Reforms | Do or die for the DRDO

It is no secret that the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO, the country’s premier defence research agency, has been beset by systemic problems that have consistently resulted in inordinate delays and cost overruns. However, the effort to transform it, as recommended by the high-powered K. VijayRaghavan committee, has run into rough weather as a group of senior defence scientists are now opposing the contents of the report, which was submitted in January 2024.

Though the DRDO has had several significant successes—be it the development of the Agni and Pralay missiles, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas or the Arjun tank—the list of projects delayed is equally long—LCA Mark-II and LCA Navy aircraft, the aero-engine Kaveri and the Tapas BH-201 drone prominent among them. In February 2023, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) informed Parliament that out of 55 high-priority ‘mission mode projects’, 23 are behind schedule. It was felt that the organisation, which operates nearly 50 laboratories and has a staff strength of around 30,000, had lost focus on defence research, over-extended itself into other areas and taken on too many projects. Reforming the DRDO is central to the government’s plans to boost defence manufacturing—and reduce India’s over-reliance on imports—through initiatives such as Aatmanirbhar Bharat as well as giving a fillip to defence exports, where it has set an ambitious target of Rs 35,000 crore by 2025.

Several expert committees—like the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Committee (1992), P. Rama Rao Committee (2008) and the V. Ramagopal Rao Committee (2020)—attempted to right the situation by suggesting measures to make the DRDO a more professional organisation with high accountability. Then, in August 2023, the Narendra Modi government set up a panel headed by former principal scientific advisor VijayRaghavan and tasked it with ensuring focus on research and development of high-end futuristic technologies, maximise academia/ start-ups and private sector participation to develop an indigenous defence production industry.

VijayRaghavan submitted the report, titled ‘Redefining Defence Research and Development’, to Union defence minister Rajnath Singh. Some of the structural changes the panel has recommended have displeased a group of senior scientists at the DRDO, who have shown their dissent by submitting a response to Singh by expressing doubts about the feasibility of some of the recommended steps. In fact, a group of top defence scientists have reportedly sought an audience with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)—the ultimate arbiter in the matter—to share their views on the report.

Though there is no quarrel about the overall aim of the report—to cut flab in the organisation and make it an efficient and agile R&D organisation with faster turnover of cutting-edge projects—it is in the methods proposed to obtain the final results that disagreements have arisen.

Of the major steps put forward, the merger of various DRDO labs for greater efficiency appears to have gained the approval of DRDO scientists. But several other suggestions are being resisted by the defence scientists’ fraternity.

BONES OF CONTENTION

Among the chief points of dispute is the proposal to bring the DRDO under the purview of the PMO. Also, that the armed forces should have a greater say in the DRDO’s development of tech­nologies—the panel feels the organisation has been taking on defe­nce projects that overstretch it, causing massive delay and wastage of resources. Differences have also arisen over a change in the way staff is recruited. Instead of direct recruitment, as is the current practice, the panel recomme­nds campus hiring through interviews. But the issue that has elicited the strongest disagreement is the firm direction in the report towards a much greater role for the private defence sector.

Given the classified nature of the report, the MoD has not reac­ted publicly after receiving the scientists’ letter. The ministry is expected to talk with all stakeholders, resolve all issues and present them to the PMO. Once the PMO accepts the panel’s suggestions, the MoD and DRDO have a 90-day time-frame to start implementing them. Corridors of the DRDO headquarters in New Delhi are abuzz with views on how to meet the tough deadline, as many scientists believe that it is not easy to shake up a 66-year-old institution in months.

A DRDO-made Tapas BH-201 drone. After 13 years and nearly Rs 1,800 crore, it has failed to meet expectations

Besides VijayRaghavan, the committee included Lt Gen. Subrata Saha (retd), former deputy chief of army staff; Vice Admiral S.N. Ghormade, former vice chief of navy staff; Air Marshal B.R. Krishna, former chief of integrated staff; Sujan R. Chinoy, director general of the Manohar Parikkar Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses; Prof. Manindra Agarwal of IIT Kanpur; S.P. Shukla, president, Society of Indian Defence Manufacturers; J.D. Patil of L&T Defence; S. Unnikrishnan Nair, distinguished scientist, ISRO, and Rasika Chaube, financial advisor in the MoD.

