Thousands of ISRO Employees Question Their Future, Write to Chairman Amid Privatisation Push
Just hours after ISRO’s successful GSLV-F17 launch carrying the EOS-05 earth observation satellite from Sriharikota on 4 September, a quiet but firm letter landed on the desk of Chairman V. Narayanan. Nine employee associations representing thousands of staff across the organisation’s major centres had put their concerns in writing. They wanted clear answers about where the government’s push to open the space sector to private players is really heading, and what it means for the people who have spent years building India’s rockets and satellites.
The associations include the ISRO Staff Association, SHAR Employees Association, ISAC Employees Association, ISRO Staff Association-LPSC, ISRO Staff Association-BBU, NRSA Employees Union, Space Employees Association-BBU, ISRO Staff Association-IPRC and SAC Employees Welfare Association. Together they speak for around 5,000 employees — roughly a quarter of ISRO’s workforce of about 18,100. Their five-page representation, dated 4 September, is the first formal joint move of its kind since the government began opening the sector six years ago.
What triggered the letter was a public remark by Pawan Goenka, chairman of IN-SPACe, the body set up to promote private participation. He had said that eventually ISRO would not manufacture any launch vehicles; that work would shift to the private sector or public sector undertakings. The associations pointed out that these comments received wide coverage, yet no official communication from the Department of Space had explained the approved policy, its legal basis, its timeline, or its consequences for the people already working there.
They are careful to stress that they are not opposed to private companies entering the space business. “Private participation in defined commercial activities can coexist with a strong, publicly owned ISRO,” the letter states. What they cannot accept without debate, they say, is a policy that reduces the organisation to a residual R&D boutique while the actual building of the nation’s launch vehicles and the running of its launch infrastructure move out of public hands.
The concerns are practical and personal. Staff worry that if manufacturing and operational work on vehicles like the PSLV, LVM-3 and SSLV steadily leave ISRO, the in-house work will shrink. Promotions and skill-development opportunities could dry up. Existing employees might be left without meaningful roles even as private contractors use technology developed over decades with public money and public effort. Regular recruitment, already slowed by vacancies, could slow further, closing a respected public career path for young engineers and scientists.
They note that the shift has already begun in places. Technology and production rights for the SSLV have been handed to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Reports suggest similar moves could extend to the PSLV and LVM-3. Routine satellite manufacturing is said to be moving out. New launch infrastructure, including the complex at Kulasekarapattinam, is being opened to private players. About 120 technologies have already been transferred from ISRO to the private sector. The associations want to know the institutional arrangement under which these publicly created assets — built with taxpayer funds and the labour of generations of employees — are being transferred, and what role NSIL and IN-SPACe play in the process.
They have asked specific questions. Does Goenka’s statement reflect an approved decision of the government, the Space Commission or the Department of Space? If so, they want the date, authority and text of that decision. Will design, development, realisation, integration, testing and launch of the current and future vehicles remain ISRO functions? Have public sector undertakings been deliberately kept out of some transfers, and if so, why? What will happen to sanctioned strength, vacancies and the recruitment calendar over the next five to ten years? What safeguards exist for serving employees against adverse cadre reviews or loss of promotional avenues?
The letter arrives at a moment when ISRO is still very much in the public eye. The GSLV success after a months-long gap was a reminder of the organisation’s capabilities. At the same time, the broader policy direction since 2020 has been clear: expand the space economy by bringing in private industry so that ISRO can focus more on advanced research and strategic missions. The government has spoken of mentoring startups and transferring operational tasks. For many inside the centres, the missing piece has been a transparent roadmap that protects the institutional knowledge built over decades and treats the workforce as more than a residual cost.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh called the employees’ move “courageous and commendable,” accusing the government of deliberately curtailing ISRO’s role while transferring capabilities whose long-term private commitment remains uncertain. The associations themselves have kept the tone measured. They simply want written clarity from the chairman, who also serves as secretary of the Department of Space and chairman of the Space Commission.
For the thousands of people who come to work every day at places like Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Satish Dhawan Space Centre, U R Rao Satellite Centre and the others, the issue is not abstract policy. It is about whether the craft they have mastered — building the rockets that put Indian satellites into orbit — will still be done under the ISRO roof, or whether that work will gradually move elsewhere while they are left to manage what remains. The letter asks for answers before irreversible decisions are taken. As of now, those answers are still awaited.
Sources: Times of India, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Deccan Herald, India Today, The Week, Times Now, Mathrubhumi English, News18, The Federal, ANI.
