Tag Archives: Kargil

Drdo

The Missile that Cannot Fire – Long delays, cost escalation damage DRDO’s reputation

3 Comments

Amarnath K, Menon and  Gaurav C. Sawant – April 13, 2012 – India Today 

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was set up in 1958 with a vision to “provide our defence services a decisive edge by equipping them with internationally competitive systems and solutions”. The DRDO has clearly failed in its mission.

There is no bigger indictment of India‘s premier organisation for research and development in military hardware than the fact that 54 years after its establishment, India still imports 70 per cent of its equipment requirements. In 1997, India best known defence bureaucrat and the then scientific adviser to defence minister, APJ Abdul Kalam, had said that India should bring the hare of imports in defence equipment purchases down to 30 per cent by 2005. No progress has been made. The percentage is still 70-30 in favour of imports.

DRDO`s list of successes is short-primarily the Agni and Prithvi missiles. Its list of failures is much longer.The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, which was commissioned in 2001, is running late by four years. The costs have gone up from an original estimate of around Rs 3,300 crore to over Rs 5,780 crore. The Kaveri Engine for LCA is running late by 16 years and the cost has escalated by around 800 per cent.
In 2011, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) put a serious question mark on drdo’s capabilities. “The organisation, which has a history of its projects suffering endemic time and cost overruns, needs to sanction projects and decide on a probable date of completion on the basis of a conservative assessment of technology available and a realistic costing system,” its report stated.

The CAG report also revealed that not all technologies developed by DRDO were suitable for use by the armed forces. The three services have rejected 70 per cent of the products developed at the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, in the last 15 years costing Rs 320 crore because the products did not meet their standard and requirement, The CAG report stated that in order to form a fair and balanced view of the success of the projects undertaken by drdo, 46 completed and nine ongoing projects worth Rs 387.35 crore were scrutinised in February 2011. Of the 46 completed and closed projects, only 13 closed projects, wrapped up at a cost of Rs 68 crore, underwent production. “Without close synergy between the users and the technology development agency, much of the development efforts would go in vain, as the success rate of projects in ARDE amply demonstrates,” the report said.

The army is not impressed by DRDO`s performance either. Says Major-General S.V. Thapliyal, a former deputy director-general for perspective planning at army headquarters in Delhi, “DRDO promises to manufacture. It nixes our plans to acquire from abroad; It does not meet the deadline. Worse, it does not maintain quality either. The soldier, the end user, is the worst sufferer.”

General V.P. Malik, who was chief of army staff during the Kargil War, has an interesting incident to narrate in his book Kargil From Surprise to Victory. In 1997, the army finalized plans to acquire the AN/TPQ-37 Fire finder radars from the US. Prices were negotiated and just before purchase, drdo offered to manufacture them at half the price and within two years. The government shot down the army’s plans to buy these radars. In 1999, during the Kargil War, the radars were desperately needed. Neither had DRDO manufactured them nor could they be procured from the US (post-1998 Pokhran tests there was an arms embargo). Several lives were lost in Pakistani shelling. Wlien Indo-US relations improved, India did buy these radars in 2003, but at almost twice the initial price. “The problem with drdo is that it is big on promise and small on delivery. There is no accountability in the system,” says Malik.

DRDO continues to mislead. On April 4, it claimed it had achieved a major milestone on an “indigenous” programme to develop a sophisticated radar to monitor the Indian airspace. The aircraft on which the radar is mounted—a modified Embraer EMB 1451-is imported from Brazil. drdo had to resort to the Embraer aircraft because its own efforts at producing an indigenous carrier had ended in disaster. Project Guardian Airawat was stalled in 1999 when its HS-748 turboprop aircraft crashed, killing eight crew members-engineers, scientists and Indian Air Force (IAF) officers-on board.
Under a Rs 1,050 crore agreement, Brazil’s Embraer will now act as the pverall systems integrator for the “indigenous” project, supplying the three jets, mounting the radar and electronics onto the plane’s fuselage and ensuring that the altered jets retain acceptable flight performance.

According to its original 2004 timeline, this project was to be completed by 2011. Now the delivery of the remaining two modified Embraer aircraft is only expected by mid-2013. The project will not be complete until 2014. Even then there are serious flaws in the project. IAF has pointed out that the Embraer EMB 1451 cannot fly above 4 0,000 ft and therefore is only of limited use in surveillance. “DRDO has a history of claiming foreign designs as its own, like the Arjun tank which is a derivative of the German Leopard,” says a source in the agency. ~
The technology development agency is also largely responsible for the fact highlighted by General V.K. Singh that 97 per cent of the army’s air defence is obsolete. The CAG report lists seven requirements of the army for air defence guns and the project status report. CAG notes the end result: “Even though three R&D projects and one staff project were undertaken, the air defence gun system could not be developed by DRDO to satisfy the frequently revised requirement of the user.”

Army air defence sources say DRDO is tinkering with World War II equipment instead of working on cutting-edge technology. “The chief downplayed the state of affairs. It is in dire straits,” says a top-ranking air defence officer.

“The air defence is in a very-sorry condition,” says Air Marshal A.K. Singh, former air officer commanding-in-chief, Western Air Command. “DRDO is not able to service the equipment. Even if systems are acquired from abroad and DRDO or Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is meant to service it, it fails.This leaves critical gaps in national defence,” he says.

The Government had constituted a committee for the first-ever external review of the agency in February 2007. The committee chaired by P. Rama Rao, ex‘secreta1y, Department of Science and Technology and former director, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad, suggested that DRDO be restructured to make it a leaner organisation. It also recommended the setting up of a commercial arm of the organisation to make it a profitable entity, besides cutting back on delays in completing projects. “Delivery delayed is delivery denied,” said
Defence Minister A.K. Antony on delays in DRDO projects. But little progress has been made in the last five years on implementing the committee’s suggestions.

