Tag Archives: self-reliance

Drdo

DRDO has much to answer for its poor performance

2 Comments
India has been unable to increase its self-reliance capability despite taking several steps.

By Dinesh Kumar | Chandigarh | 21 January, 2018 – Sunday Gaurdian
On paper the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) comes across as formidable. It is currently engaged in about 70 projects that include making almost every major conventional weapon system and platform that major military powers are already manufacturing. From rifles and machine guns to tanks, fighter aircraft, airborne warning and control system, aircraft carrier and a wide array of missiles—surface-to-air, surface-to-surface and sub surface. In reality, the DRDO has much to answer for its performance.

The DRDO, entrusted with developing weapon systems for India’s defence requirement, is critical for ensuring a high degree of self-reliance. Its huge establishment comprises a partnership with over 40 academic institutions, 15 national science and technology agencies, 50 public sector undertakings including the nine defence public sector units, the 40 ordnance factories and the over 250 private sector industries. By 2008, an estimated 1,500 small and medium enterprises were engaged in supplying about 20% to 25% of defence components to defence firms.

Notwithstanding, however, India’s self-reliance continues to hover at 30% to 35% despite a series of measures taken by the government that has resulted in India continuing to remain overly import dependent for its defence requirements. India has been unable to increase its self-reliance capability from the current 30% to 35% despite a series of measures it has taken in the last two-and-a-half decades in particular. Much of even the existing self-reliance capability is based on licence manufacture and transfer of technology by foreign state-owned or private companies. What is more, the government itself has expressed doubts about the country’s capability to even develop core technologies in reports prepared by the parliamentary standing committee on defence.

The harsh reality is that India’s state-owned defence industry has been unable to even develop a rifle, let alone a tank or an aircraft engine. The DRDO has consistently been shifting the timeline for all projects, ranging from rifles to aircraft. Furthermore, the DRDO has been unable to successfully complete a single major project except for a few missile systems and the nuclear powered submarine, although the latter has several shortcomings in capability. The procurement process continues to be time consuming and the private industry remains mired in bureaucratic processes. Most of the private industry’s involvement currently is low scale and focused on making sub systems. It is yet to graduate to making complete weapon systems or highly sophisticated technologies as is the case with major defence companies in the US and Europe.

India’s mission to increase self-dependency for defence equipment to 70% remains a dream. In 1992, following the breakup of the Soviet Union, which had been India’s main source of weapons supply, catering to 70% of the country’s defence requirements, a defence ministry “Self Reliance Review Committee” conceived “a ten-year plan for Self-Reliance in Defence Systems”, which, starting from 1995, was aimed at increasing India’s self-reliance index to 70% by 2005. The defence ministry has now shifted its deadline to attain about 70% self-reliance by over two decades to 2027. But as of now, this seems unlikely in the next ten years.

Efforts of successive governments have failed despite two unprecedented decisions that were specifically aimed at facilitating the self-reliance process—(a) opening of the military-industrial complex to Indian private sector participation up to hundred per cent, and (b) opening up to foreign direct investment (FDI) permissible up to 26%, which was subsequently increased to 49% in 2014 and 100% in 2016.

The present government’s latest emphasis on “Make in India” is undoubtedly noble, but seemingly idealistic. It remains to be seen whether “Make in India” will translate into “Made in India” or remain “Assemble in India”, without intellectual property rights and design control. Perhaps there is wisdom in the advice of David Gross, a Nobel Laureate in Physics, who during a visit to India in January 2016 advised that in order to “Make in India”, the country should focus on first “Discover in India”, followed immediately by “Invent in India”, before it embarks on “Make in India”. But this seems unlikely, considering India’s inflexible, irrational and outdated bureaucracy and the fact that India overall has been spending a paltry 0.9% of its GDP on research and development, compared to 2.1% by China, 2.7% by the United States and 4.4% by South Korea.

India’s record of producing and exporting weapon systems is extremely modest. For example, India’s defence exports averaged a meagre US$88 million a year between 2006-07 and 2008-09, which marginally rose to $174 million in 2013-14 and $330 million in 2016. At a cursory level, the list of countries that have been importing Indian defence equipment is impressive, as it also includes the United States, United Kingdom and Russia. But a study of the equipment reveals that it is very rudimentary—flight control panels, forging equipment and electronic assemblies to the US, transmitting tubes to the UK and, to Russia, some spares and services for the Russian origin MiG-29 and Sukhoi-30 fighter aircraft. None of these are critical technologies or anywhere close to a complete weapon system or a weapon platform.

