Tag Archives: without

Drdo

DRDO spending crores, but no positive outcome

2 Comments

http://bit.ly/TymtzY 

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/drdo-spending-crores-but-no-positive-outcome/282007-3.html

Bhupendra Chaubey, CNN-IBN

New Delhi: The Defence Research and Development organisation, country’s premier body for development of defence related technology, has allegedly spent crores of rupees in the name of expenditure on technology, but there has been no positive outcome.
A top secret audit of DRDO ordered by Defence Minister AK Antony has revealed that there is virtual lack of transparency in decision making mechanism in the organisation, which was created to look after country’s defence needs. With a budget of over Rs 10,000 crore DRDO has enjoyed full mandate from successive governments for over six decades.
The audit accessed by CNN-IBN reveals that financial sanctions are being split so that they don’t have to go to higher authorities. Programme for development of main battle tank Arjun was sanctioned at Rs 69.99 crore. However, the entire programme was split into smaller sub-heads so that higher ups within the system could be avoided.
The fact that projects under DRDO have been delayed extensively is well known. Now the report also raises questions about how the DRDO is taking decisions.
Product support and product improvement of NAG weapon system was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 28.35 crore, despite the fact that the Cabinet Committee on Security approved similar programme was still in the pipeline.
The cost of UAV and aerostat was brought down just to ensure that no higher authority could question the financial approval given.
Several split sanctions were also issued for renovation of DRDO Bhawan while unauthorised sanction of Rs 49.15 crore to develop vehicle testing facility from public accounts mainly for civilian use was also granted.
The report further says that a project for development of satellite signal monitoring was sanctioned at a cost of Rs 29.96 crore without any formal requirement from the defence services. While the project was still on, a sanction of Rs 24.5 crore was given for procurement of a similar technology.
There have been several arbitrary costing of products under garb of development like sanction of Rs 14.5 crore for development of four stroke cylinder engine technology. But the parties chosen by the DRDO didn’t have adequate research capabilities. The report goes on to say that the DRDO has facilitated entry of foreign companies in certain areas and the projects being undertaken are not for development but for the entry of foreign vendors.
The report says that Dr VK Saraswat gave an improper approval for a grant of Rs 2.8 crore to a society which he heads himself. Further scrutiny even revealed that the body which got the aid didn’t have expert manpower.
Several irregularities have also been detected in appointment of chairpersons of different organisations with huge amounts being spent on it.
However, the defence minister has refused to react to these findings.
On the other hand the DRDO has refuted the allegations.
“DRDO strongly refutes observations made in the report and is in the process of compiling its responses despite the fact that the findings of audit already stand vitiated. Since laid down procedure was not followed and the report was issued without authorisation, the matter is under examination and correspondence with the concerned. All laid down procedures are being followed by DRDO in a transparent manner and interests of the State are the sole consideration during the process of decision making,” said DRDO Director Ravi Gupta.
Now through this report questions are being raised about how DRDO is taking decisions.

Drdo

Deccan Herald | A costly intelligence asset of no use now

1 Comment

Deccan Herald

A costly intelligence asset of no use now

Chandan Nandy, Bangalore, Mar 21, 2012, DHNS:

Rs 30-cr project scrapped after technical panel found flaws in encryption system

The use of Chinese processors in an encryption system for ground mobile satellite communication terminals for use by the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) was considered a breach of security for which the project was scrapped on the directions of the National Security Council (NSC).

Following strong objections by the NSC, the “Sampark” network was shot down and is not being used by the NTRO, leading to the loss of Rs 30 crore (including capital and recurring expenditure) that was spent on purchasing the asset.

The wasteful expenditure incurred as a result of non-use of the system has come under the scanner of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) which is learnt to have classified it as among several other “suspect” NTRO acquisitions and procurements between 2007 and 2010. The CAG undertook a massive special audit of the NTRO after the head of the communications intelligence organisation blew with the whistle on several questionable procurements and other irregularities.

The audit findings have been submitted to the Supreme Court in a sealed envelope.