Ravi Gupta, a former DRDO scientist, is sceptical about the panel’s suggestions. “The committees formed to restructure DRDO were headed by outsiders who have no idea about defence research and DRDO’s functioning. The committees made suggestions without gauging their repercussions. It takes decades to build an organisation but does not take long to destroy it,” says Gupta. The DRDO has a budget of Rs 23,264 crore in the budget estimate (BE) 2023-24, with nearly 900 projects at various stages of development.

WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

The VijayRaghavan panel has advocated a pivotal role for the Defence Technology Council (DTC), which is headed by the prime minister and has the defence minis­ter and the national security advisor as members, to identify suitable players for specific defence technologies. The inclusion of two members each from academia and industry in the DTC is also recommended to bring diverse perspectives. Not only does this mark the PMO’s entry in defence research and direct involvement in strategically important projects, but also oversight over DRDO. The panel also suggests a separate department under the MoD—the department of defence science, technology and innovation (DDSTI)—to promote defence R&D in academic and start-up ecosystems. It will also serve as the DTC secretariat. In addition, an empowered committee under the DTC, co-chaired by the chief of defence staff (CDS) and the PM’s principal scientific advisor, has been recommended. The panel has also called for the bifurcation of the post of secretary, R&D, in the defence ministry. Currently, the DRDO chairman also holds the said post. These structural changes, therefore, represent the relinquishing of considerable strategic autonomy for the DRDO.

The DRDO’s proposed role will now be lim­ited to research and development, not to develop prototypes or technology demonstrators as it does currently. Tasks of production and further development are to be far­med out to selected private industry and/ or public sector undertakings. The panel has also recommended restructuring the 41 DRDO labs into 10 national ones—two each in Bengaluru and Hyderabad, and the rest in Delhi, Pune, Dehradun, Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Chandigarh.

The area where the scientists’ pushback is the greatest is the importance given to private defence industry, start-ups and academic institutions. Besides the 10 national labs, the panel also proposes the setting up of five national test facilities where private players can test their newly developed weapon systems. This licence to use government assets will spare private industry the need to invest in land, machinery or other support infrastructure. The panel report has also advised the setting up of a national defence technology roadmap along with defence tech hubs in top academic institutions.

In the interim budget this year, Union finance minister Nirmala Sitha­raman announced a scheme to set up a large fund to foster R&D in the private defence sector. The aim is to promote ‘deep tech’—the integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotics—in the sector, with a large corpus of Rs 1 lakh crore dedicated to long-term interest-free financing. The programme intends to encourage start-ups and private industry to utilise testing and validation facilities, receive guidance from the military and secure loans for the development of weapon systems.

Accustomed to cornering the entirety of defence research funds, it is easy to see why DRDO scientists are unhappy with this. “The committee has made a generic recommendation without actually delving into the nitty gritty of research and development. DRDO has invested years in developing a particular system and you cannot hand it over to a private player overnight,” says a top DRDO scientist.

The other major change the panel suggests is in how DRDO recruits. Rather than hire directly, the panel wants DRDO to actively engage in campus recruitment from colleges and universities, thereby competing with the private sector to attract fresh and promising talent. The panel felt that people often chose DRDO as a last resort, after failing to find good private sector jobs.

A CASE FOR MORE ACCOUNTABILITY

The VijayRaghvan panel has stated that nearly 60 per cent of delays in DRDO projects are caused by internal issues, such as the absence of required technologies, while 17-18 per cent are due to armed forces’ proclivity to constantly change goal posts and specifications. Bureaucra­tic red-tapism, too, chokes some projects. Now, a review of all ongoing projects is being done, with only the viable ones expected to survive. DRDO HQ has also asked its labs to quickly complete projects that are in the final stage of completion.

There is also the matter of managing and rationalising DRDO’s manpower—7,500 scientists, around 10,000 defence research and technical staff and 12,500 administrative and other support staff. In addition, it has nearly 30,000 contractual staff working on specific projects. Much like the military’s Agniveer scheme, the panel has proposed project-based hiring of individuals with PhDs and post-graduate qualifications for 3-5 years. After this period, around 25 per cent of them would be absorbed in the DRDO system. This, feels the panel, would retain high-quality manpower thr­ough a system of incentives and disincentives, with strict performance accountability. To weed out non-performers, the panel has suggested a critical review of the past 10 years of work and achievement. Those scientists not making the cut may be asked to take premature retirement. Employees in administration and allied services may also be shifted to other government ministries. The plans are ambitious, but will DRDO allow them?

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi