rohitvats wrote:
Nor did I say that you called him a liar. As for the organizational POV, what he stated was not POV but a statement of facts - of which he is the best judge. To say that he is lying because IA fvucked up on Arjun story or because people hold the opinion that he did not manage the war properly shows nothing but the bias and prejudice of the poster. People have right to their opinion but that does not give them handle to make blanket statements about the Services or IA in this case.
Speaking to only some people and in absence of rigorous analysis, one should not be passing absolute judgements.
1. How do we know he made a statement of fact which translates to an absolute POV on the subject, and covers the entire topic? Like I said - one can read multiple accounts of Kargil events from senior ups, and their views differ appreciably from their peers in other services. Net, what we have are opinions or even facts, but not the entire picture, that is the problem. He wanted something from x in 2 years, and x based that on y being available, and y is no longer there thanks to the events in 1998 or even otherwise, so was x wantonly irresponsible. My point is that a lot of these first person accounts, need to be tempered with data from the other side, because that has always been the issue with such accounts (while the undeniable insight they provide is also undoubted).
2. Coming to absolute judgements, arent relying only on his comments and disregarding evidence to the contrary as they are "news reports", also absolute judgements. It is only if we adopt such a black or white stance, then it becomes an issue of "he lied or did not lie". The facts however are different as we can make out. Namely that the WLR saga began before the DRDO and the radar that DRDO was depending on to make a WLR from suffered sanctions of the critical PCM, which then had to be developed inhouse. Which they did, and today we have multiple versions of that radar in induction. So clearly, they were not sitting around twiddling their thumbs either, nor did they wantonly overstate their capability. Nor did they continue to drag down the issue as we had multiple trips abroad and we finally did acquire a system.
Someone was complaining on the GD Forum that we treat Services as holy cows - I think the recent trend is to consider DRDO has the holy cow.
I have not been long enough here to observe who or what is a holy cow. However, my take is simple, in the particular case of the WLR, the facts are more nuanced vis a vis Shri Maliks claims. If on the other hand, there are certain other products (where DRDO/DPSU did screw up), were mentioned, that would be accurate.
As for the sanctions and development timeframe - my whole argument has been wrt only one item - the WLR. From what I've read on the net (and I posted this once before) - DRDO tried to develop WLR from Cymbeline Mortar tracker and failed. I have not used this data point to say - "I told you so" because I want more information on the subject.
The Cymbeline even if developed, is a more limited system and even if developed, I doubt whether the IA would accept in lieu of true WLR. Also, the question of RE derived WLR, is of what timeframe, and when. One must understand that this is a crucial issue, as the DRDO's expertise and competence with radar technology took off only in the past two decades when funding was available, and has matured over the past decade. The first was spent in learning. To quote an Army example, can we look at the constraints of 1962 and then extrapolate it to the fighting potential of the Army today? We cannot. Similarly, some other DRDO labs also attempted to make radars, not all were successful. However, from the 80's since IGMDP was launched, there has been consistent progress in this arena at a dedicated lab.
I at least tried to look for facts before making first post on the topic - and here I've posters arguing that unless there is GOI document which says that DRDO failed wrt WLR, everything is heresay. I remember another poster making similar statement in the Arjun thread when IA's fvck ups were highlighted. So, what am I to make of it but not entrenched positions.
I admit I do not know of this aspect and the context, so I cannot reply. My take on the WLR issue is simply put, that WLR's are complex items and like all such complex systems need base technology to be developed and then a base platform. The DRDO has taken the Rajendra base platform to do and develop this capability and this radar suffered a series of reverses thanks to sanctions, the issue is common across all our programs, and given economic constraints, the developer cannot from day one, attempt to make everything inhouse and suffers these problems.
As for the Kargil example - at least you're willing to consider the +/- of the debate as emanating from both sides, look for information and then take an informed opinion - situation here is completely different - since Malik said something and since IA has bad track record and hence, he has to be wrong. Please tell me, why can't DRDO be wrong?
Again, from my viewpoint, it is not that Shri Malik was in Kargil so he is automatically wrong. My issue was with only this particular case (WLR) as a lot has been written about and it has been literally made out to be the single case that almost lost us the arty battle. However, my own look into the issue, for what it is worth, does not support this aspect. Of course, DRDO can be and is on occasion wrong. Their overoptimistic projections in other projects also exist.
If I come to you and tell you that my source says something which is contrary to your opinion or basis of your opinion and hence, your basis of opinion must be false (and your source a liar), what will you make of it?
I didnt follow this, but I think you are referring to another contextual conversation, so I may have missed it, so I really cannot reply.