In late 2009, the NSC was apprised by the Scientific Analysis Group (SAG) within the Defence Research and Development Organisation that several ground mobile SATCOM terminals, which the NTRO had procured from the Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) for positioning in various parts of the country for communication “during operations”, contained Chinese processors.

The sensitive issue came to the notice of the NSC when the Indian Air Force, which procured the same encryption system from BEL the same year, sought to have it cleared by the SAG. On further examination, it was found by SAG scientists that the encryption system contained Chinese processors which, it was suspected, could potentially compromise all special operations within the country.

An encryption system is an essential feature in SATCOM terminals as they help in protecting transmission of and securing sensitive communication which could otherwise be intercepted. The NTRO procured “bulk encryption systems” in early 2009 as part of a project that was called “Sampark”.

According to sources in the country’s security establishment, senior NTRO officials procured the systems, worth Rs 30 crore, without taking due clearance from the SAG which is the government’s sole certifying authority for such hi-tech and sensitive equipment which the security agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, use for operations.

The encryption system was used by the NTRO for at least six months during which time intelligence information was transmitted without clearance from the authorities concerned.

Drdo

Vision 2020

Leave a comment

India became a nuclear state with underground explosion on 18th May 1974, known as Pokhran-I (Smiling Buddha). The economic condition then did not permit this misadventure as the fallout was international sanction.

Sh. Atal Bihari Bajpai, then opposition leader expressed his view in the parliament “A hunter went for hunting the lion in the deep & dense forest on a bullock cart, when the lion appeared and roared the hunter in hurry asked his subordinate to load the gun, the helping hand said sorry sir, in a hurry we forgot to bring the gun but license is with us. The hunter requested the lion please give me some time to bring the loaded gun and then I assure you a decisive fight”

What Sh Bajpai said then was proved during KARGIL WAR 1999, the active defence asked for latest arsenal from DRDO and in return DRDO showed them the license.

DRDO bosses show the licenses instead the loaded gun (Product) and when the user demand they always seek more time. This mockery will continue until a firm accountability is implemented and user active participation in project/ program is made mandatory.

User requirements if not met in time then concerned officers who participated in developmental process should be made accountable.

Until these steps are taken, DRDO will only show the licenses of doing research even if country faces next KARGIL like scenario.

DRDO needs similar determination in development projects/programs like the US & Russia. When Americans developed the mother of bomb GBP-43/B with blast yield 11 Ton in 2003, then in 2007 Russia produced Father of Bomb (ATBIP) with blast yield 44 Ton. And now US produced MOP (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) which penetrate 60 feet thick concrete wall bunker and will reach the target with satellite guidance.

SA to RM is not only to enjoy the personal gym which was constructed and procured at Development enclave under project funds but he is also supposed to accelerate the developmental efforts in frontline technologies having 20 years life.

The constitutional limitation of SA to RM is such that he is not able to take timely decision/action to save the image of DRDO like Sh T Mohan Rao, Director, GTRE’s massage parlour episode; he has overlooked GTRE lab which is running without suitable and committed head since May 11, 2011. Similarly like Dr Arun Kumar, DOP, lots of cases/complaints pending against him with documentary evidences right from Defence Minister, CVC, Women Cell, Court etc but SA to RM does not bother about the image of DRDO.

This type of corrupt team of DRDO are becoming role model for the young scientists and in the process sincere scientists leaving DRDO.

The decision made for extension of service is without any analysis. The incompetency is growing, the deserving are the sufferers, the team lead by aspiring seniors stop working and result no output is poor tax payer of the country is ultimate looser.

The PMO, the Finance Minister is not able to find the hole in their GDP. In last 20 years technology import by DRDO has bypass all the procurement policy. For DRDO Directors “money is flowing”. The government has show leniency and the technology being imported is on its peak. 90% of the sanction budget for DRDO is being spent on 15 years old abandon technology of developed nations.

The experts from DRDO justify the procurement as the supplier agents offers them massage parlour to hefty commissions, good food, spa and stay in a 5 stars for a brief period.

