Political Column Center Creating acute bitterness in the Political System

By Ashok Mitra

Economist Column Autonomy and State Finance Commission. Political   Column Centre creating acute crisis in Political System Ringside View DeeGee's views Loud Thinking Anjana raped Nation Shamed

We are discussing, in effect, the property of Exclusive Marketing Rights. Shall I remind all of us that the East India Company started its activities in India on the basis of grant of exclusive marketing rights to them . Let me mention something else. In our part of the country, we have two tribal heroes, Kahno and Sidho, and we have another dalit hero, Titumir. They were active in the 1820's, 1830's. In our part of the country, we mark the history of the freedom with the rising that was organised by Titumir and the rebellion of Sidho and Kahno. Why do mention them? From 1820 till 1947, during the span of roughly 135 years what the East India Company did to us through the preliminary device of exclusive marketing rights, we fought and fought and fought for 135 years, and finally, we were able to free the country. I feel that I am myself ashamed that in this Parliament, after 51 odd years of independence, we are discussing Exclusive Marketing Rights, and we are allowed only six hours. This should be a mark in history of something infame. I would say that this is a day infame. I am a little puzzled. Why this sudden scare as if the heavens would fall, collapse, if by 19th of April, 1999, we don’t pass this legislation? There is a lot of disinformation involved. What I have been told is if we don’t keep that date, then the United States, Western Europe, the European Community will move against us and throw us out of the WTO, and then, it will be the death of the Indian nation. This is the kind of thing what I have read in newspapers. This has also been told to some of my M.P. friends by the officialdom. All I can say is, it is rubbish, rubbish and rubbish. What is it? What are we worried about? First, the European Community has not filed any appeal against us, has not complained against us. It is only the United States. The United States is just one country out of the 150 odd member countries of the WTO.

We are shivering in our shoes merely because the United States has got a verdict against us. At any given moment, within the WTO, there must be, at least, 200 cases going on with respect to disputes settlement. Some against the United States, some against the countries of West Europe, some against this or that developing country. Judgments come on this side, judgments go to that side but there is no question of any Member--country being thrown out of the WTO because a particular judgment has been ignored. I think, the US itself has some. There have been judgments delivered on the U.S. The U.S. has not bothered; it has gone on record that where rules and provisions of the WTO are in conflict with the contents of the US Trade Act, it is the US 'Trade Act which will prevail and not the WTO. Has the US been thrown out of the WTO? This is something, I feel tempted to ask of our Ministers. Have they dared to file a petition with the WTO that this is what they have done? They have enforced Special 301. They have enforced several other regulations which go against the spirit and the provisions of the WTO and let the US be penalised. No, we have not done anything and why worry? Nothing will happen to us by 19 April, 1999 if we are not able to pass this legislation, we have not been able to pass the legislation. In any case, this is the point which was made by my friend and colleague Biplab Dasgupta. in the morning. It is no longer a Western hegemony as it was in 1993-94. But, as we have seen, it is the business of Iraq. It is the international outlaw, the USA and that is all I can say. Till about two-three days back they had some support from countries in Europe but today, with the exception of just one faithful lackeys the U.K., they just moved away. Germany has moved away; France has moved away. In facts amongst Members of the Europe, we for example, France and Germany, have many friends who think along the same lines with respect to some of the issues involving WTO. So, let us not be threatened with this sort of mythological attack from the WTO. There is no such thing. So, we should have been given the time to go through the contents of this Bill with a fine tooth comb so that we could have offered our judgment and advice on the basis of our slightly more detailed thinking but, unfortunately, this Government has chosen not to give the time. History will judge this Government of what they have done and the public at large will judge of what the Government has decided. I have no comments. In any case, I do not have the hope if the two principal political parties have decided to take a particular line of action. Those of us, who believe in principle, who believe in certain norms of behaviour, are helpless. We can merely register our protest but let us go into the details of the Bill.

But, they have not once referred to the pernicious element, namely, the whole issue of exclusive marketing rights on the basis of which if somebody has patented his invention and that invention traverse to a third country, so-called Convention country, it could be Raunda, it could be Fiji, it could be -- I do not know -Nepal and says, I have patented this particular commodity with Fiji because I have done that', this Bill, says, that this amendment says that we have to grant him immediately the exclusive marketing rights for five years or till the examination of the product application is over. Now, you think about that in your senses. If you are normal human beings and in your senses, will you agree to do this and give the exclusive marketing rights? This is also indicated in this report. Therefore, we have to oppose of this and in some our amendments we are saying that if you are going' to consider the exclusive marketing rights, you consider only the cases of those applicants who have been granted a patent in their own country and not otherwise. Now, this is something which we have to harp over, over and over again. But, perhaps this is the heart of the matter as far as the Government is concerned, that somebody from somewhere is pressurising the Government that we must give them an easy way out. They have taken out a patent in timbaktoo, therefore, they must have the right to mulct the consumers of India. This really brings me to the context of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. Many of us had wide areas of disagreement with Shrimati Indira Gandhi when she was the Prime Minister. But, at least, on this issue, on this particular legislation, we take pride that she took the leadership, showed the initiative, to pass the Indian Patents Act, 1970. This Act has three major features. One, in the matter of food and life-saving drugs, we Indians never accept foreign patents. Secondly, this 1970 Act says that under no circumstances, we Indians will allow foreign manopolists to mulct our consumers, our Indian consumers in the name of patenting rights. The third one is double comprehensive point which has been mentioned in the Act and which says that India will not recognise any foreign patents if such patents interfere with our economic or industrial development -- a clear and concise declaration on which our interests exist. The entire purpose of this Bill is to demolish that structure which the 1970 Act has built will give you some very specific instances. We find that section 39 and 40 are proposed to be scrapped. What do these section say? No resident of India would be allowed to solicit a foreign patent on the basis of a purported invention in our country.