DRDO chief V.K. Saraswat is eager to put his house in order. He has called for the setting up of a Defence Technology DRDO chief V.K. Saraswat is eager to put his house in order. He has called for the setting up of a Defence Technology Commission as well as a bigger role for DRDO in picking production partners for products developed by the agency. Instead of the current practice of the Ministry of Defence arbitrarily nominating a defence public sector undertaking or an ordnance factory to build the product, usually when development is almost complete, DRDO would be able to select a capable partner company from the outset, from the private sector if necessary.

The defence organisation, which has an annual budget of over Rs 10,000 crore, now has no choice but to reinvent itself. The agency‘s research has drifted away from its core competence in recent times. It has been accused of “wasting time and precious resources” being engaged in research and development of technique for detection of pesticides in fruits, technology for dengue control, dental implants, foldable stretchers and berry juice.
The moribund agency is also suffering from employee attrition. Over the past five years, while the report of the Rama Rao Committee has languished, around 1,700 of its 7,900 engineers and scientists have left for better opportunities in private companies. The depletion of talent will be the last stage in what cynical insiders say is the process of converting DRDO into a dodo.

Drdo

The Lab Optimists

Leave a comment

Open Magazine – feature

BY Madhavankutty Pillai 31st March 2012

From battle tanks to mosquito repellents to dosas in space, the DRDO is a laboratory of sweeping ideas, many of which will take a lifetime to execute.

Last year, the Indian Air Force got a taste of something they didn’t much like. The newspaper DNA reported that IAF officials had been to the Defence Food Research Laboratory (DFRL) in Mysore, where they were shown a tube from which food could be squeezed out. It might sound odd that anyone would eat like that but this was a necessity stemming from the IAF’s induction of long-range aircraft into its fleet—the pilot would have to be fed if he was going to be in air for hours. But the tube-food wasn’t what they expected. It wasn’t a paste or even semi-liquid; it was solid. Negotiating it would not only mess up the cockpit, it would be a minor battle in itself. The IAF rejected it and the DFRL went back to the lab to make it pastier. The same laboratory is also working on something equally unusual—what to feed Indian astronauts when they eventually go up in space. The lab director was quoted as saying that they were exploring all options—from north Indian chapatis to south Indian dosas, albeit in bits and bites.

The DFRL is part of what is known as the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), an umbrella for over 50 laboratories that make everything from tube-food to tanks to combat aircraft to mosquito repellents. Even toilets. In his recent Railway Budget speech, former Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi announced that from next year, 2,500 rail coaches would have what he called green toilets to replace the holes that now exist in train latrines. These ‘bio-toilets’ have been developed by the DRDO. The DRDO’s mandate, however, is not to cater to the Railways or India’s space programme. It is to make India self-reliant in defence systems and equipment. Stated ends and realities do not always meet. The main criticism of the DRDO—and it comes mainly from its primary clients, the armed forces—is that its scientists are a bunch of optimists. This is why we hear announcements from them that seem fantastic. Consider this public statement by DRDO Director General VK Saraswat just a few months ago: “We are working on building soldier robots that can work like a human soldier. Such a robot needs a database and artificial intelligence to carry out its activities and the DRDO is planning to build such a robot.” Is he talking of the Terminator? In the same exchange with reporters, Saraswat also talked about robotic mules, which then leads to the question: why would anyone need robotic mules? If the purpose is to transport cargo, won’t a suitable vehicle do?

All this would not be so suspect if the DRDO did not have a reputation for routinely shooting off its mouth. We asked a former Chief of Army and a former Chief of Navy whether it was true that the DRDO was quick with announcements and slow with execution. Says former Army Chief General VP Malik: “I tend to agree with critics who say that. The track record of the DRDO so far, primarily on account of delayed/non-delivery of weapons and equipment promised to the armed forces, does not inspire confidence.”

And this was former Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash: “That impression is correct. They are very optimistic and don’t live up to their time schedules, cost schedules, etc. They don’t consult the armed forces enough. They spend the budget the way they think best.”

The Navy, ironically, is the institution that has managed to get the maximum benefit (relatively speaking) from the DRDO and that’s because it made a practice of embedding naval officers into DRDO projects. Admiral Prakash said, “Whenever there’s a naval project going on, there are always naval officers associated with it. Even otherwise the Navy makes available some of its bright officers to the DRDO.”

The two projects for which the DRDO has got the most brickbats are connected to the Air Force and Army—the main battle tank Arjun and light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas. The Arjun project took off in 1972. In 1974, Rs 15 crore was set aside for its development. The project, which finally cost around Rs 350 crore, got delayed by decades and even now many of its components are imported. The DRDO had initially hoped to make 2,000 tanks and, after about 40 years, has 124 operational. The Army is not happy with these and is pinning its hopes on the impending upgrade, the Arjun Mark II. Similar delays have plagued the LCA Tejas. It has been in the making for just under 30 years and is yet to become operational. Its second phase is now scheduled for completion by December 2012. The indigenous engine, Kaveri, for the LCA didn’t live up to standards and an imported engine is being used.

The problem, according to one view, stems from the DRDO wanting to reinvent the wheel. It was a patriotic thing to build everything from scratch, but, as everyone now recognises, it didn’t have the capability in most areas. This can have consequences. General Malik was Chief of Army when the Kargil war happened. In 2009, when he said in a television interview that Kargil casualties could have been lower if the DRDO had delivered on time, it instantly led to a furore. He elaborated on it in an email interview, ‘I was referring specifically to the non-availability of weapons-locating radars, which were required to engage Pakistani artillery and mortars quickly and effectively during the Kargil war. This would have reduced the effectiveness of Pakistani artillery and mortars. In 1997, after long negotiations with a manufacturer, some of these radars were about to be purchased. At the last moment, the DRDO caused this deal to be scuttled, with a promise that it would develop and produce these radars in the next two years; a promise that was never fulfilled. Incidentally, these very radars were purchased from the same manufacturer in 2003.’

