India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52582
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby ramana » 15 Jan 2015 03:47

AV delay reasons could be the straw.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 04:01

chaanakya wrote:Principled Stand that No Contract Employee should serve as DG DRDO or Secy to GOI

"principled stands" are never in vacuum and are absolute. By definition, only those policies that help the nation are principled stands. Otherwise what is the worth of these "principle stands"?

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 04:03

chaanakya wrote:"Morale of Employee " is very specious argument.

Just by calling specious doesn't make it so. I request that you expand on that. Otherwise, I am convinced that it is not so.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 04:24

johneeG wrote:I think this is a very good policy and should be pursued vigorously in all institutions. When its time to go, its time to go. Old generation should not be allowed to keep the next generation waiting.

Two points to keep in mind -

1. This is not sports or athletics where the muscles count. Rather not the usual visible muscles count. It is basically one muscle which is grey in color. Sure, in Tennis or Cricket the dictum of "when it is time to ..." is applicable.

2. Next generation should not allow the older generation to keep them waiting. This jousting is more mental unlike the armour wearing lance toting crusading knights used to perform in 11th century.

Most 35 year olds in IT are paper pushers. They would code 0 I repeat 0 number of lines after they get into project management etc.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2015 04:37

being a slacker has no age attribution.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16022
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SwamyG » 15 Jan 2015 05:32

Foreign hand? 26th January dignitary visit should be watched closely. Arms trade is ugly and a lot is at stake.

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 930
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby nandakumar » 15 Jan 2015 08:04

The appointments committee of the cabinet consists of the PM, Home Minister and the minister in charge of the appointment, in this case the defence minister. In the past the concerned minister initiates a file on appointment (or termination, as the case may be) and then it goes to the home minister and finally to the PM. But the Modi Government made a slight change. It retained the composition of the committee. But made a slight but significant change. It altered the sequence of approval. Now files will originate at the PMO and then go to the home minister and then the concerned minister. Now, technically the home minister and the concerned minister may disagree with the decision of the PM. But everyone would agree that this rarely happens. The PM after all, retains the right to constitute the Cabinet so the home minister or the concerned minister would go along. In any case, this wasn't much of an issue in the Nehru, Indira Gandhi's time. But post 1991, the primacy of the PM had been eroded which reached its nadir in the Manmohan Singh's regime. Modi with the change in the sequence of file movement has restored the primacy of the PM. Which is why I suspect in the AC episode something must have been triggered which prompted Modi to take the decision on removal of AC. We dont as yet know what that is. But therafter it was a formality and the Defence Minister had to come up with some explanation. Thus was born the 'young blood ' explanation.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19301
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chetak » 15 Jan 2015 08:40

NAK Browne's controversial appointment as ambassador to canada by the UPA , which the BJP was not happy with but had to approve may well have roots in this ......

How a 'Made in India' project was scuttled

January 07, 2015 11:43 IST

Instead of the Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40, which Hindustan Aeronautics Limited could build, export, overhaul, upgrade and even modify into a light-attack aircraft, powerful lobbies have promoted a Swiss trainer -- the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II. Ajai Shukla reports.

Image
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 'Make in India' vision faces powerful opposition, including within the military, which sees greater benefit in importing costly foreign weaponry.

This is evident from the successful scuttling of a Hindustan Aeronautics Limited project for designing and building a basic trainer aircraft named the Hindustan Turbo Trainer -- 40 (HTT-40) for training rookie pilots of the Indian Air Force.

Instead of this aircraft, which HAL could build, export, overhaul, upgrade and even modify into a light-attack aircraft, powerful lobbies have promoted a Swiss trainer -- the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II.

Business Standard has learnt, and the IAF has confirmed, that the MoD has directed HAL to close the HTT-40 project.

Instead, HAL will build 106 PC-7 Mark II trainers in India.

In 2009, the defence ministry had ruled that the IAF's requirement of 181 trainers would be met through two simultaneous channels -- 75 aircraft will be bought from abroad while HAL designed and built 106 HTT-40 trainers in India.

