#dnaEdit: Policy fumble

Peremptory action often has the deceptive appearance of being decisive in nature. But such actions could also suggest whimsicality on the part of those who spearhead them. The abrupt termination of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) director-general Avinash Chander’s contract on 13 January does come as a surprise. Chander was on an extension sanctioned by the present dispensation in November, 2014. The Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has admitted that it was he who recommended the termination of Chander’s contract. The reason: government wants a younger person to head the key R&D set-up. 

Clearly, the Modi regime and the defence minister are keen to overhaul the soporific DRDO, as part of their grander vision to make India self-reliant in matters of weapons and technologies. They also want to make India the hub of an armaments industry. Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to be quite clear in his mind that if India has to be a power to reckon with in the world, then it must have its own arsenal, and should not be shopping for weapons in the global markets. Whether we agree with Modi’s vision of India as a military power with arms exports of its own is not at issue here. What is of concern is whether he is going about it in a sensible manner. Asking Chander to quit indicates that this is a government that wants to be seen as one which takes quick decisions especially in contrast to its predecessor, the Manmohan Singh government’s condition of ‘policy paralysis’. It seems that in its desire to be perceived as acting firmly and quickly, the Modi government is displaying signs of unthinking action. This was seen in the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech in which he announced his intention to wrap up the planning commission. After having already made that announcement, Modi started his consultations with experts about transforming the organisation.

No doubt, government has the discretionary powers to end the contract of Chander. The timing of the decision depends on their will. But it appears that the BJP-led government has not given any serious thought to how they want to restructure and rejuvenate DRDO. As far as one can make out, there is no such blueprint in place. Parrikar could have first decided on a name to take over from Chander, and then asked the designate-DRDO chief to work out the blueprint for a smart weapons research establishment. The outgoing director-general could have been asked to give his inputs as well. If there are other reasons behind Chander’s peremptory exit, then Parrikar’s statement that he wanted a younger person to head the organisation, is clearly misleading. 

It has been given out by the defence ministry sources that at the moment the DRDO director-general holds two other posts as scientific advisor to the defence minister as well as secretary in the ministry. Apparently, the government wants to separate the three jobs. That’s a good idea. However its implementation did not require the government to ask Chander to put in his papers. Chander’s exit does not in any way offer a solution to what appears to be an embedded structural organisational problem.

Modi government is sending out confusing signals through what can only be described as ad hoc decisions. It is not necessary to question the good intentions of NDA II. But the policy fumble reminds one of the old adage that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. It does not speak well of the government if they want to leave an important institution like the DRDO headless until they are able to find a suitable young man to lead it. The successor should have been named along with the announcement of Chander’s resignation.