Decentralisation of power reason behind not appointing DG for DRDO: Parrikar
21 Feb 2015 12:39 AM GMT
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had said on Wednesday that the reason he had not appointed a director general (DG) for Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) because he wanted to “decentralise” power to the technology cluster heads.
Speaking at the 10th edition of Aero India 2015, the defence minister had said this at a press conference. He was seeking to justify the absence of a DG DRDO even after a fortnight and more had elapsed from the “removal” of the previous DG, DRDO and scientific adviser to the defence miister, Avinash Chander.
Chander was on an extention after his retirement, granted by the ousted UPA II government. He had 16 months still left of his tenure. Parrikar, who was a technocrat himself – a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology – had then stated that, “We want a younger person to lead (DRDO).”
In a crowded media interaction, Parrikar told the assembly that he was not there to be ‘interrogated.’ He did show a reluctance to too much of the details of defence sector, seeking an early end of the interaction.
Earlier, he had responded to questions about ‘Make in India’ formulation of his boss, Narendra Modi with a degree of uncertainty. He had stated that, “A separate framework has to be built for the ‘Make in India’ programme.” What he could have meant was a separate structure and procedures has to be decided yet. Also he was a hesitant postulator of a notion that this ‘framework’ could be included as a part of the revised Defence Production Procedure (DPP) “ (which) is ready” or ‘may not (actually) constitute the DPP.’
Speaking at the 10th edition of Aero India 2015, the defence minister had said this at a press conference. He was seeking to justify the absence of a DG DRDO even after a fortnight and more had elapsed from the “removal” of the previous DG, DRDO and scientific adviser to the defence miister, Avinash Chander.
Chander was on an extention after his retirement, granted by the ousted UPA II government. He had 16 months still left of his tenure. Parrikar, who was a technocrat himself – a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology – had then stated that, “We want a younger person to lead (DRDO).”
In a crowded media interaction, Parrikar told the assembly that he was not there to be ‘interrogated.’ He did show a reluctance to too much of the details of defence sector, seeking an early end of the interaction.
Earlier, he had responded to questions about ‘Make in India’ formulation of his boss, Narendra Modi with a degree of uncertainty. He had stated that, “A separate framework has to be built for the ‘Make in India’ programme.” What he could have meant was a separate structure and procedures has to be decided yet. Also he was a hesitant postulator of a notion that this ‘framework’ could be included as a part of the revised Defence Production Procedure (DPP) “ (which) is ready” or ‘may not (actually) constitute the DPP.’
Next Story
