Yesterday I received an annual report from Lester B. Pearson College, which is only one of my old schools but one that is the closest to my heart. The two years at Pearson College were a life-shaping experience: As a sound-bite, to describe the experience in a sentence, then I used to say, "Two hundred students, 52 countries." Now the number stands at 86 countries as per the Annual Report and 88 as on the website.
But now I begin to understand a bit of what shaped the founding philosophy. While reading the report, I was quite moved to read a quote from Lester B Pearson, Canada's ex- Prime Minister and a Noble Peace Prize winner:
"Education is above all, and ever has been, the process of learning how to think honestly and straight: to distinguish between the true and false; to appreciate quality and beauty wherever it may be found; and to be able to participate and to desire to participate with intelligence and tolerance in that most important of all forms of free enterprise, the exchange of ideas on every subject under the sun, with a minimum of every restriction, personal, social, or political. In a word, education means - and this I think is the best definition of it that I have ever discovered - the 'creation of finer human hungers'."
27th May 1961
Excerpted from Lester B. Pearson's Address to Sir George Williams University
Couldn't have said it better...
May our finer hungers be sated and renewed.
February 27, 2007
February 23, 2007
Novartis vs Indian Patent Laws - Pointers to Deeper Issues
Consider the case of Novartis' patent lawsuit against the Indian government.
Here is a simple background: From 1992 onwards, Novartis filed for patent for the alpha version of its cancer drug, Glivec (Gleevec in the US) across the world. At that stage, Indian patent laws did not support product patents. In 1995 India became a signatory to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and subsequently enacted the Patents Act in 2005. At this stage, Novartis filed for India patent for the beta version Glivec. In December 2005, Novartis' patent application was turned down by the Indian Patents Office on the grounds that it didn't meet the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Act, which requires that "derivatives of known substances cannot be patented unless they can be shown to differ in terms of efficacy". In 2006, Novartis took the Indian government to court arguing that the latter's patent laws were in violation of internation trade laws. Presently, the court hearings are going on.
Prima facie, the issue is simply whether the Indian patent laws militate against Intellectual Property Rights (IPR); specifically, whether the Patent Act (and especially Section 3 (d)) violate the TRIPs agreement to which India is a signatory. Here, the Report of the Mashelkar Committee appointed by the Indian government suggests that limitation of patentability in the Indian law is "beyond the scope of TRIPS flexibilities approved by the WTO." So the score card should read, 'Novartis 1 - Indian patent law 0.' [See Roger Bate's article, for a detailed, if somewhat narrow and pro industry, discussion.]
But live issues are rarely that simple. The battle has been joined by industry associations on the one hand and NGOs, activists and even the European parliament on the side of consumers (see Gerhardsen's blog for a good round-up). The key argument employed by the pro-consumer groups is that of 'market access,' that is the affordability of the drugs for poor consumers, especially in the context of developing countries. The pro- consumer groups are pressuring Novartis to drop the case.
For me, the Novartis story raises a set of inter-related questions.
First, what is our fundamental view of 'property'; is it exclusively meant to serve the interests of 'owners,' or may there be other stake-holders (or society) whose requirements may restrict or limit the owners' rights? In a deeper sense, this also points to a fundamental question, that of the dividing line between the individual and the larger group, community, society or the world.
Second, whether and why we need 'property' at all? Seemingly obvious answer is justice or fairness, i.e. you earned it, so you should enjoyed the benefits from it. (if yes, what about inheritance? And also, how much our personal achievements are based on attributes and abilities which may either be inherited from or developed by others). This essentially points to what the economists call 'incentive compatibility': that if I have fully, or almost, exclusive rights to the fruits of my labour, I will work hard; else I may not and if all of us behave like in a similar fashion, all of us collectively are worse off. This would sound familiar given the flood of praise for capitalism, especially after its victory over communism. But now some of us think that unbridled capitalism has a darker side, an uncaring face and it is its own enemy (see here and here). If that criticism be valid, what is a more robust mechanism?
