The government recently sacked the head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Avinash Chander, who enjoys a special stature for successfully shepherding the country’s Agni programme under which missiles of different range are being got ready, including ICBMs. The DRDO chief was also the scientific adviser to the Raksha Mantri.
The distinguished defence scientist came to learn from the media that his services were no longer needed. His abrupt dismissal is therefore not a little intriguing. It raises doubts as to the actual reason or reasons. Nothing that has been said so far by defence minister Manohar Parrikar seems to strike a chord of credibility. It is true that Mr Chander had reached the age of 64. He had received two extensions after his superannuation.
On that ground alone the government could have appointed a successor to him in DRDO. But it chose not do so. On the contrary, in November 2014 it gave effect to a decision of its predecessor government to retain the scientist on contract until 2016. But this decision was abruptly changed weeks later, and not through dignified protocol. He was not taken into confidence. Ordinarily, it would be expected that an outgoing DRDO chief might be informally consulted on the choice of his successor unless he has been embroiled in controversy.
Mr Parrikar has said that he would like a younger scientist to head DRDO, and also that such a person should not be associated with DRDO on a contractual basis. No objections can be raised to any of this. In any case, any government is within its rights to have a scientist of its choice to lead a sensitive and significant institution such as DRDO. Therefore, it is all the more surprising why only two months earlier he was confirmed in his position. It is unfortunate but tongues have begun to wag.
The speculation is being made that the scientist may have had to go because he may have expressed reservations on aspects concerning the involvement of the private sector, or particular elements of private industry, with work related to the defence industry. It may be best to nip such speculation in the bud. The defence minister is apparently thinking of bifurcating the responsibility of DRDO chief and scientific adviser to Raksha Mantri. He must have his reasons, and these could be brought into the public domain. But the impression should not be given that the removal of the present DRDO chief is any way linked to this development. Defence scientists need to be nurtured and encouraged. Defence science in India has had its inefficiencies, many serious, but it also has achievements, and it has given the country confidence.
