Link:https://orissatodaynews.in/epaper/m/99357/6aa379aed9a04

ISRO: No commercialization at the cost of institutional expertise

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India’s space programme is not merely a story of rockets, satellites and technological achievements; it is a story of national aspiration, public investment and the dedication of generations of scientists, engineers, technicians and other employees. From modest beginnings, ISRO has grown into one of India’s most respected institutions and a symbol of scientific self-reliance. Therefore, any major restructuring of its activities, particularly the increasing involvement of private entities deserves a careful national debate. The concern expressed by all nine ISRO employees’ associations is significant in this context. Their apprehension should neither be dismissed as opposition to reform nor accepted uncritically as proof of impending privatisation. It deserves to be examined objectively, keeping employees’ interests and the nation’s strategic interests together at the centre of the debate.

The nine employee associations have reportedly sought clarity from the ISRO leadership over the proposed transfer of manufacturing and operational activities to private companies and public-sector undertakings. Their concerns reportedly include the future of launch vehicles such as SSLV, PSLV and LVM3, satellite production, launch infrastructure, recruitment, promotions and the role of existing employees. Their position is particularly important because they have not necessarily opposed private participation as such. Rather, their fundamental concern appears to be whether the growing role of private industry will supplement ISRO’s capabilities or gradually result in the erosion of its in-house expertise and functions. This is a reasonable question. Reform and modernisation are welcome, but reform should not inadvertently weaken the institution that created India’s space capabilities in the first place.

At the heart of this controversy lies the question of human resources. ISRO’s greatest asset is not its buildings, laboratories or launch pads but its scientists and technical personnel. Space technology is an accumulation of knowledge acquired through years of experimentation, failures, corrections, testing and successful missions. Such institutional memory cannot be transferred overnight to a private company through a contract or technology-transfer agreement. If important manufacturing, testing and operational activities are progressively moved outside ISRO, the immediate concern is not merely about the number of posts that may disappear. The deeper concern is whether scientists and engineers will continue to get opportunities to work directly on complex technologies and whether future generations will acquire the practical experience necessary to sustain India’s space programme.

This concern becomes more serious in the backdrop of reports about scientists and engineers leaving ISRO. Reports have highlighted resignations and voluntary retirements among experienced personnel, while the ISRO leadership has also placed the numbers in a broader perspective, pointing out that employees have been leaving the organisation every year for various reasons. These figures should not be sensationalised or automatically attributed to privatisation. Scientists may leave because of personal circumstances, retirement, better remuneration, career opportunities or the emergence of an expanding private space sector. Yet the trend deserves serious examination. When experienced scientists leave a strategic institution, the country loses not simply employees but accumulated knowledge, mentorship and institutional memory. If resignations coincide with declining in-house activities and fewer opportunities for recruitment and career progression, the problem could become much more serious.

There is therefore a legitimate danger in confusing commercial efficiency with institutional efficiency. A private company may be able to manufacture a proven product faster or at lower cost. That can be beneficial to the national space ecosystem. But ISRO must continue to possess the capability to understand, design, test, modify and, when necessary, independently reproduce critical technologies. A country cannot claim complete technological self-reliance if its premier space institution gradually loses the capacity to perform essential functions and becomes dependent on external entities for technologies that it once mastered internally. The experience of past missions demonstrates the value of having an institution capable of learning from failures and immediately applying those lessons to subsequent missions. That capability must not be allowed to wither.

The crucial question, however, is where the boundary should be drawn. Mature technologies may certainly be transferred to industry for large-scale production, provided that ISRO retains adequate design, testing, quality-control and technological capabilities. Commercialisation should not mean the disappearance of institutional expertise. Critical strategic technologies, sensitive infrastructure, launch capabilities and essential knowledge must remain securely anchored within the public system. Equally important, employees whose skills and experience have built these capabilities should not be treated as an incidental factor in restructuring. They must be recognised as stakeholders. Any major transition should therefore be accompanied by a transparent policy on employment security, recruitment, promotions, training, redeployment and preservation of technical expertise.

The latest clarification from ISRO that the organisation will neither be privatised nor diminished in importance is certainly reassuring. The leadership has also emphasised that critical and strategic space capabilities will remain under government ownership and control. Such assurances are important, but the concerns raised by the nine employee associations cannot be settled by assurances alone. They deserve a structured dialogue and clear written answers. If there is no intention to dilute ISRO’s role, the government and the Department of Space should have no difficulty explaining precisely which functions will remain with ISRO, which activities may be transferred to industry, how institutional capabilities will be protected and what safeguards will exist for the employees who currently perform those functions.

Ultimately, this is not simply an industrial-relations issue between an employer and its employees. It is a question of India’s scientific sovereignty and national interest. The employees’ associations have a legitimate responsibility to protect the interests of scientists, engineers and other personnel whose careers are directly affected by structural changes. At the same time, the government has an equally legitimate responsibility to expand India’s space economy and ensure that public institutions evolve with changing technological and economic realities. These two interests need not conflict. Indeed, a reform that protects employees, strengthens ISRO and simultaneously enables private industry to grow would be far more sustainable than one that treats them as competing objectives.

India needs a bigger and more dynamic space ecosystem, but it does not need a weaker ISRO. Private enterprise should be encouraged, but public scientific capability must be protected. Technology may be commercialised, but institutional knowledge must not be allowed to disappear. Experienced scientists must be retained and young talent must continue to see ISRO as a place where they can build challenging and meaningful careers. The real test of space-sector reform is not how much work can be shifted out of ISRO, but how much stronger India’s overall space capability becomes without weakening its foundational institution. The nine associations have raised questions that deserve answers, not apprehension. And the resignations of experienced scientists, whatever their individual causes, should serve as a warning that human expertise must remain at the heart of India’s space ambitions. Reform ISRO, if necessary; expand wherever beneficial, but never reform away the strength that made ISRO a national institution in the first place.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****