Why does DRDO fail? A critical review

[roma]

It is about project management, not whether it is government or private enterprise. Btw I love the piece. Had a good laugh.

your comments made my morning

i too had a good laugh - when i read your comments ! - a v good MBA plus experience at middle-mangement should know that it's about project management ! and i dare say there are at least a few on this forum ( ahem! ) ~~ so it's not a "discovery"

and the author has in fact done a pretty good job of identifying the areas for improvement

the only point i "might " add ( the author may have stated it somewhere i didnt see ) , is to dissolve this dinosaur of an organization and then re-crystallize each separate area of expertise into separate companies or corporations each having a more specific role and mission - that will help make a tremendous improvement in accountability for projects given.

it doesn not have to involve an expansion in total manpower if the common services can be shared in some corporate arangement - only the expertise will be separated out and of course the accountability for each

 

[ice berg]

your comments made my morning

i too had a good laugh - when i read your comments ! - a v good MBA plus experience at middle-mangement should know that it's about project management ! and i dare say there are at least a few on this forum ( ahem! ) ~~ so it's not a "discovery"

and the author has in fact done a pretty good job of identifying the areas for improvement

the only point i "might " add ( the author may have stated it somewhere i didnt see ) , is to dissolve this dinosaur of an organization and then re-crystallize each separate area of expertise into separate companies or corporations each having a more specific role and mission - that will help make a tremendous improvement in accountability for projects given.

it doesn not have to involve an expansion in total manpower if the common services can be shared in some corporate arangement - only the expertise will be separated out and of course the accountability for each

So a v good MBA plus experience at middle-mangement tells you that the solution is to divide the enterprise into numerous sub companies?
That is your "discovery"?
What book did you pick up again at the Amazon?

 

[Bangalorean]

^^

Our friend Bangalorean is hung up on the myth that private companies are paragons of virtue. I wonder why he remains oblivious of all these scams involving private companies, some of which you have mentioned.

You are just not understanding the point that I am making. Private companies are not "paragons of virtue" because human beings are not paragons of virtue, human beings are greedy and self-serving, and without proper regulations and rule of law, and without an effective monitoring mechanism, private companies will try to crowd out competition, loot the customer, and maximize their profits. This is true anywhere in the world, which is why every nation has checks and balances, like the US has antitrust laws and such things. In India, if you give a free hand to Airtel and remove all the competition, they will suck your blood too, and eventually provide worse and worse service.

Your understanding of privatization is completely flawed. Understand what I am trying to say here. Privatization in the form that you are speaking of has existed since the early days of Nehru-Gandhi raj. There have always been small caterers, private contractors, suppliers, etc. which used to supply to the giant PSUs or do contract work for them. Even in the heyday of the licence raj, India has always had small-time private suppliers - for example, in road construction, the labour to the PWD used to be (and still is) provided by private "labour contractors", the stones used to be supplied by some small businessman, etc.

If one were to go by your definition of privatization, in the 1990s we would have perhaps hived off one small task of BSNL, say customer complaints, to a private company, called it "privatization", and then cried about the failure of it and the substandard service provided by the favoured private party. This is exactly what you are doing with your Indian railways example. Stop calling it "privatization" and making out a case that "privatization" is flawed because a private contractor did not provide good service. The babu has a choice to bring in a better contractor, but he will not do it because he has been bribed.

Corruption that effects the public happens only when you provide too much discretionary power to figures of authority i.e. babus. If a babu has the discretion to award contracts and decide which party gets how much money for how much service - that is an open invitation to corruption. That is the kind of corruption that effects the Indian public and gives us substandard services. Minimal presence of babus with discretionary powers is the only way you can end corruption. This works the other direction too. If there are 50 approvals required to start a business, there are 50 potential bribes to be paid and 50 potential bottlenecks to the set up of the business.

When there is competition between different private entities, you will not have to suffer substandard service on a consistent basis. If most customers of the service agree with your assessment that the service is bad, the service will be improved, the subcontractor will be booted out, and a better one will be brought in.

