The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Science, Technology & Security

  • Evaluating the Make in India Policy for Defence Manufacturing and Technology Acquisition

    Evaluating the Make in India Policy for Defence Manufacturing and Technology Acquisition

    Led by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce, the Make in India policy (“MII”) extends to 25 focused sectors. Among these is the defence sector, where the nature of the sector renders MII extremely important and relevant. This is outlined by India’s status as the second-largest standing army and third-largest military spender in the world.[1] Yet, it remains the second-largest arms importer and its exports merely amount to 0.2% of the global pie.[2] China is the fifth-largest arms exporter at 5.5% of the global share.[3] However, this is likely to fall in the post-pandemic world, where China’s credibility has been severely tainted.[4] This represents an opportunity for Indian defence manufacturers to attract present and future foreign investment.

    Against this background, MII was enacted with two objectives: (1) to increase domestic manufacturing of defence equipment; and (2) address the national security interest of self-sufficiency over key technologi. There are two ways in which technology up-gradation can happen: (1) indigenous efforts; and (2) transfer of technology, through international agreements. In this article, I flag the main challenges to argue that India has significantly underperformed in both. Subsequently, I propose macro-policy changes to address identified challenges.

    Evaluating technological upgradation in the Defence sector in india

    1. Evaluating ‘Indigenous Efforts’

    Indigenous efforts are confronted with three main challenges:

    • Inadequate Investment for Research & Development (R&D)

    Only 5.7% of the defence budget is allocated to R&D,[5] despite successive parliamentary committees recommending at least 10% to meet minimum requirements.[6] The average allocation among global rivals like USA, UK, France, and China is well above 15%.[7] Even private-sector players in India, like Tata, L&T, and Mahindra and Mahindra, invest less than 1% of their turnover in R&D, as against the average of 10% in the aforementioned countries.[8] The producer lacks the basic R&D required even for making marginal improvements in performance to the product, or altering it based on user-specifications.[9] The effect of this is that the resulting product is obsolete in an already disruptive market. Thus, a buyer, even if domestic, is unwilling to accept such an obsolete product at higher prices merely for the sake of indigenous production.

    • Shortage of Skilled Workforce

    A skilled workforce is the key to achieving self-sufficiency in defence manufacturing because of the highly specialized nature of this sector and the workforces’ vision and skills determine the efficacy of the produced/procured domestic technology. This shortage exists at both the research and procurement level.

    At the research level, there is a severe shortage of skilled human resources, in terms of quantity and quality, at R&D organizations like DRDO.[10] With more than 3,500 engineering colleges producing about 1.5 million engineering graduates annually, India has an unparalleled talent availability.[11] However, only 17.5% of these graduates are employable because colleges lack proper infrastructure and faculty,[12] along with current curriculum ignoring industry skills, defined career paths, and evolving technologies.[13] Thus, organizations are compelled to spend significantly in making fresh talent “employable”.

    While India has a decent pool of highly qualified low-cost engineers and scientists,[14] they are unwilling to work in the public sector due to limited opportunities and low growth potential,[15] where most defence R&D is undertaken. As the departure of 132 scientists in the last five years from DRDO shows,[16] even those employed mostly do not continue long-term due to better opportunities elsewhere.[17] The contribution of most of these scientists has been limited to the production of academic articles,[18] which hasn’t seen any significant and meaningful absorption in the policy. Therefore, the policy has been unable to capture the huge latent employment potential in this sector.[19]

    This position must be contrasted against global competitors like the US and China, where the highly skilled and employable workforce is significantly and routinely absorbed into the most impactful R&D organization, whether private or public.[20] Moreover, unlike other leading countries, India lacks any training and education infrastructure specialized for R&D personnel in the defence sector. These countries have developed specialist defence schools that have managed to produce large pools of exclusive talent. France itself has managed to produce 134,000 specialist employees.[21]

    At the procurement level, the asset acquisition process is not tasked to a dedicated cadre of the workforce.[22] Further, there are no educational or training programs for employees involved in this process.[23] Thus, there is the loss in terms of the benefits of specialization, especially in a sector where progress is characterized by specialization.