Accordingly, the IAF contracted on May 24, 2012 with Pilatus for 75 PC-7 Mark II trainers for Swiss Francs 557 million (Rs 3,600 crore/Rs 36 billion). With that done, the IAF began a shrill campaign demanding 106 more Pilatus in place of the HTT-40.

Business Standard has identified a four-pronged campaign that promoted the Pilatus trainer, while blocking the HTT-40 programme.

This included a letter from a serving IAF chief to the defence minister that knowingly understated the cost of the Swiss trainer, to argue that the indigenous trainer is too expensive; a letter from a Bharatiya Janata Party member of Parliament to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner alleging corruption in selecting an engine for the HTT-40, delaying the engine purchase; another letter from a shadowy non-governmental organisation to the CVC, also alleging irregularities in HAL's engine selection and levelling charges against HAL's design chief; and repeated attempts by the IAF deputy chief, who sits on HAL's board, to choke off funding for the HTT-40.

CVC investigations have found no wrongdoing but the investigation has delayed HAL's purchase of an engine for the HTT-40. Such delays strengthens the IAF's case for buying more Pilatus.

Business Standard had earlier reported on the letter written by then IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne to then defence minister, A K Antony.

Browne's five-page letter argued for scuttling the HTT-40 and buying more Pilatus, falsely stating that the Pilatus costs only Rs 30 crore (Rs 300 million) per aircraft, significantly cheaper than the HTT-40.

In fact, due to the rupee's decline, the IAF was paying Pilatus almost Rs 40 crore (Rs 400 million) for each PC-7 Mark II trainer being delivered.

Browne also stated incorrectly that the Pilatus' cost would remain Rs 30 crore per aircraft till 2017.

In fact, the next 38 trainers will cost Swiss Francs 6.09 million (Rs 39.3 crore/Rs 393 million today) each under the 'options clause' of the contract.

The cost of the following 68 aircraft (adding up to 106 additional PC-7 Mark II) would be negotiated afresh and would almost certainly be higher, due to inflation.

The MoD ignored Browne's letter, being disinclined then to scupper an indigenous project.

However, with the IAF blocking funding for the HTT-40, HAL was forced to commit Rs 180 crore (Rs 1.8 billion) of company funds in July 2013.

In early 2014, that was upped to Rs 350 crore (Rs 3.5 billion), with three prototypes to be built for accelerated flight-testing.

With the HTT-40 on track, and racing towards its first flight next year, two corruption allegations mysteriously popped up, stalling the project.

Both alleged wrongdoing in HAL's selection of the Honeywell TPE 331-12B engine after an open tender, when the alternative supplier, Pratt & Whitney, refused to allow licensed manufacture in India.

With the first flight looming, Honeywell agreed to provide a 'Category B' engine -- a used engine with more than 80 per cent of its service life remaining.

The first complaint came in early November from the BJP MP from Jaunpur, Krishna Pratap Singh, who complained to the CVC about the engine selection and blamed HAL's design chief, T Suvarna Raju, who oversees the HTT-40 project. Investigation began and the MoD halted engine procurement.

Contacted by Business Standard, Krishna Pratap Singh claimed that he knew nothing about the HTT-40 or the issues involved.

"About three to four months ago, a sajjan (person of good character), who I don't remember now, came to me and said there was corruption. I only wrote that the matter be investigated, and any wrongdoing corrected," said Singh.

The second allegation came almost simultaneously from an NGO called Rashtriya Mukti Morcha. The RMM has neither expertise nor previous interest in aerospace. It has earlier filed petitions against Sonia Gandhi's right to hold Constitutional office, and in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case.

Contacted by Business Standard, RMM chief Ravindra Kumar acknowledges filing a complaint. He said details are in his files, but he repeatedly denied requests to visit his office to ascertain the basis for his complaint.

CVC investigations into the complaints unearthed no wrongdoing; It is not unusual for 'Category B' engines to be chosen for prototypes, while buying new engines for the production aircraft.

HAL had powered the intermediate jet trainer prototype with a 'Category B' Larzac engine, until new engines became available.