This is what we have been seeing in India, in all the sectors which have been liberalized. Substandard service exists in those sectors which are not yet liberalized. In liberalized sectors, even the PSUs that exist do a better job than they used to.

 

[Bangalorean]

And see - stop quoting Soviet and Chinese government organizations and hold them up as examples where government organizations did well competing with each other. It just drags the argument down to stupid levels. That argument should not even be brought in here, I don't need to tell you why - you think about it, you already know why.

 

[Bangalorean]

Privatization isn't a cure for every disease, on the contrary it brings more troubles in many cases.

And trust me, defence industry is the last sector you want to privatize, once you have done that, the whole defence industry of India is gonna collapse.

Private participation is what I am asking for. I am not asking for DRDO to be dissolved. Let the private sector be given the freedom to invest in the defence sector, let them bid for goods that the armed forces need, along with DRDO. The armed forces will decide. which product they wish to pick up. After a decade, you will see that DRDO will either be stripped down to the role of a regulator (which is the best possible outcome), or will begin to provide a few things that the armed forces find worth it.

 

[pmaitra]

And see - stop quoting Soviet and Chinese government organizations and hold them up as examples where government organizations did well competing with each other. It just drags the argument down to stupid levels. That argument should not even be brought in here, I don't need to tell you why - you think about it, you already know why.

Why? Why should I stop quoting Soviet and Chinese government organization? Because they nullify your arguments?

Well, is it okay if I quote SNCF (French National Railway Corporation)?

I got plenty of examples of government companies and corporations to cite. Bring it on buddy.

 

[pmaitra]

You are just not understanding the point that I am making. Private companies are not "paragons of virtue" because human beings are not paragons of virtue, human beings are greedy and self-serving, and without proper regulations and rule of law, and without an effective monitoring mechanism, private companies will try to crowd out competition, loot the customer, and maximize their profits. This is true anywhere in the world, which is why every nation has checks and balances, like the US has antitrust laws and such things. In India, if you give a free hand to Airtel and remove all the competition, they will suck your blood too, and eventually provide worse and worse service.

Good. Now it feels much better that you accept that private companies are not paragons of virtue.

Your understanding of privatization is completely flawed. Understand what I am trying to say here. Privatization in the form that you are speaking of has existed since the early days of Nehru-Gandhi raj. There have always been small caterers, private contractors, suppliers, etc. which used to supply to the giant PSUs or do contract work for them. Even in the heyday of the licence raj, India has always had small-time private suppliers - for example, in road construction, the labour to the PWD used to be (and still is) provided by private "labour contractors", the stones used to be supplied by some small businessman, etc.

Yes, and talking about PWD contracting out road building and maintenance projects to private companies, the conditions of India's roads speak volumes, don't they?

If one were to go by your definition of privatization, in the 1990s we would have perhaps hived off one small task of BSNL, say customer complaints, to a private company, called it "privatization", and then cried about the failure of it and the substandard service provided by the favoured private party. This is exactly what you are doing with your Indian railways example. Stop calling it "privatization" and making out a case that "privatization" is flawed because a private contractor did not provide good service. The babu has a choice to bring in a better contractor, but he will not do it because he has been bribed.

Ok, so now you are going into specifics. Do you have a problem with citing privatization of catering services as an example of privatization? Well, how about we talk about the several private railways, yes, entire railways, that are private. What do you have to say now? And this time, this is not a Soviet or Chinese example - so you cannot even use that excuse.

Corruption that effects the public happens only when you provide too much discretionary power to figures of authority i.e. babus. If a babu has the discretion to award contracts and decide which party gets how much money for how much service - that is an open invitation to corruption. That is the kind of corruption that effects the Indian public and gives us substandard services. Minimal presence of babus with discretionary powers is the only way you can end corruption. This works the other direction too. If there are 50 approvals required to start a business, there are 50 potential bribes to be paid and 50 potential bottlenecks to the set up of the business.