Third, in view of 'unintended consequences' can regulation ever fully succeed? Given a set of incentives (e.g. maximising profits or shareholders wealth, or more realistically, managers' share options and bonuses), corporates may ignore their responsibilities to the society. Regulation; hard in form of laws or soft in the form of agreements or voluntary arrangements; is intended to provide the 'checks and balances.' This too has limited success. To take two drug-companies related examples from recent news, the UK National Health Service (NHS) finds itself overpaying for brand drugs when much cheaper alternatives are available; and it is considering a probe into cap on drug profits.
Finally, what value do we place on compassion, how do we prioritise and action it? Should issues of compassions be routed through regulations and law? Public pressure and activism? Individual acts like charity and philanthropy?
The answers vary widely across individuals, societies and nations. Even so, it helps to know what each of us stands for.
Happy thinking. Happy commenting.
Here is a simple background: From 1992 onwards, Novartis filed for patent for the alpha version of its cancer drug, Glivec (Gleevec in the US) across the world. At that stage, Indian patent laws did not support product patents. In 1995 India became a signatory to the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and subsequently enacted the Patents Act in 2005. At this stage, Novartis filed for India patent for the beta version Glivec. In December 2005, Novartis' patent application was turned down by the Indian Patents Office on the grounds that it didn't meet the requirements under Section 3(d) of the Act, which requires that "derivatives of known substances cannot be patented unless they can be shown to differ in terms of efficacy". In 2006, Novartis took the Indian government to court arguing that the latter's patent laws were in violation of internation trade laws. Presently, the court hearings are going on.
Prima facie, the issue is simply whether the Indian patent laws militate against Intellectual Property Rights (IPR); specifically, whether the Patent Act (and especially Section 3 (d)) violate the TRIPs agreement to which India is a signatory. Here, the Report of the Mashelkar Committee appointed by the Indian government suggests that limitation of patentability in the Indian law is "beyond the scope of TRIPS flexibilities approved by the WTO." So the score card should read, 'Novartis 1 - Indian patent law 0.' [See Roger Bate's article, for a detailed, if somewhat narrow and pro industry, discussion.]
But live issues are rarely that simple. The battle has been joined by industry associations on the one hand and NGOs, activists and even the European parliament on the side of consumers (see Gerhardsen's blog for a good round-up). The key argument employed by the pro-consumer groups is that of 'market access,' that is the affordability of the drugs for poor consumers, especially in the context of developing countries. The pro- consumer groups are pressuring Novartis to drop the case.
For me, the Novartis story raises a set of inter-related questions.
First, what is our fundamental view of 'property'; is it exclusively meant to serve the interests of 'owners,' or may there be other stake-holders (or society) whose requirements may restrict or limit the owners' rights? In a deeper sense, this also points to a fundamental question, that of the dividing line between the individual and the larger group, community, society or the world.
Second, whether and why we need 'property' at all? Seemingly obvious answer is justice or fairness, i.e. you earned it, so you should enjoyed the benefits from it. (if yes, what about inheritance? And also, how much our personal achievements are based on attributes and abilities which may either be inherited from or developed by others). This essentially points to what the economists call 'incentive compatibility': that if I have fully, or almost, exclusive rights to the fruits of my labour, I will work hard; else I may not and if all of us behave like in a similar fashion, all of us collectively are worse off. This would sound familiar given the flood of praise for capitalism, especially after its victory over communism. But now some of us think that unbridled capitalism has a darker side, an uncaring face and it is its own enemy (see here and here). If that criticism be valid, what is a more robust mechanism?
Third, in view of 'unintended consequences' can regulation ever fully succeed? Given a set of incentives (e.g. maximising profits or shareholders wealth, or more realistically, managers' share options and bonuses), corporates may ignore their responsibilities to the society. Regulation; hard in form of laws or soft in the form of agreements or voluntary arrangements; is intended to provide the 'checks and balances.' This too has limited success. To take two drug-companies related examples from recent news, the UK National Health Service (NHS) finds itself overpaying for brand drugs when much cheaper alternatives are available; and it is considering a probe into cap on drug profits.
Finally, what value do we place on compassion, how do we prioritise and action it? Should issues of compassions be routed through regulations and law? Public pressure and activism? Individual acts like charity and philanthropy?
The answers vary widely across individuals, societies and nations. Even so, it helps to know what each of us stands for.