Even so, engine procurement was halted. Meanwhile the IAF repeatedly petitioned the MoD that Swiss trainers should be quickly bought since the HTT-40 would be late.

Meanwhile, the deputy chief of air staff, who sits on HAL's board, steadfastly opposed funding for the HTT-40.

When the board allocated Rs 180 crore in July 2013, the DCAS dissented in writing, something that the IAF now denies.

Image

The IAF has sought to associate the PC-7 Mark II with the 'Make in India' drive by seeking to build it in India to blueprints provided by Pilatus.

Yet that would essentially remain a foreign aircraft, with intellectual property, technology and licensing residing abroad.

In contrast, a 'Make' category project like the HTT-40 would involve far more expansive indigenisation -- including ground-up design and integration, test flying and certification and eventual manufacture.

In 2013, the IAF asked HAL to scrap the HTT-40 and instead build 106 PC-7 Mk II from technology transferred by Pilatus.

"However, in their own interest, HAL declined to participate in license manufacture of the PC-7 Mk II," the IAF told Business Standard.

Rebuffed by the HAL, but insistent on providing a veneer of indigenisation, Browne bizarrely declared on October 8, 2013, that the IAF's base repair depots, which maintain and overhaul aircraft and engines, could build the PC-7 Mark II.

The IAF's maintenance chief, Air Marshal P Kanakaraj, quickly contradicted him, while the MoD simply ignored the proposal.

Now, however, battered to a halt by groundless complaints and unable to buy an engine, HAL has buckled under the pressure.

Last month HAL Chairman R K Tyagi agreed to build the PC-7 Mark II, while developing the HTT-40 as an HAL project.

Now even that is seen as a threat.

At HAL's board meeting on December 20, P K Kataria, an MoD financial advisor, questioned why the HTT-40 project should continue, since HAL would be building the PC-7 Mark II.

Defence Minister Manohar Parriker will pronounce final sentence on the HTT-40, in the apex Defence Acquisition Council.

Asked when this would happen, he indicated that the die was not yet cast: "There are issues (relating to the Pilatus) that were raised and which have to be addressed. I think every query and every difficulty has to be properly addressed."

The MoD and HAL did not respond to a request for comments for this report.
Ajai Shukla

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby ravip » 15 Jan 2015 09:17

indranilroy wrote:Personal opinion: I don't think anybody can justify how this whole episode was handled. Albeit, except for those who believe that the `Modi govt. can not set a foot wrong', and hence try to fit causes to the effect.

It is difficult to believe that Parrikar was in the loop for the decision. His "I did this for better management" U-turn seems like an attempt to reign in the fiasco, which I think is the right thing to do now. Alas! The cat is out of the bag. He shouldn't have spoken the previous evening. He is a smart man. I am sure he will learn from this episode.

Actually, it smells like a fall-out between the PMO and the DRDO chief, and the PMO finally asserting who is boss. It may be a last-straw kind of situation, but the decision looks like a snap-reaction. Nobody knew that a replacement was being sought! Not even the DM!! That the (interim) replacement is just 3 years younger belies the official reason being parroted.

I really think the Modi govt's exceptional PR skills is still stuck in election mode. The CG episode, the ISRO chief episode and now this. There is this perennial hurry to showcase achievements. The CG's wonderful achievement was so badly mismanaged that it should be made into a case study! Why not take the time to carefully draft press releases and make the release only after ensuring that everything is in place? For example, wait for the CG ship to return, ask the experts to brainstorm on any adverse questions that might be asked, and then issue the shortest press-release required! Instead, a hurried and boisterous press release is published within hours of the operation. Inevitably, it was taken to the dogs by the media, which ultimately led to a national achievement (which it truly was at many levels) into something that can be possibly used against us! The DM had to say, "circumstantial evidences point to", "if you want, you can question the CG ship's crew", etc. etc. An internal investigation has to be launched!!!! :x The same goes for this episode! No matter how meritorious the decision was, couldn't they wait for an acknowledgement from the DM, the MoD spokesperson, and Dr. Chander before going public! And why on earth does such a letter have to be put up on any website at any time?!!!! :x

I say this as a well-wisher of the Modi-govt whom I would really like to continue for at least one more term. It is not doing itself any favours by giving fodder to the Congressis like this. It has lost a lot of well-wishers in the past two weeks. It is evident on this forum as well. Karan, Sagar, have always been strong Modi-supporters and Congress-haters!