I disagree. I think rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. More discretionary power one has, more freedom one has, and the more accountable he is. Judge companies by their output - not by whether they are private or government owned.

When there is competition between different private entities, you will not have to suffer substandard service on a consistent basis. If most customers of the service agree with your assessment that the service is bad, the service will be improved, the subcontractor will be booted out, and a better one will be brought in.

"I scratch your back, you scratch my back."

Read below:

EXAMPLE: The FTC has challenged the actions of several groups of competing health care providers, such as doctors, charging that their refusal to deal with insurers or other purchasers on other than jointly-agreed upon terms amounted to an illegal group boycott. For a description of these actions, read the Overview of FTC Antitrust Actions in Health Care Services and Products. The FTC also successfully challenged the group boycott of an association of competing trial lawyers to stop providing legal services to the District of Columbia for indigent criminal defendants until the District increased the fees it paid for those services. The Supreme Court upheld the FTC's ruling in this case. 493 U.S. 411 (1990).
[HR][/HR]
EXAMPLE: Three school bus companies formed a joint venture to provide transportation services under a single contract with the school district. The joint venture did not involve any beneficial integration of operations that would save money. The FTC found that the joint venture mainly operated to prevent the bus companies from offering competing bids.

Complete PDF:
[PDF]http://ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/factsheets/antitrustlawsguide.pdf[/PDF]

This is what we have been seeing in India, in all the sectors which have been liberalized. Substandard service exists in those sectors which are not yet liberalized. In liberalized sectors, even the PSUs that exist do a better job than they used to.

Again generalizing and making false claims. What do you mean by "in all sectors?" That is absolutely not true. We have debated this already. I am not interested in going round in circles. You want to remain blind to corruption in private companies, then by all means do so.

Judge a company by what it produces, and at what cost, not by whether it is privately owned or government owned. A company's performance and its ownership are non-sequiturs.

 

[Bangalorean]

Why? Why should I stop quoting Soviet and Chinese government organization? Because they nullify your arguments?

Well, is it okay if I quote SNCF (French National Railway Corporation)?

I got plenty of examples of government companies and corporations to cite. Bring it on buddy.

Do you really need me to spell out the reasons?

I could make a silly argument by saying that since the US has the Raytheons and Boeings and Lockheeds, we need to go down the same path. QED. But then, you would say that we are a different nation, we have different dynamics, we can't ape other nations, and so on and so forth.

The Soviet union collapsed precisely because they kept pumping money into gigantic cock-waving projects in the military industrial complex with no consumer economy to speak of. We picked up the worst of the communist and capitalist systems and screwed up our country. It is best if we stop holding the USSR as an example to emulate. Yesterday in Bangalore airport I picked up "India grows at night" by Gurcharan Das to read on the plane. You need to read his books, including this one.

India was never suited for a command economy. Even nations which were more suited for such an economy, like USSR and China, could not keep it up. All the government monopoly and control in the "commanding heights of the Indian economy" has eaten into the country's vitals, and IR and DRDO are just two of the examples.

 

[pmaitra]

Do you really need me to spell out the reasons?

I could make a silly argument by saying that since the US has the Raytheons and Boeings and Lockheeds, we need to go down the same path. QED. But then, you would say that we are a different nation, we have different dynamics, we can't ape other nations, and so on and so forth.

The Soviet union collapsed precisely because they kept pumping money into gigantic cock-waving projects in the military industrial complex with no consumer economy to speak of. We picked up the worst of the communist and capitalist systems and screwed up our country. It is best if we stop holding the USSR as an example to emulate. Yesterday in Bangalore airport I picked up "India grows at night" by Gurcharan Das to read on the plane. You need to read his books, including this one.

India was never suited for a command economy. Even nations which were more suited for such an economy, like USSR and China, could not keep it up. All the government monopoly and control in the "commanding heights of the Indian economy" has eaten into the country's vitals, and IR and DRDO are just two of the examples.

Quit playing the broken record "USSR," blah blah blah.

