Employees’ associations of ISRO demand answers over plans to hand over launch-vehicle production, satellite manufacturing and launch infrastructure to private players, warning that ISRO risks being reduced to an “R&D boutique”

Groundxero Desk

A growing confrontation is emerging inside India’s space establishment over the future of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), with employees’, staff and scientists warning that the government’s drive to open the space sector to private capital could end up hollowing out the country’s premier publicly funded scientific institution.

In an unprecedented move, on September 4, nine service associations representing employees of centers / units under the Department of Space and ISRO, have written to ISRO Chairman V Narayanan demanding an official explanation of reported plans suggesting that ISRO could eventually move away from manufacturing launch vehicles and that more of its technologies and facilities could be transferred to private companies and public sector undertakings.

In the letter, accessed by Groundxero, the associations have sought clarity on the institutional arrangements under which publicly developed technology, testing facilities, launch complexes and know-how are being transferred or opened to private operation.

The immediate trigger for the letter was remarks made by Pawan Kumar Goenka, Chairman of the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe), at the Business Today India @ 100 Economy Summit on August 21. Goenka reportedly said:

“Eventually, ISRO will not make any launch vehicles and will not manufacture any launch vehicles. That will all be done by the private sector or PSU.”

IN-SPACe was launched in 2020 by the Narendra Modi government to facilitate the entry of the private sector in to ISRO and space sector. Pawan Goenka, a former Mahindra and Mahindra automobile company executive, who head the effort to privatise the space sector since 2020, further said:

“They [ISRO] will not do any day in day out kind of satellites. They will do the satellites that are for special purpose, for orbits for scientific research or to develop new technology that will then get transferred to the private sector.”

The associations pointed out in the letter that there has been no official communication from the Department of Space explaining whether the reported policy has been formally approved, who approved it, how it will be implemented, and what it means for thousands of employees and future recruitment.

In the letter, they asked the ISRO chairperson to issue a “written clarification” on whether Goenka’s statements represent an “approved decision” of the government of India, the Space Commission or the Department of Space.

The associations make a distinction between legitimate commercialisation through NSIL and a much more consequential dismantling of ISRO’s own capabilities. They have specifically demanded clarity on the respective roles of NSIL and IN-SPACe in the transfer of technology, facilities and know-how to private entities.

From Public Institution to Technology Supplier to Private Players

For the employees’ associations, the issue is far larger than the outsourcing of a few manufacturing contracts to private players. The key concern is what will remain of ISRO as a public institution if the actual making and launching of spacecraft and launch vehicles is progressively removed from it.

The concerns come amid a wider policy shift towards commercialising India’s space sector and expanding the role of private capital. The employees’ associations do not reject private participation as such. What they challenge is the possibility that “private participation” is becoming a euphemism for the withdrawal of the public sector from the technological and industrial capabilities it painstakingly built over decades.

According to the letter, the process has already begun with the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle (SSLV), for which technology and production rights have been handed over to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The associations say the technology transfer is proposed to be extended to the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and Launch Vehicle Mark-3 (LVM3). Routine satellite manufacturing could also move out of ISRO, while new launch infrastructure, including the Space Launch Complex at Kulasekarapattinam, is being opened to private entities. Around 120 ISRO technologies have reportedly already been transferred to the private sector.

The significance of this policy lies in what is being transferred. These are not simply idle government assets being put to commercial use. ISRO’s launch vehicles, test facilities, launch complexes and technological know-how are the accumulated product of public investment and the labour of generations of scientists, engineers, technicians and other employees.

The associations wrote: ISRO was built as a national scientific institution with public funds, public purpose and a public workforce. Launch-vehicle design, realisation, integration, testing and launch operations are the core competence, institutional memory and strategic capability of the organisation. The letter pointed to the possible dilution of strategic autonomy, quality assurance, safety culture and accountability if core realisation and launch operations move outside public control.

They associations explicitly warn against a policy in which ISRO is reduced to a “residual R&D boutique”, while the actual realisation of launch vehicles and operation of launch infrastructure passes into private hands.

Employees Concerns Over Other Side of “reform”

The letter also expresses employees’ concern on consequences of the proposed policy. The associations warn that withdrawing ISRO from launch-vehicle and satellite manufacturing would shrink in-house work, affect sanctioned strength and restrict promotion and skill-development opportunities across scientific, technical, administrative, procurement, quality, safety and industrial cadres. Existing employees could be declared surplus, redeployed or left without meaningful work while the same functions are performed by private contractors using publicly developed technology.

The consequences would extend beyond current employees, when regular recruitment to Group A, B and C positions is already constrained, the associations say. Further outsourcing and transfer of functions could reduce opportunities for young scientists, engineers and technical workers who still see ISRO as a public career of honour, not as a private contractor’s workforce.

Public Assets, Private Operations and Profits

ISRO’s launch vehicles, test facilities, launch complexes and technological know-how did not emerge from private investment. They were built over decades through public expenditure and the work of generations of publicly employed scientists, engineers, technicians and other workers.

The employees of ISRO have raised a fundamental question of public ownership and accountability: what happens when public institutions are opened for private operation? The associations have asked the government to explain the institutional arrangements governing the transfer of publicly developed technology, test facilities, launch complexes and know-how.

Their demand is therefore not simply for job protection. The concern is that the state is moving towards a model in which the costs of developing strategic technological capability remain socialised, while an increasing share of the productive and commercial benefits is privatised. That is the larger political economy of the proposed transition. Privatisation does not necessarily begin with selling a government asset. It can begin by transferring its technology and opening its infrastructure to private sector until the private players becomes indispensable and the public sector becomes residual.

There is also a larger social question embedded in the employees’ intervention. For generations, ISRO has represented one of the most visible examples of what a publicly funded scientific institution can achieve. Its significance extends beyond rockets and satellites: it has embodied the proposition that advanced science and technology can be built as a public capability rather than merely purchased from or controlled by private corporations.

The issue, then, is not simply the fate of a particular cadre of government employees. It is whether the country’s technological future will continue to be built through public institutions and public investment, or increasingly through private entities operating with access to capabilities created by the public sector.

The associations have demanded a time-bound written clarification from the Department of Space, assurances that no irreversible transfer of core ISRO realisation and launch functions will occur without consultation and dialogue with recognised service associations. They have also sought an official assurance that the service conditions, cadres and public employment status of existing employees will be protected.

The language of “commercialisation” can easily obscure the question of who pays for developing technological capability, and who ultimately controls and profits from it? What is now required is public clarity about who will own, operate and control the technological infrastructure of India’s space programme.

The employee’s intervention is made not in opposition to ISRO but precisely because of their commitment to it.