In contrast, even while China is a major importer of defence hardware, it is at the same time also self-sufficient in certain key military technologies along with being a major weapons exporter. It was the fifth largest exporter of defence equipment to developing countries between 2000 and 2007, the third largest global supplier between 2010 and 2014 following an arms export increase by 143% and ranked fourth between 2008 and 2015 in arms transfer agreements with developing nations. China’s defence exports to developing countries averaged over $3 billion annually between 2011 and 2014, more specifically $2.5 billion in 2007, $2.2 billion in 2008, $3 billion in 2009, $1.9 billion in 2010, $3.2 billion in 2011, $3.4 billion in 2012, $4.2 billion in 2013 and $3.2 billion in 2014 and $ 6 billion in 2015.

India’s state-owned military industrial complex is characterised by flaws at several levels. Internal criticism against the military-industrial complex range from the way the DRDO is conceptualised and structured, its tendency to over reach, technological limitations and incapability; coordination problems with, and changing specifications by, the users, the myriad responsibilities of the head of the DRDO, the continuing limited involvement of the private sector and the predominant role of generalist bureaucrats with no expertise in defence. Moreover, the bureaucratisation of Indian science has created a scientific-work environment with features comprising caution, rules, reviews, screenings, scrutinies, committees, controls, centralisation, delays, doubts, indecision, inaction, suspicion, friction, and less communication.

Until India increases its self-dependence for its defence requirements, India’s import bill is only expected to rise, making it a foreign-made Indian armed force. But such overdependence has come at a high price for the country and the armed forces, which for the last two-and-a-half decades has been battling depleting force levels and antiquity of weapon systems.

The author is a defence analyst

Drdo

‘Internal politics’ forces DRDO scientist to quit

3 Comments

By Pradip R Sagar | Published: 08th October 2017
NEW DELHI: With a dream to work for his country after spending a successful stint overseas, Dr Gausal Ahmed Khan applied for the post of senior scientist in the country’s premier defence research institute—DRDO—in 2009. Eight years down the line, Khan’s dreams were shattered when he was forced to resign in September owing to ‘internal politics’.
Khan, a physiologist, worked on a project to reduce the acclimatisation time of Indian Army personnel stationed at high altitude locations like Siachen. He has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi exposing nepotism, politics, and corruption prevailing in the DRDO. “Unfortunately my scientific temperament and hard work proved to be a disqualification in one of the country’s most reputed organisations—DRDO,” Khan wrote to the PM.

Dr Gausal Khan

“Bereaved, my broken and humiliated conscience prompted me to write to you and apprise you of the prevalent politics, corruption, and other work conditions in DRDO. I am writing with a hope that in future work condition in DRDO may improve and will prevent scientists from leaving the organisation,” he added.

While disclosing how he was involved in litigation after not given credit for his work, he said, “I spent the last three years in the organisation defending myself in unwanted litigations imposed on me by higher officials due to their politics, personal vengeance, and family lineage.”

Khan got some relief when he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against a disciplinary case imposed on him. The Tribunal in its order stated: “He has been conferred with ‘developing world scientist award’ at international level for his research of unique nature.

Assuming that there are some lapses on the applicant (scientist), the disciplinary authority should have taken a lenient view on account of the excellent scientific research by him which brought laurels not only individually for him but to the country as whole. However, the respondent (DRDO authorities) has not given due credit for his research in the scientific field. This depicts sorry state of affairs. Instead of appreciating his research work, he has been treated shabbily and awarded punishment in gross violation of law”.

When contacted Khan, who is leaving for the US, said, “I came with a vision and a dream. My working conditions forced me to leave. But before leaving, I wanted to apprise the top leaders of the poor work atmosphere. PM talks about self-reliance in defence, but we cannot achieve it unless we weed out corruption and internal politics.”