You are saying that SNCF is a bad organization, am I right? Well my friend, you are deluded.

 

[pmaitra]

Armand2REP, a special reminder for you. This thread is not meant for discussing birds, such as, but not limited to, the dodo.

You are advised against trolling.

 

[Bangalorean]

Good. Now it feels much better that you accept that private companies are not paragons of virtue.

Yes, and talking about PWD contracting out road building and maintenance projects to private companies, the conditions of India's roads speak volumes, don't they?

Ok, so now you are going into specifics. Do you have a problem with citing privatization of catering services as an example of privatization? Well, how about we talk about the several private railways, yes, entire railways, that are private. What do you have to say now? And this time, this is not a Soviet or Chinese example - so you cannot even use that excuse.

I disagree. I think rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. More discretionary power one has, more freedom one has, and the more accountable he is. Judge companies by their output - not by whether they are private or government owned.

"I scratch your back, you scratch my back."

Read below:



Complete PDF:

Again generalizing and making false claims. What do you mean by "in all sectors?" That is absolutely not true. We have debated this already. I am not interested in going round in circles. You want to remain blind to corruption in private companies, then by all means do so.

Judge a company by what it produces, and at what cost, not by whether it is privately owned or government owned. A company's performance and its ownership are non-sequiturs.

How many Indian PSUs can you count, that provide world-class service without being exposed to any competition whatsoever? Even those that are exposed to competition, like the banks, do not provide the best service among their peers.

Outsourcing of small bits of government functions to 2-bit private players is not privatization. It is just another form of cronyism. A true free market will automatically provide the best possible service at the minimum rate to the customer, under the strict eye of a bare-bones government regulator. Real privatization is when you allow private parties to compete and provide a service to the customer. The market will automatically ensure that the service is good.

In such a scenario, how will corruption in the private company even matter? So, let us say some senior executive in Indigo airlines gives the catering contract to his brother-in-law for a bribe, who provides substandard food. People like you will complain about it, you will blog about it, write reviews, spread it by word of mouth, and will give this as a reason to switch over to Jet. If you are in a majority, if most people think like you, the caterer will be changed sooner or later. And the person who appointed the caterer will get the sack.

How can you ever achieve this kind of accountability and responsiveness in a public sector undertaking? It is just not in their nature. It is just not possible. You can go on listing the issues in fine detail, "bureaucracy, red tape, accountability, lack of standards, HR practices, political patronage" - the fact is, you will never be able to fix these issues with the PSU organization. Have we not tried enough for 65 years?

 

[Bangalorean]

Quit playing the broken record "USSR," blah blah blah.

You are saying that SNCF is a bad organization, am I right? Well my friend, you are deluded.

You are the one who is playing a broken record. Stop giving examples from the USSR as a standard to emulate, we've been hearing that from 1947, the NehruGandhis tried that and ruined the country enough. Please - no more USSR examples.

The USSR has collapsed, their economic system is a failure, and countries which tried to follow their economic system are all failures. Countries which followed their economic model to a greater extent are greater failures, countries that followed it to a lesser extent are small failures.

History is not on the side of those who quote from the USSR's economic model.

LOL, I did not say that SNCF is a bad organization. Now, are you saying that Lockheed and Raytheon are bad organizations? So there...

 

[Bangalorean]

Stop trying to fix the public sector from top-down. We are wasting the nation's money, resources, and are paying an immense cost in terms of development. We have tried for long enough.

You can do any number of case studies, give all the recommendations you want, go and submit it to "adarneeya rail mantri", and wait till the crack of doom for the organization to work wonders after implementing your recommendations.

This holds for all PSUs including Air India, which is being propped up by taxpayer money. it infuriates me that the national carrier, with which the nation's prestige is associated at an international level, is allowed to descend into the pits like this. According to me, if an entity cannot do a good job of it, they have no right to use the "India" brand name.

 

[pmaitra]

How many Indian PSUs can you count, that provide world-class service without being exposed to any competition whatsoever? Even those that are exposed to competition, like the banks, do not provide the best service among their peers.

