Institutions that shaped modern India- DRDO

Ravi kumar Gupta , the author, served at DRDO as a DRDS Scientist for over 35 years and superannuated in May 2015 as Scientist G and Director Public Interface at the DRDO headquarters. The book was written with the aim of presenting a holistic picture , the manner and scenario under which it was formed , its visionary leaders, the eventful journey and how it shaped the defence infrastructure and ecosystem in the country.

Catching up:

Development in weapon system in advanced countries have been invariably driven by innovativeness of their defence scientists and the ability of such scientists to think well beyond the existing systems and technologies. Here, in India, TDE ( Technical Development Establishments , earlier called Inspectorates) and others insisted that development work by the DRDO should be taken up for only after the services had laid their requirements in the form of Qualitative Requirements/ Operational Requirements (Qrs/Ors). The Qrs/Ors were invariably based on the products already available abroad.

Technology Transfer

Import and produce under license is a powerful lobby favouring big ticket imports and killing all local efforts to develop technologies. Air guided anti tank missile was one early example. Initial goal post was range of 1.5km, when that was reached, QRs increased operating range to 4km and finally product imported from France. Myth of Technology transfer resulted in component to component development with no design capability.

Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP)

The appointment of DR VS Arunachalam as the SA to RM and Secretary DDR&D in 1982 was the turning point. During his leadership, several programmes were launched including IGMDP, LCA, UAV,Sonars, Torpedoes etc. His initiatives were supported by R Venkataraman, Defence Minister. Dr Kalam took command of the organisation in 1992 when DRDO enetered the development of mega systems. The rest is history.

Book available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.in/INSTITUTIONS-THAT-SHAPED-MODERN-INDIA/dp/9390356725

Defence Offsets-IDSA Monograph

Like many other countries, India has a formal offset policy to enable it to leverage its huge arms imports in order to develop a strong indigenous defence industry. The offset policy, which was formally announced for the first time in 2005, has been revised several times, with the latest policy coming into force since August 2012. As per the extant provision of the policy, a 30 per offset is mandated in import contracts valued Rs 300 crore or more. Till December 2014, the defence ministry had signed 25 offset contracts– 16 for the Air Force, six for Navy and three for Army ­– valued at $4.87 billion. 

However as highlighted in the successive reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), India’s experience of offsets has been less than satisfactory.The CAG observed that offsets in some contracts did not result in any value addition in India; that the foreign companies had a free run in selecting ineligible Indian offset partners for discharge of their obligations; and that the monitoring mechanism for offset contract implementation was weak.In the procurement of Low Level Transportable Radar (LLTR), the French company, Thales was allowed to have Thales International India, its 100 per cent Indian subsidiary, as its Indian offset partner to discharge a part of its total offset obligations of $ 34.8 million. In the case of the Euro 159.3 million fleet tanker contract with Fincantieri (signed on April 23 2008), the Italian company was also allowed to have two foreign subsidiaries (Wartsila India Ltd and Johnson Pumps Ltd) as its Indian offset partners to discharge part of its Euro 41.6 million offset obligations.

Complementing the audit findings of the CAG, this monograph presents further evidence, indicating the poor impact of the policy on Indian defence industry.

Beyond Defence: Offset Policy at National Level

Some countries including India have an offset policy that operates within the narrow prism of defence procurement only. In other words, the offset requirement is not applicable for the non-defence sector. South Korea and Israel are, however, figure among the countries whose offset policy is applicable at the national level for both defence and civil procurement. In the case of Israel, the offset requirements, as enshrined in its official Industrial Cooperation (IC) guidelines, can be applied to any procurement by the state, government corporations and public agencies when the value of the purchased foreign goods or services exceeds $5 million. Moreover, Israel is also in the process of bringing municipal authorities under the offset purview, enabling contracts such as for sewage treatment, water treatment, power systems, etc. to mandatory industrial cooperation conditions.

Download the report: Laxman K Behra