This is an extension of my article Defence Technology - An Indian Conundrum
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
IT COMES FROM RESEARCH.
RESEARCH
GENERATES TECHNOLOGY.
TECHNOLOGY OWNED IS CHEAP.
TECHNOLOGY BOUGHT IS COSTLY
From Oxymoronism
to a Framework
India lacks adequate defense
technology. It needs to invest in defense R&D if it must be a power of
reckoning. It needs to break its trader mentality. It needs need leadership and
massive involvement of our academics in research. These oxymorons are well
known. That is probably why the PM has asked the IITs to contribute by coming
up with indigenous defense technologies. So far so good. How does one do it?
That has been our zillion-dollar question. The fact that outsiders have been
better at tapping our brain power and technological potential is also another
oxymoron. Hence, I am shifting from pontificating to suggesting a framework on
which this entire thought process should progress. So, let us begin with a SWOT
analysis of IITS.
SWOT
Analysis of IITs
Strengths. Our IITs have the best brains
in the country. The more important thing
is that all IITs have excellent faculty. That is a major strength which is
often underplayed and needs to be exploited. All IITs are multidisciplinary, have
tremendous networking ability through their national and international
connections. As a result, their ability to generate knowledge and solve complex
problems is very high. They have tremendous research facilities and can set up
focused facilities in better time frames. Of course, each IIT has a specialty
which must be identified and nurtured.
Weaknesses. The one major weakness of any IIT is it is not oriented to the Armed
Forces and their world view of Defense is second hand, largely, through the
DRDO prism. A direct connect must, therefore,
be established with users including operational familiarization. It includes literally
staying in the trenches with troops to understand the battlefield. There is
presently no platform or structure available for generating a meaningful
interaction with IITs. The Outreach is much below par. Address this.
Opportunities. With the expansion of the IIT system, the volumes and potential has increased
immensely. Additionally, this expansion implies a lot of young and new faculty
who will stay in the system for long. They are largely nationalistic and full
of beans to contribute to national causes. They also know that defense R&D
implies generation of cutting-edge technologies, for which they have trained
abroad and have contributed to systems of other countries. In my opinion this
is a huge opportunity now. A few years down the line it will vanish.
Threats. The major threat for any engagement with IITs will come from within the
Armed Forces who are getting into unfamiliar territory. It is meeting of highly
structured minds on one side with free thinking innovators on another. A few bridges
must be built, and impediments overcome.
Approaches
Blue-Sky Approach. A blue-sky approach must be
taken for new technologies and for next generation systems. These will largely
be big projects for which multidisciplinary research is contemporary in nature.
They will have to be taken up with a view to achieve technology expertise or
dominance. These projects will be long term in nature. They will perforce have
to have a multi establishment approach. They must be guided and anchored by a
Service or a major Arm. In addition, they will have to be assisted by DRDO, OFB
and DPSUs. Funding issues must be on a long-term basis. My recommendation is
about 3-4 blue sky projects per major IIT and maximum one for a new IIT. Simultaneously
a blue-sky approach can be taken for disruptive technologies which are over the
horizon like AI, Virtual Reality et al.
Core Research and Expertise. Core research must be undertaken on niche and exclusive technologies.
To this end centers of study can be established in
specified IITs to develop expertise in a niche technology. We must invest in the future.
Reinvention
of the Wheel. In technologies where there is a denial regime
/ system in place, we will have to reinvent the wheel and develop systems to
gain independence from others. The project scope could be huge, but technology
threshold / know how levels will not be high. The effort in reinvention must be
to take a leap forward. The leap forward will have shades of Blue Sky projects.
It can also be termed as the reverse engineering / copycat approach.
Comparatively it will be a low-cost faster time cycle approach with good
visibility.
Upgradation. Upgradation of an existing system by indigenous technology is well
feasible by IITs. Personally, I recommend that one existing system should be
given per IIT through a consortium approach along with a private industrial
player for upgradation. This is a low cost, low hanging fruit.
Import
Substitution. Import substitution is another low hanging fruit. A lot of small parts,
components and sub systems are still under import. Some of these need minimal research
to produce indigenous substitutes. If IITs are involved with MSMEs a lot of
ground can be covered. It will save foreign exchange, expand the positive interaction
and give confidence to IITs to take up larger products / systems.
Engineering Analysis and Testing. Many systems and processes in defense manufacturing needs analysis and testing backed by research.
IITs have tremendous capacity to carry out such tasks through their research parks.
This aspect will be especially beneficial for base workshops, base repair
depots and shipyards.
Mechanisms for
Engagement
There are many
mechanisms which need to be put in place to ensure that there is enough
engagement with IITs. As it stands some mechanisms have been put in place. However,
the problem with the current mechanisms are that the defense establishment have
an amorphous contact structure. They also tend to treat the IITs as another DRDO
lab or a vendor. As a result, the effort is sub optimal and superficial. That
must change. The need is of the defense establishment. It should not expect the
mountain to come to it. Hence it must be
ensured by the defense establishment that a well-defined structure is in place
as per their requirement and the engagement should be deep and meaningful. I am
specifically using the word Defense Establishment which encompasses the MOD,
Army, Navy, Air Force, DRDO, PSUs, OFB and private defense industry. All of
them need the IITs.
As far as the mechanisms
are concerned, I visualize a Centre for Defense Technology and Innovation as a
mandatory basic requirement in each IIT. It can be funded by MOD and manned by experienced
veterans and academics on an as required basis. They can be nodal agencies to enable
interaction with the HQs of defense establishments, run competitions, organize courses,
run start up and incubation activities, hold conferences and provide a whole
host of other support activities in this venture. In this endeavor all Service
academies and training establishments should also be coopted. Extensive
interaction with units and troops in op areas should be promoted. Similarly,
each Service and Department must have a single window system for contact and
follow up. The success of any mechanism lies in its ease and ability to enable
interaction and engagement. As of now the mechanisms are ponderous and laboriously
time consuming like the DPP.
I would also suggest
very strongly that all DEFEXPOs, AEROSHOWs and Conferences be made free of cost
and compulsory for participation by IITs. Conversely each IIT should enter into
MOUs with specified establishments to progress certain technology fields. The
model adopted by the Army Design Bureau should be refined to achieve better
results. The current IDEX model, MAKE I / II et al, as good intentioned they
are will achieve only marginal results. The wider the engagements the better.
It would be worthwhile to study how global technology giants garner and scupper
technology on a worldwide canvas.
A major form of
interaction would be IIT students doing projects and internships in defense
establishments. In fact, it should be made mandatory for each defense
Laboratory / Base Repair Unit / Production Centre to take in a laid down number
of students as interns. It has to be understood that ISRO has succeeded in
using the IIT intellectual potential to its immense benefit in this manner. We need to copy it.
Knowledge
Enhancement
Defense technology and
management is niche, widespread and multidisciplinary. In India, defense
professionals across the board (Users, R&D personnel or for those in the
industry) lack structured study formats/ programs on defense technology topics.
If the overall defense industry must grow, there must be broad based as well as
focused courses available for people to study and carry out research. In my opinion,
knowledge enhancement must be carried out at three levels.
Grass Root / Entry
Level. At this level students must be
given exposure to defense technology through capsules / courses as electives so
that basics are known to them and they are oriented to the subject. This
generates interest in students to delve into defense technologies.
Middle Level. At the middle level, exposure should be to enable / impart hands on
experience in weapon systems and exposure to battlefield environment. We need
to evolve specialized courses in weapon technologies a la Cranfield University.
These must be specially designed M tech, MS, PhD courses which can be conducted
in select IITs/ IISc. These will be in addition to courses conducted at DIAT. All
current M Tech programs being attended by service officers need to be converted
into focused technology cum management programs to cater for the growth of
knowledge within services.
Project/ Program
Level. At the level of major projects /
programs being undertaken, there must be specialty research in specific
subjects which enables the program to move forward as visualized. This will
enable the overall knowledge bubble to expand.
Conclusion
The suggested framework is based on my experience in the Army, a couple of years exposure in DRDO at
grass root level and now two years in a premier IIT trying to get it into the defense
framework. One might not agree with many of my suggestions. I have no issue.
Come up with an alternative. Otherwise our Prime Minister’s intent that IITs
should contribute in indigenizing defense technologies will only sound hollow
after some time. Of course, one could say that this sounds like a Modi promo as
one of my critics remarked on an earlier article of mine. Do we have a better
option? If we can evolve a format sensibly it will a step towards strategic
Independence which we have not yet achieved. As a future 5 Tn USD economy we
must be strategically independent to be a reckonable power.
Your views are definitely very meaningful especially for us in the ADB. We shall endeavour to work towards making our engagements with IITs more meaningful Sir.
ReplyDeleteThank you and warm regards,
Gen Shankar has put centre stage, a topic that should have invited our attention, long ago. As DRDO and OFE's have had limited success in major defence technology projects, it was time to look at alternative talent pools to come out with fresh ideas, innovations and approach, to address our fault lines.
ReplyDeleteWe all know, Power can not be sustained on borrowed and dependent armament and technology. As we build our economic might we need to concurrently build our protective capabilities through an indigenous, state of the art, defence production capabilities. That is the only way forward.
Gen Shankar has very lucidly offered, implentable suggestions that could infuse a new life into a sagging and neglected, industry. It is time to act, now.
