the trials conducted so far have ended up as failures. “Industries are merely getting the drawings as to how to produce certain systems and such things are leading to deviations from the laid down specifications because the knowledge to develop the systems is not being imparted,” said sources.

DRDO officials are also attributing the delay to a complicated and long procedure involving shuttling between India and Israel for various stages of development of a system etc. The Hyderabad-based Indian defence organization also reportedly found itself helpless on problems in propulsion system and other related issues while a significant number of parts or systems are yet to be tested following a delay in manufacturing.

However, when quizzed on the issue, DRDO Director General Avinash Chander told the TOI that nothing was amiss. “Everything is going on as per the plan and development trials are on. We shall be able to deliver the MR-SAMs as per schedule. Right now, the contribution from India in the joint venture project is about 20% and would ultimately reach 80% in the final stages.” Regarding the already delayed LR-SAM, DRDO officials declined to come on record.

MR-SAM, one of the major demands of the forces, is to have a range of 70 kms or so, and the IAF is banking on replacing its ageing Soviet-made Pechora SAM missiles with the MR-SAMs. But nobody is sure how long the wait is going to be, and whether the delivery will take place at all.