Regarding the timing of CG incident report, we could not have delayed as Paki's would have played the victim card at Int'l forum claiming that we shot there boat and all the Rona dhona, and we would be caught on the wrong foot.

Regarding the AC incident, have to speculate two things,
1. Cabinet Committee on Appointments reviews things quarterly or on need basis, if we assume that it was a policy decision to infuse new blood then one should not have problem and obviously DM would have been asked for proposal for new names if not in this meeting but earlier to this cabinet meeting. So the DM might have sent names but was not aware the decision would be taken so soon. So how can one have problem if DM was not aware???

2. But the whole problem and this storm is because of termination of the contract not being communicated to AC, if it was to be communicated to AC in the mean time as it was to be in force only from 31st then uploading it on web was crime.

3. Now this hara kiri has been created by whosoevers negligence, the GOI or DM should have issued a simple statement that we regret what has happened and we hold scientists in high esteem above anyone in this country.

4. But the DM firefighting saying they need young persons at the helm was atrocious and one cannot excuse that. Such a statement would portray to common man that the current Chief was not up to the expectations or below average, questioning AC's 42 yrs of illustrious career. A sad story of IITian sacrificing his life for country where as he could have earned millions abroad. It happened with VKS as army chief and now this, its true that good people suffer.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 09:35

pandyan wrote:matrix saar - good series of posts!

Thanx. Hope that brings more clarity to a few.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 09:41

Ravip: Scientists in high esteem than any one? That, sire, is little too much, don't you think? Any case, my last post on this.

Ps: attribution corrected.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 15 Jan 2015 22:37, edited 1 time in total.

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 898
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Nitesh » 15 Jan 2015 10:03

This is interesting take, it seems end of road for any small arms of Indian design in the name of speeding things up

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/11907/ ... LdNCnvK3qp



The Indian Army has decided to junk the Future Infantry Soldier As a System (F-INSAS) program in favor of two separate projects.

The new program will have two components: one arming the modern infantry soldier with the best available assault rifle, carbines and personal equipment such as the helmet and bulletproof vests and the second component is the Battlefield Management Systems (BMS).

Observers say that the bifurcation has been done on account of the budgetary convenience.

In the BMS category goes all the communication and optical equipment of a modern soldier which includes palm-top communication equipment and the helmet mounted cameras. The assault weapon field trials are going on: there are four kinds, Baretta (Italy), Colt (USA), Bren (Czech) and Tavor (Israel). The last has already been chosen for Indian Special Forces.

Vice Chief of Army staff, Lt General Philip Campose, told our correspondent at the end of the media interaction, “There is no F-INSAS program any more”.

He detailed how the army adopted the program in a way that keeps the infantry soldier less burdened by technology, and more agile to carry out his tasks.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby ravip » 15 Jan 2015 10:07

matrimc wrote:Ravig: Scientists in high esteem than any one? That, sire, is little too much, don't you think? Any case, my last post on this.


Just because there are some rotten apples we can't generalise all scientists and say that we should not have regard for there works. In the same way when I say 'scientists' I only refer to deserving ones, and in the present context Mr. Avinash Chandler is one among the deserving.

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_20317 » 15 Jan 2015 10:24

@Chanakya ji,

corruptionindrdo is the site. Bloody keeda did not call it dodo. That was the only thing remaining. The man was given what he claims is a CRS. I don't know what it means but spider sense says it must be something bad on the record of somebody who was in DRDO. http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/06/ ... -fire.html - here is the same man asking Shiv Aroor:

prabhu dandriyal said...
anybody can tell that in so called Brahmos has any modification done by Dr pillai's team, is any evidence available? or it is all variants of russian missile and painted in India
9:01 AM


He is rebuffed by Prasoon Sengupta and for just this much I bear better respect for the guy.