The obsolete technology are imported as custom built item and 5 to 10 times higher cost and paid in Indian currency. The global tenders placed two to three times until the desired supplier decides the percentage of commission with journey to country from where technology is being imported. Further in the name of AMC signed MOU to ensure their periodical personal inputs and this periodical revenue is the sole cause of extension in service.

With this attitude of DRDO top brasses and MoD’s inability to handle the situation can we imagine to ever see the Vision – 2020? It is a big question?

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

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

Leave a comment

SC asks for a copy of CAG report on NTRO scam

TNN | Jan 17, 2012, 12.47AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday asked for a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report pointing out alleged irregularities in the purchase of intelligence equipment byNational Technical Research Organisation(NTRO), which was set up in 2004 to provide critical data relating to threats to the nation.

Solicitor general R F Nariman assured a bench of Justices H L Dattu and C K Prasad that the government had already initiated action against erring officials on the basis of the CAG report but petitioner V K Mittal’s counsel Jayant Bhushan wondered why the Centre was shy of bringing the alleged irregularities into the open by placing the report in Parliament.

The bench asked Nariman to produce the CAG report on NTRO scam in a sealed cover by March 19. This is the second time within a year that the apex court has asked for a CAG report, the first being on the irregularities in the allotment of 2G spectrum and licences during A Raja’s tenure as telecom minister.

Nariman was belligerent in trashing Mittal’s PIL, not only accusing the latter of attempting to serve a personal interest but also alleging that his correspondence with the authorities revealing top secret projects with their location could help countries inimical to India.

Bhushan countered Nariman by alleging that the government was deliberately keeping the matter under wraps in the name of security to shield the culprits. But the bench said, “It is not a case where the government has put the issue in cold storage but promised that it was being looked into. We will not pass an order but request the SG to produce the CAG report in a sealed cover on March 19.”

Mittal had alleged that a major portion of the Rs 450 crore NTRO scam pertained to purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from an Israeli firm allegedly at a very high price without the mandatory approval of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).

NTRO, which functions under the Prime Minister’s Office, has been entrusted with the task of missile monitoring, satellite and airborne imagery, cyber patrolling and security, cyber offensive operations and communication support systems including cryptology.

It was on the complaint of Mittal, a former joint director in the government of India who had also served in NTRO, that the PMO had ordered a probe into the scam and later, CAG was asked to look into the organisation’s accounts. Nariman alleged that Mittal wanted to head the NTRO and filed the PIL when he did not succeed.

During the last hearing, Bhushan had alleged that Delhi High Court had dismissed Mittal’s writ petition on April 6, 2011 after the Centre filed a probe status report in sealed cover assuring prompt action against the guilty officials. However, no action was taken till date, he claimed.

Mittal’s petition stated that the independent body answerable only to the national security adviser was allotted approximately Rs 8,000 crore since 2005, but there was no accounting of the spending.

Drdo

Chavan writes to Antony, seeks his intervention

1 Comment

Chavan writes to Antony, seeks his intervention

By Aakriti Vasudeva  Posted: Sat Jan 07 2012, 01:33 hrs Mumbai: Indian Express

Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan has sought the intervention of Defence Minister A K Antony in the issue of disposing toxic waste from the erstwhile Union Carbide factory in Bhopal at the incinerator facility of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) in Nagpur. Nearly 346 tonnes of toxic waste has been lying at the plant since the 1984 gas tragedy.

Chavan said in his letter to Antony that the DRDO filed an affidavit in the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the toxic waste could be processed at its Nagpur facility “without addressing any of the environmental concerns or taking into account the technical capacity of the plant.” He said, “It is a matter of grave concern that neither the state government nor the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, both important stakeholders, had been consulted in this matter.”

The state government has also represented against the DRDO’s submission. The court had, on December 21, taken cognisance of the pollution control board’s objections of a non-functional incinerator and non-compliance of inter-state hazardous waste transport rules and turned down the Centre’s plea to conduct a trial run of burning waste at the DRDO facility. However, it is only a temporary relief as the Centre can file pleas on behalf of the DRDO against the board’s objections. The next court hearing is on January 17.

