I came across this post of yours today and can't fathom the lack of understanding of defence procedures and projects of Mr. Ranjan who wrote the article. Initially I thought of highlighting a few inconsistencies and gaps in the article but by the time I finished it I gave up the idea as I find author's research very rudimentary and he has no idea about defence projects or any complex project management. So I brushed aside the article as a sub-standard piece of junk you come across the news pieces in general.
No offence to you, but I guess before you share such articles in your eagerness, please step back and analyse what the reporter is trying to imply.
After all the doom and gloom the article highlighted about the HAL's operations and pathetic delays and process maturity I give some analogies to which you may be able to appreciate the point I am making.
We all know the maturity of our IT services sector and are proud of it and many of us have seen companies like TCS, Infosys, HCL and Wipro become the giants they are today in front of our eyes in matter of 1-2 decade. Now imagine a whole aircraft industry with only 1 player in the country HAL. Healthy & Competition fosters rapid advancements and process maturity. What 5-10 big IT firms achieved in 2 decades a single player will take forever to reach there. In that context HAL's achievements are laudable.
Regarding delays, any project management team sets a project for a stipulated time and money resources, but defence projects have major dependencies on the political policy making. Marut got stuck in the embargo that came into picture after India's Nuclear test. almost half of the Maruts were not used due to lack of engines and spare parts available for India.
So IAF couldn't do much with Marut even though intention was there. Please also keep in mind, India chose to work on LCA because India's past experience & capability was to work only on a Light configuration aircraft. Please check the aircraft comparisons at below links.
Marut -
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=366
LCA -
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=861
HAL still doesn't have the skills and capability know how to develop and manage an aircraft with a high thrust engine. A high thrust engine needs a stringent and robust airframe with even more complex fly by wire controls, that makes the equation even more complex.
Just imagine for upgrading GE Engine from F404 to F414, HAL is tying up with SAAB to improvise on LCA's performance and engines integration.
HAL is still far away from working on an indigenous MCA or HCA planes. The projects are underway in tie ups with Russia and SAAB but without foreign hand holding we can't complete such complex projects.
The biggest mistake I will take from IAF is that the negligence and destruction of Maruts airframes, which could have been used now after getting the experience from LCA, as all rest structural traits are more or less comparable, but as we never took care of those airframes now we don't even have the frames to be reused.
I am by no means being critical of you, but just reflecting my points over Rajan's article which unnecessarily put blames and finger pointing on HAL & IAF.I am a proud Indian who believe in constructive criticism.
Jai Hind