It is obvious he has an agenda. That he has access to grapevine. That he knows his way about the administrative system. He has attacked even Tessy Thomas who he claims has superceded about 100 people, besides Dr. Pillai's (?) team which is fair game for him. That implies a lot of people who can be potential Aam Admi Party volunteers. No wonder AAP and RTI go hand in hand. There are several big names take casually by this moron who is now the source/coordinator of all FUD.

And the only other conclusion that can be reached is that DRDO is one hell of a leaky organization. Somebody has to ring fence these people. And example needs to be created out of people leaking information.


.......................

Ok new day today:
Has AC said anything against GoI?
Has GoI accepted that AC is to be blamed in any manner?

Will ask that again tomorrow. And again the day after till it gets registered.

.........................

Seems like what has happened is that people are unwilling to accept that a AAP RTI type has fooled everybody. That the good wishes and holy desires of some people can easily be used against their own governments.

...........................

Fact is somebody is feeding information and all you need is a Shimrit Lee getting placed in about 1 km of anyone of these scientists and AAP will have a field day crying 'Deshdroh under Watchman NaMo' and MSM crying that our aloud every morning till Mid Feb. All in the hope that GoI and Scientific establishment can be shown to be at or actually be forced to be at loggerheads.

Fact is GoI increased the Budget for DRDO. That implies that the GoI wants DRDO to be a big part of its Make in India campaign. That it was not so till now should have been the point under the microscope. Instead all we have are some statements by RM who is new to job and needs protection himself.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3700
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby hnair » 15 Jan 2015 10:34

JohneeG, make it snappy, as Karan M has suggested.

Chaanakya, you are warned for these two statements

Ohh he is , willy nilly a UPA boy, despite being well "reputed" scientist.


He may not be but UPA did favour him


This goes for anyone else who tries to fix political labels to the DRDO chief or speculate on how he reached that post or how he lost that post.

Thanks everyone, for keeping it civil

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2015 11:37


member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_20317 » 15 Jan 2015 12:08

mmm what?

Still cannot make a stand?

......................

DNA I think is (may still be) a DB Realty group company (Shahid Balwa).

This particular MSM report contains only 2 quotations-

First and well known - On Wednesday, defence minister Manohar Parrikar said, "It was my recommendation that the DRDO chief's post should be held by a young person and not by someone on contract."

Second and Unattributed - Saraswat is Chander's predecessor and according to a senior scientist in DRDO, "both have ideological differences which was known to scientific fraternity."

And the report does mention the same coordinator/facade -

According to RTI by Uttarakhand-based Prabhu Dandriyal in December 2014, and accessed by dna


So now you see, working backwards, why it was important to file that RTI and working backwards still why that ACA order had to be put up on the site before an RTI could even be made (before being put up on the site the existence of the ACA order is only a grapevine).

Now you see how these Legalistic western universalism is used to rally sheep for a Euro Maidan like event all across the world.

Obviously the facade Prabhu Dandriyal could not have been kept outside the main stream media.

Tick tock step lock.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_22539 » 15 Jan 2015 12:14

^What ideological differences? Any clue?

member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3170
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby member_20317 » 15 Jan 2015 12:20

It is an unattributed quote. Only the journo knows who said that and obviously he cannot be questioned because of privileges & FoE & Freedom of press. Most likely there is no ideological difference or even if it is there then its more like people here disagreeing on things and not a cold-turned-hot-war.

All done merely to create more FUD.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby d_berwal » 15 Jan 2015 14:07

Karan M wrote:
as regards your stupid comment about cj - or should i bring up your behaviour and denial on the t-90 thread?

if the policy states contracts are allowed and the BJP govt first puts him in place, then it smacks of mishandling to remove the person in 4 months.

take your blinders off and acknowledge what is what.


there is nothing to hide... I still believe what i post/write in Armour thread. (people are free to disagree with me, that doesn't mean i force them to agree to me)

who is putting on blinders is up there for all to see..