Happy thinking. Happy commenting.
February 20, 2007
Fearless Leader and Foreign Hand
On February 18th, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the who-knows-whether-and-for-how-long Chief Minister of UP, delivered a speech which has made me shake my head in wonder and awe. He alleged that foreign hands were involved in the conspiracy to topple his government (details here).
No wonder that even for the likes of non- resident UPite like me, he remains our Fearless Leader. Simple folks like us may well have imagined that the Foreign Hand had been somewhat busy over the past few years in hot-spots like Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Darfur. Only Fearless Leader's wisdom and subtle intelligence could see through the cunning deception of Foreign Hand and lay it bare for mere mortals, you and me, who now stand chastened for our rash conclusions about the non- involvement of the foreign hand.
All the while we thought that billions of dollars were funding the 'war against terror,' Foreign Hand had been planning covert operations to destabilise Fearless Leader's glorious reign. Surely, in a few years, we will see another Oliver North-like testimony, "The President didn't know, but we were (again) selling drugs to fund destabilization of Mr. Yadav's regime."
Now that I can clearly think about the threat, I find the co-incidence very suspicious: Did you notice that recently Foreign Hand has given up destabilising another fearless leader, Kim Jong-il? Could it be that Foreign Hand is getting increasingly desperate?
Or perhaps I am entirely mistaken. Perhaps Fearless Leader was referring to Ms. Sonia Gandhi? Or Bhutan (why not, after all)? ... Or 'foreigners' like me?
February 17, 2007
When Lumpens Hijack Culture
When lumpens hijack culture, the meaning gets distorted by association. We lose what we consider good and clean and precious.
A case in point is the Swastika symbol. Through history and across many cultures - not only Indian - swastika has been a positive, auspicious symbol. It remained so until Hitler and the Nazi party came along. Today, especially in the Western world, swastika symbol has become a emblem of the nazis and neo- nazis. The symbol's meaning stands degraded and corrupted. The word Aryan has suffered a similar fate.
This point was sharply brought to me during a visit last week to my wife's non Indian colleague. The conversation had taken a turn from discussing words common between colloquial Hindi and Bulgarian, to commonality in Indo- European languages. I had used the example of how Hitler had hooked onto the Aryan theme and that swastika was and remains an auspicious symbol amongst Indians, particularly hindus, buddhists and jains. Even as we were talking, I could see what may have been a shade of incredulity on the carefully polite faces of the listeners. Wasn't this a loss of my culture too? Not by what I had done, but what some lumpen, somewhere else, had done?
That both Indians and the nazis shared swastika and Aryans is known to most educated Indians. But in some instances, it is used an argument to support our pride, "Look how the glory of Aryan race and culture was acknowledged even by Hitler!" Dead wrong. Hitler had approached it from a different direction. If that is in doubt, just consider what the nazi's ideal of the master race, the (nazi) Aryan, looked like: tall, blond, blue eyes. This was a Nordic look, not that of Indo Aryans. We can easily guess that if Hitler had gotten around to occupying India, the (Indian) Aryans would have also gone the way of 'inferior races' and 'mixed blood' types, to the concentration camps, where we Indians would have learnt the superior value of work (camp motto was 'work shall set you free', arbeit macht frei) and also solved our population problem.
By the way, London is trying to fight with similar- themed problem, that of yobs and gun- crimes, as within the past fortnight, three teenagers have been shot dead in South London suburbs. Responding to this, Alan Duncan, a senior Tory politician, said, "The greatest problem we need to address in Britain is that it is steadily becoming decivilised." (London Metro, February 16, 2007; www.metro.co.uk)
The silent majority actively needs to be on its guard if it is to protect its culture, civilisation and values against the yobs and anti- social elements, whether it be in India or Britain. After all, yobs across the world share the same value, that violence is 'cool'. It is time for the majority who think that violence is 'uncool' to also be heard.
-------
For a detailed note on swastika, see wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) . A word of caution, wikipedia entries may be very interesting and mostly accurate, but are neither absolutely reliable nor academically rigorous. So be careful before you use it as a formal reference.