There are areas in which the DRDO has been successful, like the missile programme. In the development of naval sonars, weapons avionics and torpedoes too, it is recognised to have done useful work. There is the counter-view that it is unfair to blame it for everything and that the DRDO has become a favourite punching bag. Wing Commander Ajay Lele, a weapons expert and Research Fellow with the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, says the gestation period in military technology is always long. The Lockheed Martin-developed F22 Raptor aircraft went to the drawing board in the Cold War era in the early 70s, but it formally entered the US air force in 2005. “Also, components for defence technology are not easy to come by. The DRDO cannot create everything on its own. It needs industrial back-up and our country lacks in that,” he says.

There is no clear accessible overview of the research DRDO does because there is no proper audit of it. A cloud called ‘Classified’ hangs over it. Prabhu Dandriyal, who worked in the DRDO from 1982 to 2003, is a whistleblower. After being forced into retirement when he started to expose corruption in the institution, he has been on a relentless mission. He says it has reached a stage where he is now called to assist the CBI and IB in corruption cases in DRDO labs because they don’t understand engineering concepts. He filed an RTI application asking how many technical papers DRDO scientists had published in international scientific journals between 1990 and 2010. He didn’t get it until the Chief Information Commissioner passed an order in his favour. “What is the surest way of showing that fundamental research is on? Publishing papers. The reply I finally got was ‘nil’. There had not been a single published paper. All these announcements they make, not one thing happens. All they do is talk,” he says.

Another criticism of the DRDO is that it expends time, money and focus on things that should not really be in its ambit. One journalist who went to a DRDO laboratory 15 years ago as a student was shown a banana that had been reduced to a tenth of its normal weight, the size reduced by 20 per cent. There are high altitude barfis for soldiers to partake of during festivals. There is a medicine for leucoderma. There are cockroach-killing tablets, instant idlis, betel leaf juice and chickenpav bhajis. A fungus found on a caterpillar has been cultured, which among other things is supposedly beneficial in the treatment of impotence. And so on goes the vast and bewildering list.

But, according to Ajay Lele, there is method to this madness. “The armed forces have set requirements. Until and unless the Government tells private industry ‘you provide us an alternative, this is the money, put it into R&D and give us the returns over a period of time’, the DRDO will have to make these things. Take the mosquito repellent. Anyone who is aware of conditions in the Northeast will tell you that the mosquitoes there are very different. Battle casualties are far lower than casualties from malaria. Good Knight [the repellent brand] is not going to develop such a mosquito repellent unless there’s some incentive for it,” he says.

The DRDO is now spinning these technologies commercially. Since 2008, it has a tie-up with Ficci to market products they think have demand. It goes by DRDO-FICCI Accelerated Technology Assessment and Commer- cialisation. Says Shyam Sunder, Deputy Director at Ficci’s Centre for Technology Commercialisation, “The DRDO has nominated more than 200 technologies to this programme. We shortlist them based on our assessment. We then contact Indian companies to introduce these technologies for manufacture or licensing. The response has been very good.”

Nearly everyone save the DRDO itself agrees that the institution has to be reinvented. A committee headed by P Rama Rao, former secretary, department of science and technology, made a number of recommendations. The main thrust of the recommendations was that the DRDO should focus on key areas like missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare and so on. Its laboratories should be restructured and those not central to the new mandate must be hived off to civilian scientific bodies. The report is yet to be implemented because of opposition from the DRDO.

Another way to reinvent the DRDO, say some, is to make it like DARPA in the US, which does no research but instead mediates between the armed forces and the private sector. Unless the DRDO is remodelled, there will inevitably be situations in which the kit for the soldier in Siachen has to be imported while the DRDO works on a robotic mule.

Drdo

DRDO passes its expertise to NTRO – I

Leave a comment

All the stalwarts of DRDO who were master of manipulating government funds, misinterpretation of government rules having expertise in inculcating a negative attitude towards self reliance and always planning commission and omission through bulk purchases were shifted to NTRO an agency established by the government after KARGIL debacle. The modus operandi of DRDO & NTRO experts/bosses are twin in appearance, if CBI enquires in depth the enquiry will reveal that the entire procurement/ recruitment system are identical.

Deccan Herald

Under veil of secrecy, elint outfit gobbles funds

Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, Mar 20, 2012, DHNS:

Less spying and more misuse of resources in elite security set-up

Eight years after its creation, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), which was established on the lines of Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and America’s National Security Agency (NSA), is in a mess. 

 Far from performing the responsibilities it was entrusted with after it was found that the country’s security establishment lacked effective technical/communications intelligence capabilities, the NTRO is battling serious allegations of corruption.And the lid has been blown off from within: a former NTRO scientist, V K Mittal, has been able to fight his way through the webs of secrecy and official pressure and intimidation to force the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to institute a special audit which the Supreme Court is now seized of.According to one estimate, misappropriation of funds in the NTRO is to the tune of Rs 800 crore, which was alloted Rs 9,832 crore in the 2011-12 financial year. The organisation spends approximately 62 per cent of the money on purchase of equipment and maintains a secret service fund of about Rs 36 crore. Most of the procurements were through single tenders.According to a February 29, 2012 CAG reply to Mittal’s RTI application, the audit body “noticed lack of transparency and non-compliance of rules and procedures in procurement of systems/stores/equipment and deficient procurement management, resulting in cases of excess payment/wasteful expenditure/loss to the exchequer.”Investigations by Deccan Herald revealed that despite objections from the chief of communications intelligence, senior NTRO officers procured satellite communication terminals worth Rs 18 crore in early 2009 from a blacklisted company, Singapore Technology.

The previous year (May 2008), Mittal, as head of NTRO’s Centre for Communications Applications (CCA) wrote to the then NTRO chairman K V S S Prasad Rao claiming that the use of satellite communication (SATCOM) equipment on board unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was “never a part of the original request for proposal (RFP) or tender” and “hence no technical evaluation was carried out” at any stage by his division.

Although the SATCOM equipment were to be procured from two Israeli companies, Israeli Aerospace Industry (IAI) and ELTA, visits by CCA officers to these firms in Israel yielded little. “In all meetings (at least four times in Tel Aviv) CCA has been requesting IAA/ELTA to give details of the antenna and other systems associated with SATCOM onboard the UAV. Despite our concerted efforts and repeated demands, IAI/ELTA have refused to part with necessary information,” documents in possession of Deccan Herald say.