Some may say that. This particular statement goes against the grain of liberalisation. But, this is exactly what is happening. If a foreign multinational entity wants to steal our bio-diversities and our micro-organisms, what does it do? It sets up an agent of his in the country. This is what, in the literature of exploitation, is known as 'compradon',. A compradon is set up. He totters around and quietly walks out of the country. Mr. Shourie mentioned that our Indian inventors should be subsidised so that they could have up new inventions etc. all over the world. He made such a proposal. But , Sir, this is the regime of liberalisation. The Government will say that they have no funds. So, you go to the multinationals for funds. The multi-nationals will say 'with these funds you take micro-organisms and bio-diversities. This is American money. They will say you develop these, but, we will make use of them.'. 

In this connection I would like to pay a tribute to three ladies of this country, who, for the last six or seven years, have tirelessly tried to draw the attention of the countrymen on this very grave danger. I am mentioning the name of these ladies on the floor of the Parliament because I think the nation owes them a gratitude. They are: Vandana Shiva, Suman Sahai and Usha Menon. 

This controversy will subsidise , but these ladies have fought and fought for the sake of the nation to save our resources from being exploited by the foreigners and multi-national corporations. 

I may point out that the Government did not touch Sections 39 and 40. Why? Is it that you wanted to get rid of them?. It was just to ensure that the multi-national corporations have in easy access in the country.

There are some other amendments, which we intend to move later, if we are allowed to do so. The way things have gone in the House since morning, does not give us a surety that we will be able to do so. In case we are allowed, we will certainly insert clauses and provisions, which will see to it that our bio-diversities and micro-organisms receive due protection in this new regime.

Secondly, when they are talking about licensing or exclusive marketing rights, you can stop somebody from sales and distribution, but what about manufacturing. So, the Government should have the right to stop even the manufacturing on the part of some foreign parties in this country, when you know it goes against our national interests.

Neither Mr. Sibal, nor Mr. Shourie referred at all to the protest notes and suggestions from the State Chief Ministers. I think they are living in a fool's paradise, if they think that by merely not referring to them, they can save their Government. I will repeat what I said two hours ago: You cannot ignore Tami Nadu, you cannot ignore Andhra Pradesh, you cannot ignore Kerala, you cannot ignore West Bengal, you cannot ignore Assam and you cannot ignore Tripura. Maybe, twenty years hence, if you were in power and if you had an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, you would have said so, but not now. You might, with a different kind of bargain, pass a piece of legislation today in this House by hook or by crook; and maybe, by chance, you can do so tomorrow in the Lok Sabha. But, this will not help you, because we are going to give a notice to the multi-national corporations that they should not be impressed by this kind of a hustled decision on the floor of the House. Sovereignty of this nation has now to be shared with the States. If this lesson does not sink into you, there will be plenty of trials and tribulations that you would have to face. Why do I say so? Why are the States so important? At the World Trade Organisation one of our Finance Ministers had signed the Marxakesh Treaty in April 1993. It was said: Oh! it is an international treaty and the Government of India has a right to sign an international treaty. But, no, this is a very special kind of a treaty. This Marxakesh Treaty affects or international structure of production, our international structure of distribution and our internal structure of pricing. Sitting in Geneva how can they decide how much of the commodity we are supposed to produce and under what conditions; what kind of seeds are we allowed to implant and up to what proportion; what is the amount of subsidy that we can offer either to our producer or to our consumers? Who are they sitting there and telling us what we should do or what we should not do? This is absurd. And this absurdity has been accepted. I do not blame the international organisations. I blame those who are in charge of our Government that they allowed this kind of thing. Maybe, some of them continue to accept it. It is because there has been so much of inferiority complex that has been injected into us that anything that an American says is right and proper and anything that we Indians might offer as a piece of advice is not worth bothering about. It is a very pitiable sight that septuagenarians or octogenarian Ministers of businessmen or industrialists sitting in a convention at the EICCI or at some such body are not given any importance, but some youngster, an Assistant Professor in Economics from a University in the United States of America, is given all the consideration. His worlds are treated as the words of God. This is exactly what is happening here. Since they have said, so, you have to accept it. Why don't you change that attitude? The international situation has now changed significantly. Yesterday, the Russian Prime Minister, 'Primakov made a very prospective statement that from now on, Russia, China and India should form a concordant just imagine if we form a concordant that a tremendous impact it will have on the rest of the world. The W.T.O. and its rules will be swept away. Nobody even bother about them, except, of course, some Ministers and civil servants sitting in Delhi. They do try to tell fables to the nation.

They are just fables, nothing will happen to us. But is a fact that you cannot ignore the State Governments any more. The State Governments will resent your attempt through the WTO to tell them how much they should produce, what commodity they should produce and what kind of subsidy they can offer, etc. That is the regime which belongs to us and we will decide what is to be done and what is not to be done. I would not like to add further to what has already been stated in the course of two speeches in the morning. I think that should be enough. But I would like to make one last appeal to the Government. You will not lose anything. Now you have the other principal party to support. You haveHH votes. We may prevent casting of votes by raising procedural issues, here and there, for half-an-hour. Finally, I would say you will be creating such an acute bitterness in the political system that it will be very difficult for anyone who rules at the Centre to take control of the situtation.