A case in point is the Swastika symbol. Through history and across many cultures - not only Indian - swastika has been a positive, auspicious symbol. It remained so until Hitler and the Nazi party came along. Today, especially in the Western world, swastika symbol has become a emblem of the nazis and neo- nazis. The symbol's meaning stands degraded and corrupted. The word Aryan has suffered a similar fate.
This point was sharply brought to me during a visit last week to my wife's non Indian colleague. The conversation had taken a turn from discussing words common between colloquial Hindi and Bulgarian, to commonality in Indo- European languages. I had used the example of how Hitler had hooked onto the Aryan theme and that swastika was and remains an auspicious symbol amongst Indians, particularly hindus, buddhists and jains. Even as we were talking, I could see what may have been a shade of incredulity on the carefully polite faces of the listeners. Wasn't this a loss of my culture too? Not by what I had done, but what some lumpen, somewhere else, had done?
That both Indians and the nazis shared swastika and Aryans is known to most educated Indians. But in some instances, it is used an argument to support our pride, "Look how the glory of Aryan race and culture was acknowledged even by Hitler!" Dead wrong. Hitler had approached it from a different direction. If that is in doubt, just consider what the nazi's ideal of the master race, the (nazi) Aryan, looked like: tall, blond, blue eyes. This was a Nordic look, not that of Indo Aryans. We can easily guess that if Hitler had gotten around to occupying India, the (Indian) Aryans would have also gone the way of 'inferior races' and 'mixed blood' types, to the concentration camps, where we Indians would have learnt the superior value of work (camp motto was 'work shall set you free', arbeit macht frei) and also solved our population problem.
By the way, London is trying to fight with similar- themed problem, that of yobs and gun- crimes, as within the past fortnight, three teenagers have been shot dead in South London suburbs. Responding to this, Alan Duncan, a senior Tory politician, said, "The greatest problem we need to address in Britain is that it is steadily becoming decivilised." (London Metro, February 16, 2007; www.metro.co.uk)
The silent majority actively needs to be on its guard if it is to protect its culture, civilisation and values against the yobs and anti- social elements, whether it be in India or Britain. After all, yobs across the world share the same value, that violence is 'cool'. It is time for the majority who think that violence is 'uncool' to also be heard.
-------
For a detailed note on swastika, see wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) . A word of caution, wikipedia entries may be very interesting and mostly accurate, but are neither absolutely reliable nor academically rigorous. So be careful before you use it as a formal reference.
February 15, 2007
Be My Valentine... Or Else! Don't... Or Else!
In a curious twist to the usual Valentine's day activities, Lucknow University yesterday witnessed an assault by a 'wanna-be Valentine'. As Times of India reports, "the student reportedly tried to corner a girl student forcing her to accept his friendship and when she refused, he turned violent." (details here). The report later goes on to mention that the aforementioned student had been expelled for being an anti- social element; which in UK terms would be a yob with an ASBO (Anti Social Behaviour Order).
So, was it just a case of assault by a confirmed hoodlum? If yes, deplorable as it may be, there is not much unusual there. Or was it also a matter of lack of understanding what Valentine's day is about? Quite likely, yes. This is what makes this incident different from what may happen in London. London too witnesses assaults on women; not as frequently as may be the case in Lucknow and mostly after binge- drinking sessions. But it is unlikely that in London a wanna-be Valentine would think of such a forceful approach to the lady's heart.
Prima facie, such a lack of understanding arises because Valentine's day is a cultural import into India from the western world.
Indeed, that is what a few moral vigilantes in India think. The 'Don't... or Else' part of the title refers to Madhya Pradesh Bajrang Dal's ban on Valentine's Day (full story here).
The article quotes the BD district president, Mr. Purohit - forgive me, I must say Shri Purohit ere I offend - as ,“We will oppose it tooth and nail because the concept of Valentine's Day has come from the West and through it an attempt is being made to spoil Indian culture. ... We have prepared our weapons (sic), by worshipping them, and will use them against the people who will promote western culture by celebrating the Day. ... Our teams will visit all hotels and restaurants and stop the celebrations. The teams will also visit parks frequented by boys and girls”.
I can't resist a s(n)ide remark: Bravo! I am deeply impressed by BD's adherence to traditions in worshipping the weapons!!