Alarmingly, the trials of the SATCOM for UAVs, instead of being carried out in India were undertaken in Australia despite strong objections on the ground that the tests should be carried out in Indian conditions. “The offer of trials outside India was firmly turned down by CCA due to various technical reasons in July-August 2007. Hence the rationale for trials oustide India, despite our strong opposition is not clear to us,” the document of May 9, 2008 says.

The main reason why trials (which were to be witnessed by representatives of the Army, Air Force and the Navy) in Australia were not considered feasible was the IAI/ELTA had provided incomplete information about the antenna proposed for SATCOM onboard UAVs. Besides, it was found that the antenna was “suboptimal” and “did not meet the requisite standard of radiation”, and that power amplifiers required modifications “to be able to meet digital modulation requirements.”

Documents in Deccan Herald’s possession suggest that the Israeli companies failed to demonstrate any SATCOM specialisation for the equipments, including electronic intelligence payload for the UAVs, a project that cost Rs 40 crore.

It was after Mittal was served a memo by the then NTRO adviser (in the rank of additional secretary) M S Vijayaraghavan for objecting to the SATCOM equipment deal that he quit the NTRO and blew the whistle on the goings-on in the country’s communications intelligence organisation. Subsequent internal inquiries and special audits by the CAG in January 2010 (the NTRO was outside the purview of any government audit when it was formed) led to the chargesheeting of seven officers.

A retired senior intelligence officer blamed “those in control of the country’s security apparatus” for NTRO’s “miserable condition.”

Under the scanner

* Internet monitoring system (Rs 30 cr)
* Information processing software (Rs 5 cr)
* Satellite communication monitoring system (Rs 30 cr)
* Civil works contract in Dehradun (Rs 40 cr)        
* Electronic intelligence payload (Rs 30 cr)

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

Arrogance of Ex-Scientific Adviser to Rakhsha Mantri (Dr V K Atre)

Leave a comment

Date 13th January 2012

The Government of India in its pursue to provide leader ship to an organisation like DRDO/ISRO/BARC etc always selects the chief through a selection process whose search committee examine the whereabouts of the individual  whom the responsibility is to be given.

Unfortunately due to over confidence or may be the political interference a leader who do not deserves the post is selected to lead the organisation. And the ultimate looser is the poor tax payers. The KARGIL WAR proved the biggest failure of DRDO and its leadership.

As 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 DRDO “not come in the way” in the acquisition of 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 Karan Thapar during a show.

Asked whether DRDO was “slight boastful” in claims over developing weapons, Malik said “well that has been our (armed forces’) experience over the development of weapons and equipment the DRDO has delivered or not delivered.“

Following is the example Vision/Working/commitment/Long Term Planning/Communication with fellow workers – Dr V K Atre then SA to RM commented about DRDO is following.

Today there is lot of hue & cry about the Chinese presence along with border from NEFA to POK, every Indian hearing through news channels and it is talk of the common people about our preparations vis-a-vis the Chinese capability.

Some of the activity which were suppose to be taken early was ignored by DRDO as then SA to RM due to his poor fore slightness ignored the real requirements of our Defence Services.

(Total pages —9) Page 1 of 1

Record of Discussions

Venue Room                                   : Room No -137 South Block. New Delhi
                                                               Office of Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri

  Dr V.K. Aatre

Time                                                   :12.30 Hrs

 Date                                                  : 10 April 2001

Visitor Slip No.                                : 83097 10th  April 2001

The following were present

Dr.V.K.Aatre        Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri
                                   Secretary (R&D), DRDO, Director General (R&D),
                                    Ministry of Defence, Government of India

Dr. A K Dutta       Chief Controller,  DRDO Hqrs

P D Dandriyal     Charge man – II/ Technical Assistant/ Sr. Technical Assistant

Background of the Meeting

P.D.Dandriyal brought on to notice or Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri, Defence Minister, Prime Minister and Honorable President of India, the immoral character of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bains, Director DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun. Ministry of Defence, Government of India

The representation highlights the sabotage of national interest, misappropriation of Government funds, misinterpretation of Government rules,  regionalism, castism by  Dr. A.S Bains.  In support of this statement P.D. Dandriyal submitted two cheques of his take home salary to Prime Minister’s National relief fund as Dr Bains stopped giving him any work in retaliation. The cheqees were returned by PMO letter No 365/11/C/2/2000IPOL dated 05.06.2000 and R&D Hqr letter No DOP/P/2/20027/MISC/M/0 I dated 0202/2001 with the assurance of appropriate action.

An official confirmation for meeting with SA to RM on 10/04/2001 at 1230 hrs was given to PD Dandriyal at 1300 Hrs on 09/04/2001.  The individual submitted and earn Leave for three days to attend scheduled meeting as he was denied Ty. Duty

Page 1 of 2

P D DANDRIYAL May I come in Sir

SA:                 Please come in

PD:                 May I sit

SA:                 Yes, please.

SA:                  So, you are the only honest person in lndia( laugh)

PD :                No. Sir,I  am one of them

(SA feels that. 99% oIl Indians are dishonest, but I strongly feel that the 97% Indian people are honeM)

SA:                  So, where you want to go?

(till date in any controversy the DRDO Hq transfer the employee without giving  scrious thought over tie problem posed)

PD:                 Sir, I donot understand what is your motive?

SA:                 So you are writing that in DEAL 80% people have no work so I want  to give you some work elsewhere..

PD:                 Sir, if you want to put me in any mission of national interest then you can send me right from Leh to Cochin. As I already liwe showh in capabilities by staying at Antarctica and also provided critical communications   as well as witnessed the Agini-II hitting the target near Andman Sea.

SA:                 No no. you just tell me where :you want to go,

PD:                 Sir just listen to rme I have already performed a very useful project work in mountaineous  terrain of Himachal for  solving, night time communication problem faced by army during Kargil war we have solved the communication problem by using NVIS techniques.

