What
Shrimati Bose and Madhur have said is disturbing. The
US said that the change would mean huge foreign investments in the
Indian pharmaceutical industry, enabling expansion and greater ability to
provide for India's needs. We did not expect that we might lose control of
our pharmaceuticals, as we have with Ranboxy. Nor that we might lose the
industry altogether. Historically,
the percentage of allowable foreign direct investment in
pharmaceuticals has varied from 38% to a recent 74%.
I'm not sure we are in a position to reverse ourselves at this point, but we
might have to in the future. Please keep us
informed.
What
globalization means is that we must change policies to fit with the western
countries.
When
we made the decision, there was no opposition from the Indian Drug
Manufacturing Association; the editorial from Pharma-Biz came after the
decision was made. Of course, our deliberations
were secret.
On
Africa, we have pledged to give a few million to the AIDS program. Could
we make it a gift in kind, and provide as many doctors, nurses, and lab
technicians that the money allocated can support? I'd be
willing to support such a move. How will you persuade medical personnel
to go? We remember
that shortly after independence several African governments asked those of
Indian descent to leave the country.
On
another note, we did win a victory in the November 2001 WTO negotiations in
Qatar. States can purchase generic drugs--and not just for AIDS, but for
cancer and other ailments. That should boost the pharmaceutical industry
in India, Brazil and Thailand.