Is it about a company being a PSU or is it about competition? What is the cause?

Outsourcing of small bits of government functions to 2-bit private players is not privatization. It is just another form of cronyism. A true free market will automatically provide the best possible service at the minimum rate to the customer, under the strict eye of a bare-bones government regulator. Real privatization is when you allow private parties to compete and provide a service to the customer. The market will automatically ensure that the service is good.

Oh my, everyday is a school day. I wonder whether you even have a fixed definition of privatization. Unless something is totally privatized, it is not privatization; is that what you are saying?

In such a scenario, how will corruption in the private company even matter? So, let us say some senior executive in Indigo airlines gives the catering contract to his brother-in-law for a bribe, who provides substandard food. People like you will complain about it, you will blog about it, write reviews, spread it by word of mouth, and will give this as a reason to switch over to Jet. If you are in a majority, if most people think like you, the caterer will be changed sooner or later. And the person who appointed the caterer will get the sack.

Fair enough. We still agree corruption is not exclusive to government owned companies, I hope.

How can you ever achieve this kind of accountability and responsiveness in a public sector undertaking? It is just not in their nature. It is just not possible. You can go on listing the issues in fine detail, "bureaucracy, red tape, accountability, lack of standards, HR practices, political patronage" - the fact is, you will never be able to fix these issues with the PSU organization. Have we not tried enough for 65 years?

You have a point, but again, accountability has existed, along with excellent performance, among many PSUs, even if they are in a minority among all PSUs.

The thread title asks, "Why does DRDO fail?" You answer is that because it is government owned, I get that. I disagree, but thank you for your pearls of wisdom. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

 

[pmaitra]

You are the one who is playing a broken record. Stop giving examples from the USSR as a standard to emulate, we've been hearing that from 1947, the NehruGandhis tried that and ruined the country enough. Please - no more USSR examples.

The USSR has collapsed, their economic system is a failure, and countries which tried to follow their economic system are all failures. Countries which followed their economic model to a greater extent are greater failures, countries that followed it to a lesser extent are small failures.

History is not on the side of those who quote from the USSR's economic model.

LOL, I did not say that SNCF is a bad organization. Now, are you saying that Lockheed and Raytheon are bad organizations? So there...

No, I cited SNCF, because, apparently, you were getting a bit uncomfortable with examples from USSR and PRC (AFAIK, I never cited PRC, but you made that up anyway).

 

[Bangalorean]

Is it about a company being a PSU or is it about competition? What is the cause?

It is about competition, but NOT competition among different government organizations. It is NOT about having SBI, SBT, SBM, SBBJ, etc. and calling it competition. It is about having private sector compete in the industry in addition to the government organization(s).

And when exposed to private competition, the PSU(s) will either wither away, or will fix themselves and survive in the tough new world, India wins in both cases.

Oh my, everyday is a school day. I wonder whether you even have a fixed definition of privatization. Unless something is totally privatized, it is not privatization; is that what you are saying?

In this case of IR catering that you spoke about, it is not "privatization" by any definition. See, if you talk about "private", there are the worst shittiest private organizations, and good ones. The outsourcer needs to pick the best, through competitive bidding. In an organization as politicized and corruption-prone as IR, how will you ever have fair competitive bidding that provides the best service to the customer? It is just not in the nature of an babu organization such as IR.

 

[Bangalorean]

No, I cited SNCF, because, apparently, you were getting a bit uncomfortable with examples from USSR and PRC (AFAIK, I never cited PRC, but you made that up anyway).

Look, there is no point giving examples of MIG and things like that. Today in 2012, can you fix DRDO and make it work, by enforcing changes in the organization from the top-down? I bet my life that that is not going to be possible. We will wait till the crack of doom, just as we have waited all these years.