SA:                 What is NVlS?

PD:                 Sir, Near Vertical Insidenanc Sky wave mode of radio cornniunicauon

(during mid Kargil war the army faced a serious problem of night time communication where no communication equipment whether HF/VHF/UHF were able to communicate. The matter was taken by army Hq and then the Defence Minister imported HF communication sets from M/s Tadiran, Israel. Unforutently these sets did not worked, however army conducted some trails along with Israeli engineers near Delhi and the

Page 1 0f 3

system was functional. He was not able to through light on the problem erupted at KARGIL. Then he Defence Minister handed over the problem to SA to RM who in turn asked Director, DEAL for quick solution. The solution was obtained immediately after carrying NVIS communication trials in Himachal Pradesh having Kargil like uneven mountain terrain. Unfortunately the report has been buried by Dr Bains/DRDO Hqrs.

SA:                 OK, I will stop NVIS studies further.

PD:                 Then Sir, you can give me work in the JEMCAB requirement of hardening of advance air base against nuclear EMP. As the JEMCAB secretariat has asked to assess the feasibility of above from DEAL, but our Director has flatly refused to take up to this activity and written to JEMCAB that give this to LRDE as we are preoccupied.

SA:                 No EMP project whether projects are from army, navy or air force this my privilege what to take and what not to take.

                       (This show to what extant SA has attachment with national security and for keeps his ego up to what extant he can compromise with national security)

PD:                 But Sir, we have infrastructure and expertise on EMP and our people are interested to take this challenging task.

                        (the team has developed a nuclear hardened shelter for JEMCAB a mini lab for nuclear simulation has also setup at DEAL and waiting for such assignment. SA forgotten the parliament (Loksabha) question D No.11042 dated 18th March 1999 and his comment to honorable Parliament for protecting our communication network against threat of Nuclear EMP and this is clear case of contempt honorable Parliament.)

SA:                 No, I will stop this activity this is my previlage. Before you one senior scientist of DEAL reported that I have not enough work and he has been transferred do you know?

                        (SA trying teach me that he can go to any extent and he is ready to stop any activity which are working in real national interest.)

 PD:                Yes Sir, Shri R C Chakarborty was transferred as Director, DTRL

(Sh R C Chakarborty was project Director “ SARVADRISTA” which was supposed to give real time image of enemy territory by using remote sensing data collected by earth station at DEAL he was on his job but to drive maximum advantage from the success of this project Dr.Bains removed him from the project director right in the middle of KARGIL WAR and takeover the command himself, the result was no further image was useful for army. People suspect that Dr Bains has been planted by some foreign agencies to sabotage the national program.)

Page 1 0f 4

SA: So, you would you like to join Chakorborty

PD: No Sir not at all. Because my background propagation and communication and he is engaged with image processing bun Sir DEAL is a propagation and communication,

SA: You know we already stopped propagation work there. So then Balasore, are you interested?

(NASA and NOAA in US have been carrying out the propagation studies right from VLF to Sub millimeter wave to enhance their defence preparation till date.)

PD: Sir, whenever and wherever DRDO needed my services I did l it honestly. In Balasore initiated the remote control of HF sets in Long Wheeler Island for Agni-ll. Why don’t you put me CNR because of communication background?

SA: No, I can’t

PD: Sir, you can send me in any mission mode project activity anywhere in country but if you will transfer me without justifying the points raised by me I have no option other then handover these Documents to public in front of parliament and to draw attention of the countrymen against the siphoning of pretty FE in the name of US sanction. I will go for self-immolation in front of Parliament

SA: (Stunned for a while) pause No, I am not transferring you but I warn to know where you want to go. Everyone parsing your work, we want to utilize your enthusiasm.

PD: Now it is up to you Sir, but without justification I will not leave Dehradun. Since, I have worked devotedly whenever any critical assignment was given to me. As an example then SA to RM Dr.Kalam gave a problem of Landmine detector to DEAL.As you know the casualties due to landmine can upset the total movement of army personals in battlefield. SA wanted to a most modern microprocessor based landmine detector to be developed by DEAL. To carry out the feasibility Director DEAL made a small committee and Sh Kundu, Sc ‘D’ was asked to explore internet for  explore relevant information available elsewhere, for two days Mr. Kundu tried his best but failed to get useful information. Later my boss asked me to explore as he knows my capabilities, used PC at home and spent my own time and brought 125 pages with full of useful information pertaining history, design and development parameters etc. report was prepared and submitted to R&D Hqrs and a presentation on this

minutes of SA's meeting5
minutes of SA's meeting6
minutes of SA's meeting7
minutes of SA's meeting18
minutes of SA's meeting9

 

 

Drdo

If wishes were horses……….Manoj Joshi October 18, 2006

Leave a comment

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.

Drdo

Compliance of CIC Decisions

9 Comments
RTI Cell DRDO letter head

No. RTI/02/2091/C/2011                                                                  27 Sep 2011

To,
Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
21, Sunderwala, Raipur
Dehradun—248 008

Sub : Compliance of CIC Decisions

Please refer the subject decision of CIC 29 Jun 2011 received in this office on dated 03 Aug 2011

The information, as directed by CIC, is as under:

(1) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381

(a) The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 –  6,38,33,535/-

(b) The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-

(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384

The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:

(a) Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs

(b) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs

(c) Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs

(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385

(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:

Journal of Applied Physics — Nil

Electronics Letters – Nil

(4) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000386

(a) Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22

Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-

(c) Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26

Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-

 (5) File No. CICILSIAI2O11/000387

Number of sanctioned strength of substantive Joint Directors and Deputy Directors in DRDO.

(a) Joint Directors — 04

(b) Deputy Directors — 20

(6) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000412

Para wise reply pertaining to years 2009 and 2010 is as under:

(a) Total number of transit accommodation available in DRDO’s guest House at Delhi —105

(b) DRDO officials availing DRDO transit guest house facilities at Delhi for more than 30 days while they are posted in same station — 17

(c) Sh. S Ravi, Additional Director, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 10 Jul 2009 to 10 Sep 2010.