I again ask you do you think Cheif of Army/ Navy/ AF/ DRDO/ ISRO should be on contract or not?

but instead of answering you are blaming GOI

williams
BRFite
Posts: 321
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby williams » 15 Jan 2015 18:33

Here is my thought about the whole DRDO chief fiasco. First of all, if we want Modi to bring in a change in bureaucratic culture, then we will have to let him work in a businessman like fashion. Even though Avinash Chander is a great scientist, he is a employee of DRDO and in this case a contract employee. Both the employee and employer have the right to terminate the contract at any time. These kind of contract termination happens in other countries without even being noticed by the media. Terminating a contract is not the same as firing a employee. So the way msm described this as the DRDO chief being "fired" or "sacked" is not correct.

Second, it is really weird to make a contract employee continue as chief of DRDO. In a regular business environment, when a chief is about to retire, but the organization needs him more, they will probably get him as a contractor to help with the transitioning. Or if the chief has some specialized skills that the organization need, they will ask him to be a contract employee to play that specialist role. That did not happen here.

Mr Chander is a great scientist, but so are the thousands who work in DRDO labs. He might have contributed a lot to the missile technology programs, but his time is past and we need new blood and new ideas to come to play. A change in leadership is necessary now and then. That is why we have retirement age/term limit for such leaders. So if we want DRDO to function like a business, then we should allow that to happen.

This is not the end of Mr Chander. He can still contribute as a mentor to the younger scientists in DRDO or in the universities. He could continue to provide assistance to the government and if DRDO needs him they can come up with another contract. What I see in the MSM media today is find any small way to smear Modi government. This is a desperate attempt to do so. It also points out come of the congi goon friends are in the babudoom and they are leaking this kind of information. I would expect Modi to take action on the babu who leaked this confidential information.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2015 18:54

I can see bad politics here.. but all I wanted was Mr Parikkar to have sent him a note to "cancel/terminate the contract" direct, rather via DDM. Point: AC said he has no idea about it...or was it that media knew it before? whatever, it is the fault of MoD to not keep secrets of termination until it was delivered to AC.

--ps
"I am hearing this from you. It has come as a shock to me. I haven't received any order from the government," Chander told Hindustan Times. "It is the government's decision to end my contract but I had no indication this was coming. No idea why it has happened."

This is what I am talking!! when I mentioned the word "arrogance"

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2645
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Victor » 15 Jan 2015 19:22

Saik, it is obviously an inside sabotage. Nothing in Modi's or Parrikar's past point to such uncivilized behavior. In fact both are known for their civility even while being blunt.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2015 19:29

can't leave it at that.. get that sabotage setup broken, and correct the system. we are not k-angrez gov anymore. get the rot out!

HKumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby HKumar » 15 Jan 2015 19:32

Victor wrote:Saik, it is obviously an inside sabotage. Nothing in Modi's or Parrikar's past point to such uncivilized behavior. In fact both are known for their civility even while being blunt.



is it sabotage that DM was not even aware of the decision to fire an employee that reports to him? If the DM isn't in loop in the decision making, then who is making the decision for the DM?

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby deejay » 15 Jan 2015 20:10

^^^ More like the decision was taken but the communication was pending. Someone, somewhere got smart and the whole thing became an unplanned action. Anyways, only speculation.

The way I see it, SA to DM, Avinash Chander ji has been in Service (of country) longer than the new DM. He is beyond proving his worth unless there is something not in public domain. The new DM has a right to select his team but if Shri Chander's integrity is not in question than Shri Chander deserves a better exit. In case his integrity is in question then a proper inquiry through constitutional means in Public domain should be instituted.

Democracy has its systems and such summary dismissals even in contracted service is at best 'undemocratic'. Given that present GOI has not gone for rude dismissals of even those understood to be sympathizers of previous dispensation, the present case appears to be at best 'mishandling' and in the worst case 'deliberate act' against the intentions of the GOI.