General Shankar, you have started a very useful discussion. I must point out a few observations:
ReplyDelete1. The researcher is a special creature, just as the soldier is. Asking each to become the other is not very useful, though of course better understanding of each other is useful.
2. In places where they were forced to think through this, because war was taking hundreds of thousands of lives (a situation that modern India has been spared, and may it always be so!) a system was developed, where each could do what they do best. This included an Office of XYZ Research where XYZ could be Army, Air Force, Navy etc. India does not seem to have a functioning equivalent. It is the job of the (civilian) specialist Program Monitors there to take the warfighter's needs and translate them into the BASIC problems for researchers to tackle. Where I ventured too close into operational realities, although others loved it, these Monitors told me very strictly: "Stick to basic research (or else )!" Unfortunately today these Offices and the discipline that they brought, are disappearing. Thus I knew what basic problems had to be solved: the precise WHY was not my business. This is the way that my work could be communicated to students and the world without secrecy concerns. The secret stuff was, well... done in secret. The trouble with everyone trying to be a Blue Sky Thinker or worse, a Venture Capitalist Startup, is that it is a gross waste of effort, just like asking everyone to become a Test Opener or a Movie Star. Hope this makes sense.
On the rest of the problem, one further comment: in my experience, it has always been very difficult to find out what would be of interest, and then to come up with a viable approach (never the actual solution: that came after years of hard work and thought!). But steady progress was ALWAYS essential, otherwise one could expect to be cut off. The meetings with the defence Review Teams and Boards were exhilarating to put it mildly, and by the same token, my alumni at all levels told me that the weekly 7:30AM Monday meetings were the most intense brain exercises that they ever faced. Yes we DID solve so-called "intractable" problems, quite a good number, where the "professionals" were stumped. But never by flash of luck or "brilliance": always by very very hard work and constant perseverance.
ReplyDeleteTHANKS FOR YOUR VIEWS. EDUCATED ME. CAN WE TAKE IT FORWARD?
DeleteGeneral, I can only take things forward by writing and thinking to arrive at the truth and the best way forward: no Authority to do anything else. Let me know how I can help within that constraint. I appreciate your reading. In my very limited experience, I did "develop", decades ago, a "track-powered air cushion transport system" for clean and efficient urban transportation. Demonstrated that it worked in the lab, much to the disappointment of the (then) IIT Dept. Chair and his retired buddy who were discussing their daughters' college education while I was presenting my "VIVA" and only woke up at the end and declared: "no no no no! that will not work". But I managed to induce them to move their posteriors all the way to the lab where I demonstrated it working. The concept and my report were taken to the "relevant Ministry" in Dilli by my professor (now no more). It's only been 40 years or so, too early for the file to be opened. The concept is still relevant, and I think a lot more feasible than Shri Elon Musk's Hyper Tubes etc. It would only have gone at about 160kph, not 5000, of course. I was certainly not unique: there must be thousands of examples of other students and professors who "succeeded" in their part of the national mission. General, students and professors are inspired by example: Show that XYZ's Rover or Transport System was taken seriously forward in scale-up/ field tests, and the lessons documented, even if they are not "market successes". This is all you need to do: the avalanche of ideas and good prototypes will come!
Deletesorry General sahib but the ecosystem do not exists. when we developed and delivered under ATB a rover ( remotely operated vehicle) to cme pune nothing came out of it.
ReplyDeleteThis is another part of the problem. In this case an organization actually seems to have gone far out of their usual comfort zone, found out what the customer needed (I am speculating) and actually gone through developing a system. From their point of view, a massive effort and source of great pride. But then they say that nothing came of it. Has anyone tried to find out "WHY?" Is the taxpayer's money so little value? Perhaps the system was not completely suitable - in some way. Was that taken forward? If not, why not? I can speculate on a lot of reasons but why have to speculate? The point is that processes for SUSTAINING INTEREST may be essential. Only the Services can actually implement that - not the IITs or others. Part of this is an ego culture: "unless it is MY pet project I will not care". I would be curious to see if someone actually "takes this forward" as the General says (thanks!) and does the homework to see WHY the rover was not taken forward. Did lessons from testing it, lead to a more advanced version? Or is it sitting in a corner? Did someone new just come in and look at the Rover Equivalent, pull out the Foreign Arms Dealers catalog and call Admiral Romdoss or Nadkarni? Please post what happened. Unless this truth is investigated, there is no progress possible.
DeleteI meant "Rover Requirement". In fact I do see that automated "rovers" are now in use in counter-terrorism in JKL. Great. Has the Indian capability to develop these been nurtured or are these from AliBabaOnline Shanghai?
Delete