(d) Dr. Prahiada, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, DRDO HQrs availed DRDO guest house facility in Delhi during 26 Mar 2010 to 20 Mar 2011.

(7) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000413

No Gazette Notification of D0PT is available.

(Dr. A K Tyagi)
Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DRDO HQ

 Copy to:

Central Information Commissioner –            With refer to your 10 decision dated
Room No. 308, B —Wing                                29 Jun 2011 in respect of Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
August Kranti Bhawan, Bikaji Kama Place
New Delhi – 1 10 066

Real Facts:  

1. File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000381

What I have asked in my RTI

  1. Total amount invested on long term post graduation training program and PhD program under R & T scheme, and under Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme of DRDO during period forApril 1990 – March 2010 under following heads
              i)        Adhoc advances
             ii)       Study leave salary
            iii)       Reimbursement of expenditure on account of stationary items, preparation of thesis, purchase of books                         and journals etc.
           iv)        Non refundable fee
           v)         TA
          vi)        DA
          vii)      Financial incentive on acquiring higher qualification at their own
2.    Total number of official Grade wise/Post wise/ Categories wise received  MS/ME/MTech, PhD degree during period April 1990 – March 2010
          i)        Full time
         ii)       Part Time
         iii)     External Registration

 3.    The Institution from where degree of MTech/ PhD was awarded from April 1990 – March 2010

4.  Total amount invested on short term training/ workshops/seminars/courses in India (Including DIAT/ITM/IIM’s/ IIT’s, NIT’s, ESCI, ASCI, IISc’s etc.) and abroad, during period from April 1990 – March 2010

          i)        Training/ Courses/Delegations Fee/Registration Fee
          ii)       TA
         iii)     DA
5. Total number of Scientist resigned from April 1990 – March 2010

6.  Total number of scientist joined DRDO from April 1990 – March 2010

Why I asked this Information –

DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities. The admission which granted normally after tough competitions are available to DRDO’s sponsored candidates was easily.

Aim of such higher studies is to use the academic platform to solve the complicate technical issues. DRDO in turn give the IIT’s or Universities sufficient grants against project and R&T schemes.

No one gets benefited neither the institutions nor the DRDO, it is because the most of the individuals after getting higher education working as admin, allied works, and  the reaction of this most of them leave the organization. For example Dr.DP Singh, Estate Manager, Scientist ‘F’ did his post graduation and PhDs from DRDO sponsoring and performing duty of admin purely non scientific assignment. Sh A.K Musla, Sc ‘F, holding post Joint Director Admin in IRDE, Dehradun, he also did his B.Tech and M.Tech from DRDO sponsored funds and working as purely in admin. I am quoting only two names as tip of the iceberg, because in DRDO you will find 100 of such cases. DRDO is shear wasting the corers and corers rupees public funds in the name of higher education programs. Although, the aim and object of the higher education program is really good, but in hands of bad corrupt officials, the output is wasting by DRDO.

According to the ministry, a total of 1,107 scientists, mostly young entrants, have resigned from the DRDO between 2003 and 2007, implying that on an average one person leaves every two days. 

What I have received

(a)          The amount spent on Long Term Post Graduation Training Programme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 –  6,38,33,535/-

(b)         The amount spent on PhD Programme under RT Scheme during 2008, 2009 and 2010 – 3,38,143/-

(2) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000384

What I have asked in my RTI

The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems

The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.

In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information

Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards  year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010

i)           Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony

ii)          TA/DA  on recipient of the awardees and spouse

iii)        All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs. during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format

Why I asked this Information –

The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.

DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.

But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.

Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..

The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to   these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments  like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works  In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).

If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.

There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.

It is really big question in front of country people?

Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case) 

Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.

Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny  give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.

One award Defence Technology Absorption Award is using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & Allied Products, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is   related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL)

What I have received

The total amount spent during 2008, 2009 and 2010 on the following Awards:

(a)                Agni Award for excellence in self reliance – ‘ 75 Lakhs

(b)                DRDO Award for Performance Excellence.- 60 Lakhs

(c)                 Scientist of the year Award — 60 Lakhs

(3) File No. CIC/LS/A12011/000385

What I have asked in my RTI

  1. How many technical paper were published by DRDO Scientists in International Journals like Journal of Applied Physics, IEEE Transactions, Proceedings IEEE, Transactions IEE, Electronics Letter, SPICE etc. from 1990 to March 2010?
  2. How many authors were awarded by DRDO for their contribution and keeping the flag of DRDO high
  3. How many such authors were assigned the administrative task to lead the DRDO Labs as Director and then CC R&D?
  4. How many such authors were left the DRDO during April 1990 to March 2010 period?

Why I asked this Information –

Almost 400 Corers of rupees are distributing through these boards and different DRDO projects to IIT’s, Universities’ and Colleges and even some NGO’s, in the name of  expanding and deepening the knowledge-base, Enhancing core competence in the field of knowledge, To encourage and provide funds for basic research in pertinent scientific disciplines etc.

The most of funds distributed till date to maximum private universities and private institutions and especially in last ten years out of total grants has gone to southern states. DRDO in its charter of duty has specifically mentioned Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to North East the equal opportunity will given to universities/institutions.

The DRDO is giving funding for various R&T projects with IIT’s, IIsc’s and various premier scientific institutions. In return DRDO sends annually many officers for higher studies particulars to IIT’s and national Universities.

The number of international papers can justify the real out of projects working with IIT, IIsc and other various institutions.

I am surprised that DRDO is deny for giving information related to paper publish in international journals, where is schedule-ii exemption is comes in between.

Information sought is already publish in journals, so why DRDO afraid to give information. It shows that DRDO is not respect for RTI Act 2005.

International publications are basically the most valuable achievement of any scientific institute /organization and it always proudly mentioned by each and every institute /organization.