Thousands of ISRO Employees Question Their Future, Write to Chairman Amid Privatisation Push
Just hours after ISRO’s successful GSLV-F17 launch carrying the EOS-05 earth observation satellite from Sriharikota on 4 September, a quiet but firm letter landed on the desk of Chairman V. Narayanan. Nine employee associations representing thousands of staff across the organisation’s major centres had put their concerns in writing. They wanted clear answers about where the government’s push to open the space sector to private players is really heading, and what it means for the people who have spent years building India’s rockets and satellites.
The associations include the ISRO Staff Association, SHAR Employees Association, ISAC Employees Association, ISRO Staff Association-LPSC, ISRO Staff Association-BBU, NRSA Employees Union, Space Employees Association-BBU, ISRO Staff Association-IPRC and SAC Employees Welfare Association. Together they speak for around 5,000 employees — roughly a quarter of ISRO’s workforce of about 18,100. Their five-page representation, dated 4 September, is the first formal joint move of its kind since the government began opening the sector six years ago.
What triggered the letter was a public remark by Pawan Goenka, chairman of IN-SPACe, the body set up to promote private participation. He had said that eventually ISRO would not manufacture any launch vehicles; that work would shift to the private sector or public sector undertakings. The associations pointed out that these comments received wide coverage, yet no official communication from the Department of Space had explained the approved policy, its legal basis, its timeline, or its consequences for the people already working there.
They are careful to stress that they are not opposed to private companies entering the space business. “Private participation in defined commercial activities can coexist with a strong, publicly owned ISRO,” the letter states. What they cannot accept without debate, they say, is a policy that reduces the organisation to a residual R&D boutique while the actual building of the nation’s launch vehicles and the running of its launch infrastructure move out of public hands.
The concerns are practical and personal. Staff worry that if manufacturing and operational work on vehicles like the PSLV, LVM-3 and SSLV steadily leave ISRO, the in-house work will shrink. Promotions and skill-development opportunities could dry up. Existing employees might be left without meaningful roles even as private contractors use technology developed over decades with public money and public effort. Regular recruitment, already slowed by vacancies, could slow further, closing a respected public career path for young engineers and scientists.
They note that the shift has already begun in places. Technology and production rights for the SSLV have been handed to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Reports suggest similar moves could extend to the PSLV and LVM-3. Routine satellite manufacturing is said to be moving out. New launch infrastructure, including the complex at Kulasekarapattinam, is being opened to private players. About 120 technologies have already been transferred from ISRO to the private sector. The associations want to know the institutional arrangement under which these publicly created assets — built with taxpayer funds and the labour of generations of employees — are being transferred, and what role NSIL and IN-SPACe play in the process.
They have asked specific questions. Does Goenka’s statement reflect an approved decision of the government, the Space Commission or the Department of Space? If so, they want the date, authority and text of that decision. Will design, development, realisation, integration, testing and launch of the current and future vehicles remain ISRO functions? Have public sector undertakings been deliberately kept out of some transfers, and if so, why? What will happen to sanctioned strength, vacancies and the recruitment calendar over the next five to ten years? What safeguards exist for serving employees against adverse cadre reviews or loss of promotional avenues?
The letter arrives at a moment when ISRO is still very much in the public eye. The GSLV success after a months-long gap was a reminder of the organisation’s capabilities. At the same time, the broader policy direction since 2020 has been clear: expand the space economy by bringing in private industry so that ISRO can focus more on advanced research and strategic missions. The government has spoken of mentoring startups and transferring operational tasks. For many inside the centres, the missing piece has been a transparent roadmap that protects the institutional knowledge built over decades and treats the workforce as more than a residual cost.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh called the employees’ move “courageous and commendable,” accusing the government of deliberately curtailing ISRO’s role while transferring capabilities whose long-term private commitment remains uncertain. The associations themselves have kept the tone measured. They simply want written clarity from the chairman, who also serves as secretary of the Department of Space and chairman of the Space Commission.
For the thousands of people who come to work every day at places like Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Satish Dhawan Space Centre, U R Rao Satellite Centre and the others, the issue is not abstract policy. It is about whether the craft they have mastered — building the rockets that put Indian satellites into orbit — will still be done under the ISRO roof, or whether that work will gradually move elsewhere while they are left to manage what remains. The letter asks for answers before irreversible decisions are taken. As of now, those answers are still awaited.
Sources: Times of India, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Deccan Herald, India Today, The Week, Times Now, Mathrubhumi English, News18, The Federal, ANI.
@Rohit Manral
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Categories