Whatever be the case, a smart and capable Government would not have let this happen. Now that it has happened, let us hope sensible actions of corrections and proper distinguished treatment of Shri Chander is put in place.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 20:35

matrimc wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Principled Stand that No Contract Employee should serve as DG DRDO or Secy to GOI

"principled stands" are never in vacuum and are absolute. By definition, only those policies that help the nation are principled stands. Otherwise what is the worth of these "principle stands"?

Well it seems DRDO will face more such ending of extensions. No more business of extensions on contract in DRDO. Entire top echelon have got the message. And I don't think NaMo would operate in vacuum . His decisions have basis before it is delivered. If you failed to notice that he not only criticised DRDO but also ordered review of all projects and cases of extensions etc. This decision has come at the end of this process. And that is why his decisions carry weight and would stand in face of frivoulous criticisms on the manner of implementation or whether the Babus were informed of it or not. These are not sine qua non.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 20:43

HKumar wrote:
Victor wrote:Saik, it is obviously an inside sabotage. Nothing in Modi's or Parrikar's past point to such uncivilized behavior. In fact both are known for their civility even while being blunt.



is it sabotage that DM was not even aware of the decision to fire an employee that reports to him? If the DM isn't in loop in the decision making, then who is making the decision for the DM?

AFAIK PM himself ordered review of DRDO performance.

DOPT makes senior level appointments through ACC. The review committee was constituted based on the direction that the concerned departmental secretaries should not be part of review of their own dept functioning so as to make impartial assessment. Consequently Avinash Chander was not in the loop.

Since DOPT answers to PM , DM need not be in the loop till the matter comes to ACC. That was the time DM would have seen all the material.

But moot point is DM is always at liberty to order review of departments under him. He could have and should have known the extension business which resulted in promotions either based on seniority or on merit being denied to deserving conditions. Incidentally at higher level it is always by Merit as judged from the past performances. The system was screwed by Congis and is now being corrected.

No doubt it would be a painful process for many but the one we have to endure. Criticise , by all means , but on substantial grounds. Not mouthing congis view points which I always think that it is Pakis speaking.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 20:53

hnair wrote:JohneeG, make it snappy, as Karan M has suggested.

Chaanakya, you are warned for these two statements

Ohh he is , willy nilly a UPA boy, despite being well "reputed" scientist.


He may not be but UPA did favour him


This goes for anyone else who tries to fix political labels to the DRDO chief or speculate on how he reached that post or how he lost that post.

Thanks everyone, for keeping it civil

Is it two warning for two statements or one??

Anyway those are not accusations as I have not attributed anything to AC but the fact that congis did favour him and many others a big time. The use of word "willy nilly" and : may be" should have made it amply clear. But as forum policy is not to discuss Mod's decision I think another warning is due and will be in order. It could be third if you missed one or second if you were kind enough to give one warning for two "offence"

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 20:56

BTW it seems that the stern message had sobering effect on RBI and it suddenly discovered that inflation is low etc and reduced Repo rate as Govt was requesting it to do by 25 basis point. /speculation/

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 21:18

matrimc wrote:
chaanakya wrote:"Morale of Employee " is very specious argument.

Just by calling specious doesn't make it so. I request that you expand on that. Otherwise, I am convinced that it is not so.

The very "employee" whose morale is stated to be affected by sacking a boss serving well past "sell by date" is going to be benefited by the ouster. This would also have cascading effect of benefiting many by rising in hierarchy.So ,while they may shed a tear or two, would be happy to work harder to prove themselves worthy of positions they might get to occupy. This also gives hope to others that they might get a chance in future rather than retiring because some senior called in few favours to continue. Of course this is not the case in this particular case.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 21:24

I just noticed that Media has already abandoned the topic. It will occupy few obligatory seconds now. Time to move on...

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby geeth » 15 Jan 2015 21:30

The positive effect is already visible. The so called smartalec "Tambram" had already pulled up his left sock and reduced repo by 25 basis. He will pull up his right sock soon and wont wait for Feb for a "review" (whatever that means). There are some more chai-biscoot wallas....ADA chief, ADE chief, and a host of others including some loud farting Admirals and commodores heading some of the shipyards...already Hindustan Shipyard Vizag Wicket had fallen..

HKumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby HKumar » 15 Jan 2015 21:32

chaanakya wrote:AFAIK PM himself ordered review of DRDO performance.

DOPT makes senior level appointments through ACC. The review committee was constituted based on the direction that the concerned departmental secretaries should not be part of review of their own dept functioning so as to make impartial assessment. Consequently Avinash Chander was not in the loop.

Since DOPT answers to PM , DM need not be in the loop till the matter comes to ACC. That was the time DM would have seen all the material.

But moot point is DM is always at liberty to order review of departments under him. He could have and should have known the extension business which resulted in promotions either based on seniority or on merit being denied to deserving conditions. Incidentally at higher level it is always by Merit as judged from the past performances. The system was screwed by Congis and is now being corrected.

No doubt it would be a painful process for many but the one we have to endure. Criticise , by all means , but on substantial grounds. Not mouthing congis view points which I always think that it is Pakis speaking.



Thanks for your fascinating insight into the working of GoI. Except it is bull shit coated with loyalty to one dude and extra helping of bull shit on top it. That why you indulge in ad holmium attack in labeling people instead of providing rational thoughts.

ACC reports to PM. DM Parrikar is NOT part of ACC. So he wouldn't know when the matter came to ACC. The matter came to ACC and the 'needful' was done by ACC and PM. They didn't update the DM or think it was necessary to update the DM on time. Running a government isn't a one man show. If the PM office can't loop in the DM on an issue where he is the principal stake holder, it brings questions as to how the govt will behave when something really goes wrong and it requires several ministries working together.

HKumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby HKumar » 15 Jan 2015 21:33

chaanakya wrote:BTW it seems that the stern message had sobering effect on RBI and it suddenly discovered that inflation is low etc and reduced Repo rate as Govt was requesting it to do by 25 basis point. /speculation/



The weather is beautiful too. Looks like the stern message had its effect.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36299
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby SaiK » 15 Jan 2015 21:40


chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 21:50

HKumar wrote:
chaanakya wrote:BTW it seems that the stern message had sobering effect on RBI and it suddenly discovered that inflation is low etc and reduced Repo rate as Govt was requesting it to do by 25 basis point. /speculation/



The weather is beautiful too. Looks like the stern message had its effect.

Now you can become IMD Chief as I can become rrNDTV editor in chief just for that. :lol:

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby chaanakya » 15 Jan 2015 21:55

HKumar wrote:
Thanks for your fascinating insight into the working of GoI. Except it is bull shit coated with loyalty to one dude and extra helping of bull shit on top it. That why you indulge in ad holmium attack in labeling people instead of providing rational thoughts.

ACC reports to PM. DM Parrikar is NOT part of ACC. So he wouldn't know when the matter came to ACC. The matter came to ACC and the 'needful' was done by ACC and PM. They didn't update the DM or think it was necessary to update the DM on time. Running a government isn't a one man show. If the PM office can't loop in the DM on an issue where he is the principal stake holder, it brings questions as to how the govt will behave when something really goes wrong and it requires several ministries working together.

Since you excel in showing your ignorance I just would have to put :rotfl: :rotfl:

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 22:49

ravi_g wrote:... even if it is there then its more like people here disagreeing on things and not a cold-turned-hot-war.

All done merely to create more FUD.


Absolutely correct.

Scientific disagreement exists everywhere applied science is done. Applied doesn't work the same way as some cut and dry theorem proving from a series of Lemmas or systems would behave the same way beatiful graphics are shown on high res screens by ray tracing computer programs. On screen everything looks beautiful, symmetric, and colorful in 64k/16m.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9894
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Jan 2015 22:58

ChANakya:

chanakya wrote:This decision has come at the end of this process. And that is why his decisions carry weight and would stand in face of frivoulous criticisms on the manner of implementation or whether the Babus were informed of it or not. These are not sine qua non.


AC is not a career burocrat. He is a career scientist. By the way, I do not have dictionary handy. What does "sine qua non" mean? Latin? :mrgreen:
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 16 Jan 2015 01:27, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashthor, Kakarat, souravB and 55 guests