What I have received

(a) Numbers of papers published by the Scientist of DRDO during last five years:

Journal of Applied Physics — Nil

Electronics Letters – Nil

(4) File No. CIC/LS/A1201 1/000386

What I have asked in my RTI

With Reference to Dr Prahlada, DS & CC R&D (Ae & SI)

  1.  After taking his charge as CC R&D at DRDO Hqrs, how many days he stayed in DRDO Hqrs up to 31st March 2010
  2. How many temporary duties to Hyderabad he had been with total stay at Hyderabad.
  3.  How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as CC R&D at DRDO up to 31st March 2010.

With Reference to Shri  RC Agarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun

  1. After taking his charge as Director DEAL, Dehradun , how many days he stayed in Dehradun up to 31st March 2010
  2. How many temporary duties to Bangalore he had been with total stay at Bangalore
  3.  How much in total TA/DA he has drawn year wise from his joining as Director, DEAL up to  31st March 2010.

Why I asked this Information

The information sought for is not related to end senior officer in his individual/personal capacity but in his capacity being a public authority.

Too frequent visit to a particular destination on Government expenses require to justify and as to how much it was beneficial to the organization and how much to the officer especially when he belongs to that particular destination. It appears that the permanent residence is his Hqrs and place of posting is a temporary duty station. The frequent move availability of the officer in the Hqrs. station may lead to problem of command and control and discipline, which may hamper the progress and led to undue delay and time and cost overrun to ongoing projects of DRDO.

In this particular case I requested the TD details of Dr. Prahlada, Appellate Authority, CC R&D (Ae & SI) & DS, who is staying C-7 Qutab Enclave, DRDO guest house since his posting to DRDO Hqrs, for him most of time he took his breakfast in his Hyderabad residence and lunch in DRDO Hqrs and evening for dinner he was again back to his Hyderabad residence. Please see his TD detail and then decide.

Second one is Shri  RC Aggarwal, Director DEAL, Dehradun, since his posting he use to out  from DEAL, Dehradun almost more than 250 days out of 365 days. How can the armed forces expect trustworthy products from these so called senior scientists?

There more 9-10 CC R&D and Directors who are belongs to Hyderabad and Bangalore and their families are staying Hyderabad and Bangalore respectively and they all are staying in DRDO guest houses they are giving their residence address in telephone directory at DRDO guest houses and enjoying HRA also. They are frequent fliers, they all are already break the Milkha Singh ‘s (Flying Sikh of India)  records and relishing without fear with TD with poor tax payers money.

What I have received

(a)          Visits of Dr. Prahlada on official duty during 2009 & 2010. Number of visits to Hyderabad – 22

(b)         Total amount of TA/DA drawn – 4,11,900/-

(c)          Visits made by Shri R C Aggarwal on official duty during 2007 to 2010. Number of visits — 26

(d)         Total amount of TA/DA drawn — 18, 23, 672/-

 

Uncategorized

NTRO Latest News

Leave a comment

Re: Illegal wiretapping and intellegence agencies oversight

www.outlookindia.com | Who?ll Monitor The Monitor?

A CAG audit, inquiry by a high-powered committee spell disaster for NTRO

Created in the aftermath of the intelligence failure in Kargil, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) was supposed to be at the cutting edge of gathering intelligence via technical means. But just six years after its birth on April 14, 2004, the outfit is gasping for breath.

Mired in corruption and known for operational inefficiency, it has become a hub for nepotism and has the dubious distinction now of being the first intelligence agency in the history of independent India to be subjected to a financial audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

More than the audit, though, it’s the ongoing inquiry being conducted by a one-man high-powered committee that threatens to shake the agency’s very foundations. The man heading the committee, P.V. Kumar, retired as a special secretary from the Research and Analysis Wing last year and was absorbed into NTRO as its advisor. Kumar has now been given the unenviable task of inquiring into the murky waters around the organisation in the hope that it can be brought back on track.

Topping Kumar’s agenda are the alleged misdeeds of the agency’s second-in-command, Dr M.S. Vijayaraghavan, a former DRDO scientist who was inducted into NTRO under mysterious circumstances. Why was someone who had spent his professional life working with semi-conductors and heading a facility that dealt with silicon chips chosen to head a technical intelligence organisation? His detractors attribute it to his proximity to the scientific advisor to the prime minister, R. Chidambaram.

The high-powered committee has been asked to look into some of the allegations of misappropriation and misconduct against Vijayaraghavan. These are:

* He chaired several price negotiation committees, including one that purchased a large number of routers from US firm CISCO Systems in an order worth US $1 million. Subsequent to the purchase, Vijayaraghavan’s daughter was employed by CISCO. Did the promise of a job influence the deal?
* Kumar is also looking into the details of Vijayaraghavan’s travels abroad as well as the total expenditure incurred by NTRO on the same. Documents available with Outlook show that NTRO spent Rs 18.22 lakh in 2007-2008, Rs 16.72 lakh in 2008-2009 and Rs 8.04 lakh in 2009-2010 to sponsor his travels.
* Vijayaraghavan’s appointment was allegedly made without a search committee or an advertisement. Did this not violate the recruitment rules of the government?
* There are several other issues as well. For instance, Vijayaraghavan was staying at a posh, two-storeyed bungalow in Delhi’s upmarket Hauz Khas locality for almost a year. While the rent for the bungalow ran into several lakhs a month, he didn’t have to pay a single rupee.

The most worrying aspect of Vijayaraghavan’s current tenure, however, is that while being appointed as advisor to NTRO, he was also allowed to continue in his earlier capacity as head of a DRDO lab as well as serve as the executive director of a non-government society seen as a lobby for the electronic industry. Known as the Society for Electronic Transactions & Security (SETS), it paid for a huge bungalow in Bangalore where his family stayed while he resided in Delhi. Interestingly, while the gazette notification states that he was appointed in the pay scale of Scientist “G”, his current appointment is a grade higher.

But Vijayaraghavan’s indiscretions are not the only anomalies at NTRO. The agency appointed Vaibhav Vikrant, a man with a financial background, to fly by remote control its Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Usually the preserve of experienced IAF pilots, Vikrant only had to take a snap course in flying aero-models in Hissar for his appointment to sail through.