“I seek your personal intervention in the matter to ensure that the DRDO does not take any steps in contravention of the existing laws and regulations. I also seek your assistance to review this decision as it was taken without following the process of consultation with important stakeholders in the state and is in violation of the existing environmental laws and regulations,” Chavan wrote to Antony.

The Chief Minister took up the issue following a request from Vilas Muttemwar, the Congress MP from Nagpur.

It was on July 12, 2011, that the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed disposal of the toxic waste from the Union Carbide factory at the Nagpur facility on a 2004 public interest litigation seeking a directive to make Dow Chemicals clean up the toxic waste.

Drdo

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’ – Outlook BY SUNDEEP DOUGAL ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

Leave a comment

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=2673

SUNDEEP DOUGAL

‘Death Of The Internet As We Know It’

In their various pronouncements since the censorship controversy broke, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Sachin Pilot, the minister and minister of state respectively in the ministry of communications and information technology, have been vocally insisting that the government does not want to resort to censorship and believes in the constitutional right of free speech.

These pieties were once again repeated today by the two ministers after meeting representatives of social media companies, including Google, Facebook and Twitter, for what is now being spun as an “open dialogue to empower individuals and citizens” while reliable sources also reveal that their ministry “is mulling forming an inter-ministerial group to work out a mechanism to monitor and avoid uploading of any defamatory material on Internet.”

At the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) blog, Pranesh Prakash points to the government’s patent insincerity because this sudden talk of ‘transparency’ and ‘dialogue’ came only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies.

He also underlines the clandestine manner in which the government wants Internet companies to ‘self-regulate’ user-uploaded content. One of the reasons for this arm-twisting is to prevent the sort of embarrassment caused by the Google Transparency Report which had demolished the government claims of wanting to curb “hate speech” or that affecting “religious sensitivities” as it tabulated that out that as many as 255 (71%) of the 358 complaints made to Google in the last six months, were about ‘government criticism’ and only 8, or 2.23% were about “hate speech”.

With self-censorship, there would be no need for these requests for removal in the first place, nor will sites have to be blocked officially using the IT Act.

In the article we carried yesterday, Who Plays Judge, Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama provided a reasonable hypothesis about Mr Kapil Sibal’s recent actions:

one of my fears is that something as draconian as pre-censorship may actually be used to make the IT Rules look justifiable, like something of a rollback. People will be furious about suggestions to pre-censor the web, but in comparison, perhaps be willing to accept arbitrary and opaque post-censorship, which is what the the IT Rules allow. The IT Rules need to be amended as well.

The CIS blog by Pranesh Prakash once again underlines what is wrong with these rules:

These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is ‘disparaging’, ‘relating to… gambling’, ‘harm minors in any way’, to which the user ‘does not have rights’.  When was the last time you checked wither you had ‘rights’ to a joke before forwarding it?  Did you share a Twitter message containing the term “#IdiotKapilSibal”, as thousands of people did a few days ago?  Well, that is ‘disparaging’, and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content.  The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online.  As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse.  Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

CIs’s draft report on the Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011 looks at these rules critically. For the purposes of this study, takedown notices were sent to a sample comprising of 7 intermediaries and their response to the notices was documented.

The results of the paper clearly demonstrate that the Rules indeed have a chilling effect on free expression. Specifically, the Rules create uncertainty in the criteria and procedure for administering the takedown thereby inducing the intermediary to err on the side of caution and over-comply with takedown notices to suppress legitimate expressions. Additionally, the Rules do not establish sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the takedown process to suppress legitimate expressions.

Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them. From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression. Even if such intermediary has sufficient legal competence, it has a tendency to prioritise the allocation of legal resources according to its perceived importance of the expressions.

Further, if such subjective determination is required to be done in a limited timeframe and in the absence of adequate facts and circumstances, the intermediary mechanically complies (without application of mind) with the takedown notice.

The results also demonstrate that the Rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore all elements of natural justice. The third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is no recourse for the third party provider of information to have the removed information restored or put back if it does come to his knowledge. The intermediary is under no obligation to provide a reasoned decision for rejecting or accepting a takedown notice. There is also no requirement for disclosure or transparency in the takedown process.