Ok, now onto the essential matters.
First, does the practice of Valentine's Day spoil the Indian culture? While we may or may not agree whether it militates against the traditions, I doubt whether it spoils the culture. Culture is a living, dynamic thing. It is subject to change and indeed should be. Also, culture is usually much more robust than we give it credit for. Present day Indian culture has developed by embracing different thoughts, faiths, creeds and sub- cultures: Whether it as commingling of the Aryan and Dravidian cultures five thousand ago, Islamic influences a thousand years ago, British influence a couple of centuries ago or the Western (read American) influences in the recent past. Through all these years, the Indian culture has evolved by embracing and synthesising these diverse influences. If anything, this genius for synthesis has allowed Indian culture to survive and thrive rather than get subjugated and lose its identity. Embracing change and synthesising past and present influences is a strength and not a sign of weakness or rot.
Second, how do we react when we disagree? Is force the answer? Are assault, ban and weapons are the right tools? For me, this is the common theme between the two stories. Whether it was our 'road- side romeo' assaulting the object of his affection or a moral fuhrer talking about the use of weapons to enforce a ban, they both think alike: Do as I say ... Or Else!! And this happens in the so- called land of non- violence.
While we dream of past glories of our five thousand year old civilisation, let's also note what we, the present day Indians, contribute to that heritage. Do we let the lumpens hijack our culture and civilisation?
So, was it just a case of assault by a confirmed hoodlum? If yes, deplorable as it may be, there is not much unusual there. Or was it also a matter of lack of understanding what Valentine's day is about? Quite likely, yes. This is what makes this incident different from what may happen in London. London too witnesses assaults on women; not as frequently as may be the case in Lucknow and mostly after binge- drinking sessions. But it is unlikely that in London a wanna-be Valentine would think of such a forceful approach to the lady's heart.
Prima facie, such a lack of understanding arises because Valentine's day is a cultural import into India from the western world.
Indeed, that is what a few moral vigilantes in India think. The 'Don't... or Else' part of the title refers to Madhya Pradesh Bajrang Dal's ban on Valentine's Day (full story here).
The article quotes the BD district president, Mr. Purohit - forgive me, I must say Shri Purohit ere I offend - as ,“We will oppose it tooth and nail because the concept of Valentine's Day has come from the West and through it an attempt is being made to spoil Indian culture. ... We have prepared our weapons (sic), by worshipping them, and will use them against the people who will promote western culture by celebrating the Day. ... Our teams will visit all hotels and restaurants and stop the celebrations. The teams will also visit parks frequented by boys and girls”.
I can't resist a s(n)ide remark: Bravo! I am deeply impressed by BD's adherence to traditions in worshipping the weapons!!
Ok, now onto the essential matters.
First, does the practice of Valentine's Day spoil the Indian culture? While we may or may not agree whether it militates against the traditions, I doubt whether it spoils the culture. Culture is a living, dynamic thing. It is subject to change and indeed should be. Also, culture is usually much more robust than we give it credit for. Present day Indian culture has developed by embracing different thoughts, faiths, creeds and sub- cultures: Whether it as commingling of the Aryan and Dravidian cultures five thousand ago, Islamic influences a thousand years ago, British influence a couple of centuries ago or the Western (read American) influences in the recent past. Through all these years, the Indian culture has evolved by embracing and synthesising these diverse influences. If anything, this genius for synthesis has allowed Indian culture to survive and thrive rather than get subjugated and lose its identity. Embracing change and synthesising past and present influences is a strength and not a sign of weakness or rot.
Second, how do we react when we disagree? Is force the answer? Are assault, ban and weapons are the right tools? For me, this is the common theme between the two stories. Whether it was our 'road- side romeo' assaulting the object of his affection or a moral fuhrer talking about the use of weapons to enforce a ban, they both think alike: Do as I say ... Or Else!! And this happens in the so- called land of non- violence.
While we dream of past glories of our five thousand year old civilisation, let's also note what we, the present day Indians, contribute to that heritage. Do we let the lumpens hijack our culture and civilisation?
February 13, 2007
Power to the people .... Not!
Forget democracy and empowerment, we are talking about plain and simple matter of electricity supply; or the lack thereof.