Then there are security breaches. Ruchi Srivastava, an NTRO official, allegedly purchased a computer mainframe of Chinese origin, without bothering to seek the approval of the agency responsible for clearing such purchases, the Cipher Policy Committee. Similarly, a portable satellite communication system was purchased from a Singapore-based company blacklisted by the Indian government.

Worried about the massive security and financial implications, the government asked the CAG to begin an audit in Feb 2010. Kumar likewise was asked to begin a thorough investigation into the other allegations. Sources say the report, when ready, could sound the death knell for NTRO. The organisation, built on the patterns of the American National Security Agency, is now busy fighting its internal demons, rather than stopping terrorists preparing to wage a covert war against India.

Drdo

CIC Decisions on RTI -1

Leave a comment
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066

Information Asked Regarding DRDO annual in Which DRDO distributing Rs 2 Corers

Annually and for managing ceremony DRDO spending a huge amount.

Why I asked this Information – The awards given by Government of India like Padma Award, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnager Award etc all these awards are given with an aim to encourage/motivate/ recognize the contribution of individual recipients and therefore it carries a citation.

DRDO constituted its awards like Scientist of the year, Young Scientist awards, Technology Leadership Award etc. with the aim to inculcate a culture of hard work, dedication, scientific achievements, and technology breakthrough leading to the technology development for national security.

But the award given in DRDO, the mode of selection, the encouragement to the scientific team does not rely on the standards.

Different rules for different occasion or different rules for different officer, the motto of DRDO or the definition of DRDO is suitably implemented..

The public would like to know the manner DRDO spending nearly 2 crores of rupees annually to   these awards, the recipients does not know that he has been chosen for this award, there is no scientific presentation of technology. The recipients, are even unable to operate any scientific instruments  like network analyzer, spectrum analyzer etc because most of awardees scientist or technical personals are working as Director Management Services, Head Material Managements, Security Officer, Library In-charge, Works  In-charge and other suitable position from where they can feed their Akas(Boss).

If any one look in to the list of award recipients and analyses year wise, he will be find the most of citation actually not even justify the work or relation between award and awardees.

There is N number of examples available in various labs where most of awards were not justified; it is purely depending upon the Director’s choice. So nut shell DRDO awards are like ”Andha banten revari apne apne ko de” it is nothing doing with their contribution whether the awardees is related to technology or not. How come a person sitting in security, MT will entitled to get technology award, when DRDO having other awards for non technical working area.

It is really big question in front of country people?

Like in Kargil, one officer got gallantry award and later it was found that the fake encounter was staged for award. (Famous ketchup Colonel Case) 

Same tactics is adopted by DRDO they are distributing awards to their own boys with fake technology propaganda.

Since money belongs to poor tax payers, when Padama award citation are available to citizen of India then how can DRDO deny  give details in the name of schedule –II exemption.

One award Defence Technology Absorption Award is using by DRDO for giving color to their pet firms. Anyone can judge from the recipients list that these firms are really worth does these firms have any significant signature in field of respective industry like M/s Resins & Allied Products, Vijayawada. received this award from Honorable Prime Minister Sh Man Mohan Singh is   related to Dr. A. Subhananda Rao, CC R&D, Director, HEMRL) 

APPELLANT – Shri Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
PUBLIC AUTHORITY – DRDO.
DATE OF HEARING – 29.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION – 29.06.2011

Facts:-

Heard today dated 29.06.2011.   The appellant is present.  DRDO is represented by Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Scientist ‘F’ and Dr. Deepak Mishra, Scientist ‘E’.  These appeals are being disposed of through a common order.  The parties are heard.  The order passed in each case is as follows:

The RTI Request –

To                                                                                                                  Date 30th May 2010    The CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ                                                                                   Room No. 314A                                                                                                                         DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg, New Delhi – 110 105

Hello,

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

The DRDO Awards Scheme, in its present form, was introduced in the year 1999 to motivate DRDO scientists, engineers and partners in industries and academic institutions in contributing for the cause of national security and self-reliance. The present Award Scheme, instituted by the Government of India, are therefore, meant to encourage DRDO scientists and our partners in the Private Sector Undertakings (PSUs), the private firms as well as the academic institutions in performing even better towards accelerating the pace of development of critical technologies, transfer of technologies from laboratories to industries as well as productionisation of the state-of-the-art defence systems.

The Scheme consists of a total of 17 awards, out of which, 4 awards are given by the Directors of the concerned laboratories/establishments in recognition of outstanding contributions of their scientists and other supporting staff consisting of technical, administrative and allied cadres. The remaining 13 awards are decided at the DRDO HQrs for which nominations are called every year from all laboratories/establishments. The nominations are initially short listed by the Screening Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC). The short listed nominations are, thereafter, examined by the Apex Committee for finalisation of the awards which also consists of two outside experts. These awards are normally given away by the Prime Minister of India on the “Technology Day” which falls on 11th May of every year.

In this connection it is requested to provide the following detail information

  1. Total amount of investment made on DRDO awards  year wise from 1st April 1999 to till date 2010
                     i)        Total amount invested in arranging Award ceremony
                   ii)       TA/DA  on recipient of the awardees and spouse
                  iii)      All categories of all cash award by all Laboratories/Establishments and DRDO Hqrs.                                  during period of April 1999 to till date. In following format

Year 1999-2000

 Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule-II

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 you have received the application.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order 60E034921

Regards,

Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal                                                                                                                21-Sunderwala, Raipur Dehradun-248008                                                                          Phone – 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, E-mail id- prabhu@dandriyal.com

The RTI request was denied by CPIO, DRDO Hqrs on 2nd June 2010

The Appellate Authority, DRDO Hqrs was denied on 16th August 2010

File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000384:- CIC Decision

The total amount spent for last three years viz. 2008, 2009 & 2010 on the following Awards may be supplied to the appellant :-

(i) AGNI Award for excellence in Self Reliance;

(ii) DRDO Award for Performance Excellence, and

(iii) Scientist of the Year Award.