These Rules and all this recent talk of ‘self-regulation’ are of a piece with the government’s overall paranoia of the power of the internet and various whistleblower websites that are coming up (eg, consider the recent case involvingcorruptionindrdo.com). Because there are constitutional safe-guards against censorship, surreptitious measures are being adopted in a number of ways. As Prakash points out:

Mr. Sibal’s latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright.  The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious.  The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn’t remove the content that has been complained about.  The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed.  Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content.  The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any ‘due process’ or fair procedure.  Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

POSTED BY SUNDEEP ON DEC 15, 2011 AT 22:55 IST

 

Drdo

‘DRDO must avoid delays in defence projects’

Leave a comment

TNN Apr 12, 2008, 03.09am IST

NEW DELHI: Indicating that the Defence Research and Development Organization was in for a major revamp, defence minister A K Antony on Friday said cost and time overruns would no longer do in crucial defence projects.

“We are in the process of introducing several innovations to streamline and make more effective the entire defence product development and procurement process,” said Antony, while addressing the 32nd DRDO conference here.

“On the anvil are amendments to our procurement procedures, developing a healthy interface with the public and private industry through offsets and bringing about organizational improvements in DRDO,” he added.

This assumes significance in the backdrop of the recent report by the P Rama Rao committee, which has called for a drastic overhaul of DRDO to ensure it can supply cutting-edge weapon systems to armed forces without the prevailing huge time and cost overruns, as reported by TOI earlier.

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

SFCIANS, SF COMPLEX, DRDO, JAGDALPUR – DOP, DRDO IS DEAF & DUMB

2 Comments

13th September 2011

SFCIANS, SF COMPLEX, DRDO, JAGDALPUR – DOP, DRDO IS DEAF & DUMB

The reply of my RTI related to SFCian issue was denied by DRDO Hqrs under the shelter of Schedule- II of RTI Act 2005.

As per section 19 of RTI Act 2005 I have appealed to DRDO Hqrs appellate authority and as you very well know that he is deaf & dumb for humanity issues and only act fast on personal issues  in which he has some personal interest. So reply is known but we will take this issue up to supreme authorities.

Hope for best……………………

My RTI Request –

To                                                                                                      19 September 2011                                                 
CPIO & Addl Director, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the  Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect SF Complex, JAGDALPUR

1)            The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?

2)            Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.

3)            Copy of   D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.

4)            The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011

5)            The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.

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.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.

Enclosed- Rs 10 Postal order  90E611227

Regards,

 

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

CPIO, DRDO’s Denial

CPIO, DRDO’s Denial

First Appeal to Appellate Authority of DRDO  12th September 2011

 The Right to Information Act, 2005

First Appeal for Central Govt.

I.D. No_________ Date: _________ [For office use]

To                                                                                                                   

Dr Arun Kumar
OS & Director, Directorate of Personal
Room No.-217, DRDO Bhawan , Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105

Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decision/no decision of Central Public Information Officer, I hereby file this appeal for your kind decision.

The reply of CPIO, DRDO, is completely confusing, misleading, incorrect, unjustified and willful not give any information, does not following the spirit of RTI Act 2005.

The information asked about SF Complex Jagdalpur is not come any norms of secrecy. I am not asking about any work or project information of SF Jagdalpur Unit.
1. Details of appellant
1.1       Full Name:                  Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
1.2.      Full Address:               21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
1.3       Phone/Cell No.            0135-2787750 / 919411114879
1.4       Email ID:                     prabhu@dandriyal.com

2. Details of CPIO:
2.1 Name/Designation:           Dr A K Tyagi, CPIO, Head RTI Cell, Scientist ‘F’
2.2 Full Address :                    Room No 314 A, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi -110105
2.3 Name of Public Authority: DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India

3. Details of RTI application to CPIO:
Date of Application  : 19th July  2011
Mailed on:   19th July  2011
by  speed post

4. Particulars of payment of filing fee:
Paid Rs.10/- by   Postal Order No. 90E 611227

5. Details of information sought:

1)      The official address of SF Complex (one of the labs/Establishment of DRDO), JAGDALPUR?