Now, speaking of DRDO, here is a post that I made some months back on DFI:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-advice-defence-scientists-2.html#post335098

I quote from the following comment on another blog (link below) (credit goes to 'Sandesh' of churumuri):

Anna-sambar & the price of ISRO’s moon mission « churumuri

Having worked for a while in DRDO (LRDE actually) and now at one of the IITs, I have seen both academic and DRDO worlds. Mt two cents.

a) @Vinay, I think what folks here are demanding is a little *accountability*. No doubt, space and defense research is expensive and justified, the question is— Is the money being spent correctly ? When you pour in crores and crores of money, you expect some deliverables right? The biggest problem with DRDO is that there has been little product development commensurate with money it has received. Surely, anyone would question the futility of pouring money to these guzzlers which produce no results.

b) Contrary to what Khan might want us to believe, selection to DRDO labs and ISRO is not all 'merit based'. DRDO (and others) have not been able to attract top ranked students even from local engg colleges. Those who join are disillusioned after a couple of months..when the seniors tell them to chill out and relax, no work is assigned, and most of the time is spent on tea, lunch and more tea. Unless, the work culture changes I don't see DRDO producing anything that the defense can use.

c) No accountability. I remember that majors from army/navy/air force used to visit DRDO and the so called scientists (right from group leaders), used to shiver when these visits were scheduled. The majors would be so annoyed with non-progress in terms of product, field trials, support system, technology transfers. The few products developed are substandard, behind state of the art by 20 years and since army can't take chances in a war, we end up buying weapons from other countries (israel, russia, france and so on).

d) Once you enter DRDO you are taken care for lifetime. You get staff quarters, essential commodities at throw away prices, 8-5 working hours, no projects, and pension when you retire. It is very easy to go into the regular time pass mood and most scientists are in that mood. Those very few who work hard go away from DRDO after a few years. Overall, it is considered an 'easy life' for scientists who join DRDO.

e) DRDO scientists are now 'encouraged' to do PhD. IITs have separate quota for these scientists for the MTech and PhD courses. The pathetic level of knowledge these girls (and guys) have is a serious concern. Anyway they are least interested in gaining knowledge. They are here to get a course completion certificate which allows them to jump ahead in the career.

f) One big difference b/w US and Indian defense labs are that US defense labs (such as at Las Alamos, Argonne etc) are very very attractive for bright students. There are short term careers for those who join US labs. Once they come out, top institutions scramble to take them in. So, it is considered a great achievement to join one of the US defense labs. Can we say the same to DRDO labs ??

g) US invests heavily in the universities. Their defense comes from three sources–labs, universities, and private developers (who again are bright students from top ranking univs). India invests least in universities. A 'fast track' grant from DST takes 8-9 months to be approved and the money sanctioned is not more than 17 lakhs. This is hardly a good amount to even replicate the state of the art in the field. Also, unlike US, we have hundreds of different grant agencies (DBT, DIT, DST, CSIR,"¦) which all are plagued by the same bureaucracy problems. There is very little amount for research in IITs. Imagine the local univs and NITs.

h) hate to say this"¦ but the quality of engineers produced in India is very very poor. Those coming out of IITs, only 20% are really good. The others are only marginally better than the rest of India. And all engineers eye only s/w as profession (no fault of them though). There is hardly an ambition to take up challenges, explore new avenues and vistas, develop technology. Everyone wants a s/w job, get paid (get laid), go onsite, and procrastinate.

i) ISRO on the other hand does one job and they do it pretty good, i.e., launch spaceships/ rockets. The moon mission guzzled so much of money and used technologies from abroad as pay loads. The moon mineral mapper came from US. If ISRO shuts up its mouth, works hard on improving technology (stops taking the sons/daughters of employers as 'trainees'), and provides full details on money utilized there is no reason why space program cannot be continued. Until there is transparency, tax payers have every right to question the (f)utility of dumping money on these labs.

j) Does ISRO wants to give us data ?? Ask someone like me who approached ISRO for data on moonmapper and was told to get lost..unless I fill in hundreds of papers and write a formal proposal explaining why I need it. After 8-9 months, they would 'consider' it.

