Thursday, 15 January 2015

Broadsword on NDTV last night on the DRDO chief's removal


Anonymous said...

Who... covering... who's... actions... why...

Anonymous said...

Fact 1: India doesn't produce scientific talent to
build advanced weaponry. Having studied at
a top IIT I can vouch for the fact that education
standards are abysmal as compared to US
universities. Absolutely no research happens at
these organizations. So even though Indian talent
pool may be substantial (which is arguable) the
education system to harness that is simply not
there. Hence our scientific pool is pretty much

Fact 2: Motivation. If you are smart scientist why
would you work for the DRDO when you can
make much more in the private sector. So any
govt org will always have a problem attracting the
best talent.

Given these two facts, the Govt choses to remove
a person who despite the above shortcomings
in term of talent at his disposal, has delivered
products of strategic value that work - which is
a rarity. And the govt handpicks that person to
let go. This is stupidity at a galactic scale. This
will hurt the DRDO. Clearly the govt has no clue
regarding the engineering process and how rare
it is to find people that can deliver complex

Int64 said...

We don't know yet why he has been removed. But the way his contract has been ended is not good. The worst thing is that he came to know through media.

Well placed comments Ajai.

Anonymous said...

Again a bunch of emotional Indians raising a stink where there should be none. The following statements are true:-

Avinash Chander is a great scientist.
He can certainly continue as a scientist but not as an administrator.
Comparison of age between Modi and Chander is pure mischief and the anchor has shown clear mischief making ability as a true journalist and nothing more.
It is completely the defence minister's prerogative as the boss to decide on his advisors. Manohar Parikar took over recently therefore the unfortunate situation that AC got his extension contract and also his pink slip soon after in an ungraceful manner. The scientific community should move on and deliver and not give in to whining and playing politics on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Sir, was the notice mistakenly put on website DoPT with other notices as it was quickly removed.

Anonymous said...

Never fancied TV debate shows, good for nothing.

And y'days one was no different.

If an "elected government" wants to take certain decisions to re-vamp DRDO (be it by terminating the extended contract of DRDO cheif), so be it.

Media or Broadsword cant pick and choose and tell what government needs to do.

Although I don't have any problem with decision , but I do feel the way it has come is a bit cold.

Hari said...

Why Mr.Chander was sacked the way he was is beyond any of us and it is a question for Manohar Parikkar to answer. But to Parikkar's argument he took charge after the extension was given to Mr. Chander and Parikkar needed some time to understand the working of this organization.

Anonymous said...

If age is an issue for a top post, what exactly is Mr Modis age? Unfortunately sarcastic comments about Modis lack of formal education seem to be ringing true. Since he is not really that well educated, Mr Modi seems to be unable to treat really knowledgeable folks who excel in science etc with respect. He treats them with the same manner a politician treats babus who can be shuffled around but are not national resources. What happened to Chander was shameful and i hope it is a wake up call for BJP supporters to keep Modi in line and not have him go overboard.

Anonymous said...

Now everything has to be RSS approved, scientific acumen nil, but philosophy driven by. Religious overtones will do

Anonymous said...

Sacking AC leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Treating dedicated folks working in the defence field in India badly is not good. Parrikar is simply nuts.

Anonymous said...

want efficiency of American R & D, but not willing to take the hire and firing that is common in American R & D.

kulari94 said...

want efficiency of American R & D, but not willing to pay the money that is paid to American R & D.