There is a particular kind of silence that settles over an institution when it stops being managed and starts merely being administered. That silence has now hung over DRDO for months. An organisation tasked with the country’s missile systems, its aeronautical programmes, its strategic technology base, has been running without a dedicated chief since the start of June — and the closest thing to an explanation the public has received is a bureaucratic holding pattern.

It is observing by all national mind peoples that how serios GOI looking DRDO fate.

This is not a minor administrative gap. It is a signal.

In Jan 2024, the MOD (Ministry of Defence), acting under the direction of the PMO, constituted the Raghavan Committee to overhaul DRDO. The mandate was serious: an organisation with a well-documented record of missed timelines needed structural reform, not another internal review.

What followed instead was a familiar bureaucratic reflex. Subcommittees were formed to study the committee’s findings. Those subcommittees spawned further subcommittees. Officer Scientist and Distinguished Scientist-level personnel — among the most senior technical talent in the country — were pulled into cycles of review, re-review, and internal consultation that consumed months and, by extension, crores of public money.

Where did it go? That is not a rhetorical question. It is one the Ministry of Defence and the PMO owe the country a direct answer to. If the recommendations were implemented, where is the documentation of that implementation? If they were shelved, on whose authority, and why was the public never told?

If public want to see the effort of senior DRDO scientists with respect of Raghavan Committee, it can be only possible to see the dustbin of DRDO, MOD and PMO.

Silence is not an acceptable substitute for accountability on a reform effort of this scale.

The facts here are not in dispute. Dr. Samir V. Kamat’s tenure as DRDO Chairman ended with his retirement on 31 May 2026 with two year unfruitful extension. In his place, the Defence Secretary was handed additional charge — a stopgap measure explicitly described as temporary, pending a “regular” appointment.

The Ministry interviewed five shortlisted candidates for the post on 3 July 2026. That was over six weeks ago. As of this writing, DRDO remains without a permanent chairman.

An organisation responsible for the country’s strategic technology base has now gone more than two and a half months without a dedicated head, through a selection process the government itself initiated and has still not concluded. If this is efficiency, the Ministry should explain what inefficiency would look like. If there is a legitimate reason for the delay, the public — and the scientists working under this uncertainty — deserve to hear it stated plainly, not left to infer it from silence.

Beyond the vacancy itself, a pattern has been alleged by scientists and observers within and around the organization — one that the Ministry has never publicly addressed:

• Why have promotions and appointments within DRDO’s leadership repeatedly drawn allegations of being steered toward a particular network, rather than decided strictly on domain expertise and merit?
• Why has a senior appointment reportedly moved a person with a missile-technology background into a post overseeing aeronautical systems — a shift that, on its face, invites the question of whether technical fit was the deciding factor?
• Currently the blessed lobby manipulating the promotions and appointments   without justifying like DG MSS no field of missile technology and who is man of missile become DG Aero what a joke but it is only possible in DRDO because 56% MSC chemistry is responsible to manipulating this, and his other qualification and experiences at the time of joining can verified from office of The AFHq, CO, A1B.
• What is the status of the police complaint reportedly pending with Uttarakhand Police over the printing of a national flag upside down on an official publication? A pending complaint is a matter of public record, not a private matter — the public is entitled to know its status.
• How many honest scientists have raised concerns internally, only to find their careers stalled rather than their concerns investigated? And how many court cases now exist as a result? Only way to see the great achievements, please go through the agencies reports silently.

None of this is cynicism for its own sake. It is a demand for the basic mechanics of accountable governance: that a reform committee’s findings be published and acted on, not buried; that a leadership vacancy at a strategic institution be filled with urgency, not left to drift; and that allegations of favoritism and credential fraud, once raised, be either formally investigated and closed, or shown to be baseless — not simply left to hang over the institution indefinitely.

DRDO does not need another committee. It needs an answer to the ones it has already commissioned. JAI HIND.