 

[Armand2REP]

Judge companies by their output - not by whether they are private or government owned.

You have to judge the results based on input and output. Was the investment worth the product? Did it come in a timely manner? Did it meet requirements? Did it meet your goals? The beauty of private defence firms is that the government doesn't have to fund the majority of it. They are performance based and only get paid when they show results. As it stands now, they keep throwing good money after bad. By the time they overcome the next challenge it is already obsolete. When there is a state monopoly, it cuts out competition and there is nothing driving them to do better. The same substandard results will always be good enough at the local level and never good enough on the global level. Having a publicly listed company that is not immune to the judiciary goes a long way to battling corruption.

The three things you get going private:
1) results = compensation
2) open playing field = competition
3) transparency = less corruption

The argument was made over how a communist Soviet MIC could be successful and not be private. They had competition by having multiple design institutes and manufacturers. They had result oriented compensation by reward and the threat to your family if you failed. The sheer mass of input was enough to overcome many challenges smaller MICs have been unable to overcome. 30% of GDP was pumped through this system and no other state could do this nor would they want to. This model was based on the sacrifice of resources for the masses in the name of defence. It is not a model that is compatible in this day and age. Also underwriting this was a massive education system designed around it.

There are a few points that can be applied from it.
1) appropriate education programmes
2) enough firms to make competition
3) performance based results

The difference is the scale and application of such a system. Private firms can operate in any sized environment because they tailor themselves to the supply and demand. They can draw talent from wherever they need to because it is a global system. You can get the same results as the Soviets for less public expenditure. The firms will do what they need to, the government just needs to offer enough compensation to make it profitable.

 

[Bangalorean]

The argument was made over how a communist Soviet MIC could be successful and not be private. They had competition by having multiple design institutes and manufacturers. They had result oriented compensation by reward and the threat to your family if you failed. The sheer mass of input was enough to overcome many challenges smaller MICs have been unable to overcome. 30% of GDP was pumped through this system and no other state could do this nor would they want to. This model was based on the sacrifice of resources for the masses in the name of defence. It is not a model that is compatible in this day and age. Also underwriting this was a massive education system designed around it.

Not many people realize this when they speak of USSR as an example. That is the reason I get peeved when people take the USSR as an example worthy of emulation. Usually I don't have the patience to list out points, because one would think it is fairly obvious to the world now, what a disaster that whole Soviet model was. The case of Germany (East vs. West) was almost a laboratory experiment that showed up the failure of the Soviet model to the whole world. Now, if intelligent and well-informed people still provide USSR examples, it can only be a case of eyes intentionally closed. There is absolutely no sense in saying, "look, USSR had so many government organizations who used to produce wonderful stuff competing with each other, so India can also do the same, why do you disagree".

The sheer mass of input, 30% of GDP - not many people understand the enormity of the figures involved here. If India still wants to follow the USSR model of government agencies competing with one another, funded by the government, India would collapse, and much more spectacularly than the Soviet union, with much greater human cost.

 

[pmaitra]

Not many people realize this when they speak of USSR as an example. That is the reason I get peeved when people take the USSR as an example worthy of emulation. Usually I don't have the patience to list out points, because one would think it is fairly obvious to the world now, what a disaster that whole Soviet model was. The case of Germany (East vs. West) was almost a laboratory experiment that showed up the failure of the Soviet model to the whole world. Now, if intelligent and well-informed people still provide USSR examples, it can only be a case of eyes intentionally closed. There is absolutely no sense in saying, "look, USSR had so many government organizations who used to produce wonderful stuff competing with each other, so India can also do the same, why do you disagree".

The sheer mass of input, 30% of GDP - not many people understand the enormity of the figures involved here. If India still wants to follow the USSR model of government agencies competing with one another, funded by the government, India would collapse, and much more spectacularly than the Soviet union, with much greater human cost.

Don't keep banging your head bud! I already cited SNCF, and you cleverly avoided that. I wonder what Armand2REP has to say about SNCF. He should be better informed than I am.