Drdo

Incurring the DRDO’s rath

11 Comments

It should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO feels proud to pass on.
25-11-2014
SHIV AROOR @shivaroor

I love this story. Everything about it numbs the brain. What I love best about it is that nobody could have made this up: An Indian military laboratory tucked away in a leafy Pune neighbourhood, tasked with building combat support vehicles, has built and supplied a gleaming battery-powered rath to the grateful Alandi Temple nearby. Correct. A chariot. For a temple. You see what I mean? Can’t make this stuff up.

Details sometimes kill a great story. In this case, they really crank up the W-T-F value.

The story emerged on the front pages of the New Indian Express which reported that the rath was built at a cost of Rs five crore and “donated” to the temple. The laboratory reportedly explained that the work was done as “seva” and that a scientist who apparently blew the whistle on what he felt was a totally improper use of public money and laboratory resources, was shunted and buried in a lower profile role in Nashik. The clincher now, the NIE report says, is that the Bombay High Court has stepped in and ordered the DRDO and MoD to explain what this rath business is all about. I know nothing beyond what’s been reported, so I decided to poke around. When I called a DRDO spokesperson asking him what the fuss was about, he fobbed me off. “It was done as seva. What is wrong if some military research helps some civilian cause also?” he asked. Well, plenty, I thought, but decided to sit on it. Let’s see just how farcical this can get. Other than a little hilarity and outrage on Twitter, the story hasn’t turned too many people on. That may change if the DRDO decides to officially comment.

First off, only an idiot would hope to find any justification at all for a public-funded combat vehicle research lab spending any resources (money, man-hours that could be better spent, materials, electricity) on a rath. Second, excuses like “seva” etc don’t hold. If the rath project eats into laboratory time or resources even slightly, it’s unacceptable. Period. Three, inappropriate diversions of this kind are an insult to the hundreds of DRDO scientists actually doing stellar, quality military research, even at the same laboratory. Indulgences of this kind hurt the reputations of scientists who have to work harder just to make up for the incompetence, laziness and vacuous sahib culture of their colleagues. Finally (and this is my favourite reason) it should disturb us all gravely that a motorised battery-powered chariot is the level of “technology” the DRDO is dabbling with and feels proud to pass on. As someone on Twitter pointed out to me, a small group of engineering kids could have built the thing in two months or less. (Less. Definitely less. Have you seen the stuff engineering students make these days?)

The Bombay High Court has better things to do than intervene in preposterous issues of this kind, but I for one would love to know how this one plays out, especially since the DRDO chief himself has been asked to explain. The DRDO chief is a good man, a strong missile scientist, who I hope will send out the right message. Because for far too long, the DRDO has gotten away never having to explain itself, always shielding itself with a pretend-patriotic forcefield, crying foul at the slightest criticism and accusing its detractors of being anti-nationals.

“Not just high-altitude chikki”. That was the title of the final column I wrote for the Indian Express before I left in 2007. The column welcomed a rare formal awakening within the government about the need to completely overhaul and reinvent India’s doddering, plagued and villified Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO). The government’s decision to find ways to kick the DRDO into a shape was, if not directly a result of, at least catalysed by a relentless eight-part series that the Express had frontpaged just days earlier, carefully picking apart the breathtaking incompetence and sense of entitlement that had allowed the DRDO to balloon into a nightmarishly out-of-control and wasteful organisation. The title of my parting column was a reference to the mind-boggling products the DRDO found (sigh, and still finds) the need to expend its energies on, instead of focusing on giving India its basic weapons. (The DRDO’s Defence Food Research Laboratory in Mysore actually researches, among other things, stabilised chikki and cashewnut burfi for troops at high altitude). DRDO chief at the time M Natarajan had written an letter to all employees asking them not to be affected by the “malicious news columns” that seek “distract us from our goal of self-reliance”.

Comment Writing about DRDO for almost exactly ten years now, the one thing I’ve noticed is that hilarity about its misadventures always diffuses into anger. The truth is, the organisation has nobody but itself to blame. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Modi chastised the DRDO at a public event, informing it that the world wouldn’t wait for it, and that delays in crucial weapons projects was unacceptable. The DRDO has enjoyed “friendly” defence ministries in the past, notably under AK Antony. Modi has signalled that the time for fun and games is over. The message is simple: That’s public money you’re using. Soldiers need the stuff you make. You don’t have a moment or a rupee to waste. Get your shit together. Now.