I remember that a couple of years ago when I was visiting India, one of my relatives asked me, "So, they say that there are no power cuts ever in London, right?" I nodded sagely, "Absolutely, that is one of simple and amazing things that in most of these countries 24- hour power is taken for granted."
Well, its never a good idea to take anything for granted.
On 12th February, there was a power failure in parts of central London when a burst water pipe flooded a sub-station. Interestingly, the Royal Courts of Justice, the U.K.'s supreme legal authority, was on the receiving end too, and had to postpone all the hearings scheduled for that day.
To long suffering Lakhnavis (residents of Lucknow) the scenario is barely worth noticing; it is something they deal with on an almost daily basis. Whereas, for Londoners it is rare enough to be a newsworthy item.
The real noticeable difference perhaps lies not in the rarity of the event but in the response time. In London, power was restored to all customers by the evening. How likely would that be in Lucknow? I am sure that the answer is, "It depends. If it were the area near the ministers' bungalows... yes, it would have gotten fixed the same day."
Is it paucity of resources? Or just that the average citizen/ customer doesn't count for much in Lucknow? So, in a round about way, is it really about democracy and empowerment?
I remember that a couple of years ago when I was visiting India, one of my relatives asked me, "So, they say that there are no power cuts ever in London, right?" I nodded sagely, "Absolutely, that is one of simple and amazing things that in most of these countries 24- hour power is taken for granted."
Well, its never a good idea to take anything for granted.
On 12th February, there was a power failure in parts of central London when a burst water pipe flooded a sub-station. Interestingly, the Royal Courts of Justice, the U.K.'s supreme legal authority, was on the receiving end too, and had to postpone all the hearings scheduled for that day.
To long suffering Lakhnavis (residents of Lucknow) the scenario is barely worth noticing; it is something they deal with on an almost daily basis. Whereas, for Londoners it is rare enough to be a newsworthy item.
The real noticeable difference perhaps lies not in the rarity of the event but in the response time. In London, power was restored to all customers by the evening. How likely would that be in Lucknow? I am sure that the answer is, "It depends. If it were the area near the ministers' bungalows... yes, it would have gotten fixed the same day."
Is it paucity of resources? Or just that the average citizen/ customer doesn't count for much in Lucknow? So, in a round about way, is it really about democracy and empowerment?
February 12, 2007
What and why?
Recently (Feb 2007), a friend's blog raised the question of identity - does an Indian residing abroad feel like an alien in that land, does he/ she feel completely 'at home' only in India? While the specific question pertains to Indians, surely it points to a general phenomenon of anyone living in a different milieu than one was born and raised in. After all, my friend had titled the post as 'Englishman in New York,' referring to a song by Sting.
It is in the above- mentioned sense that the blog title includes 'desi in London' since I am an Indian native presently living in London.
But there is another side of the issue. Especially when one has been away from the home town or country for a substantial period of time, one's accumulated experiences and indeed, world- view, may differ substantially from experiences of those continuing to reside in the home town. Sometimes, the gulf in experiences and resulting viewpoints can almost make one feel like a foreigner in one's homeland. Hence, 'videshi in Lucknow': the somewhat less intense feeling of being a foreigner in the city where I was born and spent the first 12 years of my life.
And the 'desi - videshi' or 'native- foreigner' phenomenon is not purely a matter of internal feelings but also of external perceptions, which makes it more interesting and rise above mundane narcissism. More on this later...
It is in the above- mentioned sense that the blog title includes 'desi in London' since I am an Indian native presently living in London.
But there is another side of the issue. Especially when one has been away from the home town or country for a substantial period of time, one's accumulated experiences and indeed, world- view, may differ substantially from experiences of those continuing to reside in the home town. Sometimes, the gulf in experiences and resulting viewpoints can almost make one feel like a foreigner in one's homeland. Hence, 'videshi in Lucknow': the somewhat less intense feeling of being a foreigner in the city where I was born and spent the first 12 years of my life.
And the 'desi - videshi' or 'native- foreigner' phenomenon is not purely a matter of internal feelings but also of external perceptions, which makes it more interesting and rise above mundane narcissism. More on this later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)