2)       Copy of D O part order or any other order regarding the place of reporting duty at Plant Girola Village which is 40 Kms away from Jagdalpur.

3)            Copy of   D O part order any other order in which the employees posted at SF complex

first they report to duty at SF Complex then report for duty at Girola Plant Site.

4)      The copies of movement order of transports which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from 1/7/2011 to 15/07/2011

5)    The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and human right not come under schedule -II – why because it is noticed that without proper movement orders and without proper maintained vehicles the employees of SF complex are going daily at Girola plant. Earlier in one accident case it is heard that the movement order was made by SF Complex administration in back date to give financial benefits to the deceased family.

6. Particulars of Decision of CPIO:

Date of CPIO’s  Decision:9th August 2011

Date of receipt of decision by the appellant:12th August 2011

7. Brief facts of the case: 

The official address of SF Complex is “SF COMPLEX, AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING, JAGDALPUR-494001”. SFC Employees are given appointment letters with above address as reporting place. But, all are forced to report at the above address as well as at its work centre located at Girola village, Bakawand block, Bastar district. This location is completely out of 40 Kms away from municipality (Jagdalpur) of the official address.

As per rule they should report at the place of posting as per the appointment letter. But it is not so. Is it (forcing to report at other place) not violation of an employee’s right to report at the posting place? The management says that reporting place is at Girola and same time management says Airport terminal building, Jagdalpur. It is clear cut case of harassment of employees of SF Complex.

One example: one of the scientists, named Shri Kushal Sahoo, was killed in an accident near Bakawand last year while returning from the Girola site to Jagdalpur in Bolero vehicle. Bakawand police station filed FIR and accident report (can refer the same with the police station). When settling the case the DRDO HQs asked the official movement order to consider it as death while performing duty. As the movement order was not issued actually for him and few more travelling in the same vehicle they were also injured, management of SF Complex made a statement of case stating that “Kusahl Sahoo is travelling for the purpose of meeting at Airport Terminal Building, Jagdalpur office”.

If the travelling from Jagdalpur to Girola and back is official and as per the rule and the rule position should be clear for all for management, employees and the general public. After this accident all the staff of SF Complex Jagdalpur took a decision and reported at posting place only. This happened for two days and later management has interfered and threatened to them for report at Girola and told them if they will not report at Girola, will get termination letter.  Employees were forced to report at Girola. It is a violation of Human Right? Reporting at posting place is not correct? Then why appointment letters were given like that?  DRDO has to duty to provide them proper necessary papers as per rule position of Central Government.

The requested information is not come under 8(1) (a) and 24 (1) of the RTI Act at all because the information asked not in the nature of secrecy like The copy of fitness certificates of those vehicles which carries the employees daily to Girola plant site from SF Complex from competent authority. This the major concern of family and friends of employees of SF complex for their safety and well beings. For mere few thousand Rupees from contractors as bribe the Top DRDO officials playing with the life of SF Complex Employees.

The required information is fall under corruption and as well as violation human right and therefore in any means it is not come under schedule –II exemption of RTI Act 2005.

“RTI is a key instrument for imposing democratic values, accountability and transparency in our public administration,” Dr.Shah Faisal (IAS topper 2010 & RTI activist of J&K RTI Movement NGO) told Sakàl Times

8. Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
i)     To know the sensitiveness and work environment of DRDO
  ii)     To expose the corrupt practices prevailing in DRDO

9. Any other information in support of appeal: 
10. Prayer/relief sought for: 

It is requested that please provide me correct information as per request of my RTI dated 19th   July 2011   in larger public interest, because it is directly related to corruption and violation of Human rights.
11. Enclosures: 

i)              My RTI request dated  19th July 2011   
ii)              Denial of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs dated 09 August 2011
 
12. Declaration:

I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with any information commission nor is pending with any Court or tribunal or authority.

Regards

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