    • Limited Involvement of the Private Sector

    There is a significant lack of incentive for greater private sector involvement. The private sector is commercially motivated to establish its manufacturing base only when it has a good chance, or preferably guarantee, of getting frequent and sizeable orders.[24] However, the current manufacturing and procurement process has ignored this motivation but is also completely converse to it.

    As the BJP government’s Rafale fiasco indicates, the procurement processes lack transparency, and frequently fraught with allegations and counter-allegations.[25] This disincentivizes both domestic and global private sector players from conducting business.

    Despite unprecedented inclusion of the private sector, it is widely believed in the private sector that the government is biased towards public sector undertakings, denying a level-playing field for the private sector and even denying opportunities to bid.[26]

    The government’s Strategic Partnership Model, aimed at inviting world-class defence giants to collaborate with Indian entities, has unduly restricted autonomy. Under this program, the government chooses the Indian partner for the foreign OEM, without consulting them.[27] Global defence giants, like Airbus, Lockheed Martin, ThyssenKrupp, and Dassault, have shown interest in contracting with the Indian private sector.[28] However, it is a combination of these factors that this interest has largely failed to materialise into successfully concluded deals.

    Even where, despite these disincentives, the private sector has been involved, this has been in non-critical and less required areas. Most of India’s defence imports are in the category of major platforms such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, naval guns, and anti-submarine missiles.[29] However, the private sector initiatives are predominantly in the category of ammunitions (including rockets and bombs), and surveillance and tracking systems.[30]

    1. Evaluating ‘Transfer of Technology’

    There has been no transfer of technology (“ToT”) in the critical defence procurement process. All major contracts under MII have been “off the shelf”, and without any crucial ToT.[31] As per the CAG Report, between 2007 and 2018, the government concluded 46 offset contracts but failed to implement the ToT agreements in any of them.[32]

    The failure here can be attributed to successive governments unduly hoping that India’s status as a large arms importer would necessarily make international players compliant as regards sharing their intellectual property (“IP”). While foreign companies have shown interest in contracting with Indian players, the large purchase orders have been inadequate to incentivize foreign players to share their IP.[33]

    The government has also been overly ambitious of ToT as a means of technology upgradation. Even implementing the negotiated ToT is not the end because the more challenging issues of absorption of this technology and ownership of IP remain.[34] Moreover, the ToT route provides India only with the ‘know-how’, without any insight into the ‘know-why’.[35] As India’s acquisition of the Sukhoi Su-30 has shown, the public sector is critically dependent on the OEMs, here the Russians, for even minor systemic upgradations.

    Way Forward

    The government must increase allocation to defence R&D to at least 10% and must incentivize greater contributions from the private sector. Existing capabilities and services at training and diploma centres must be upgraded through public-private partnerships. There must be a separate and devoted institutional structure for all procurement-related functions. The procurement policy must also aim at buying talent, besides technology, to bridge technology gaps. The education curriculum at engineering universities needs to be modernized, with a focus on employability. Specialist defence schools must also be established. However, it is most important that the public sector aims at retaining its talent through unique and lucrative incentive structures.

    To incentivize the private sector through minimum order guarantees, the government must utilize ‘public procurement of innovation’. Under this policy tool, the government uses its exchequer to artificially generate demand for an emerging innovative solution, unavailable on a commercial scale.[36] The private sector can further be incentivized by streaming the procurement and dispute resolution process. As for procurement, a fast-track procedure with single-window clearances can be adopted.[37] As for dispute resolution a permanent arbitration tribunal must be established to expeditiously settle disputes with finality.[38]

    Conclusion

    Firstly, the indigenous efforts at technology up-gradation have failed due to limited R&D output, shortage of skilled workforce, and limited private sector involvement. The R&D budgetary allocation is way below the recommended and global standard. The shortage of skilled workforce is both at the research and procurement due to a lack of education and training infrastructure specific to the defence sector, low employability among most graduates, and unwillingness to work in the public sector among highly qualified graduates. The private sector has been disincentivized due to a lack of order guarantees, the unrealistic and retroactive manner of the procurement process, the constant allegations and counter-allegations, and the continued bias towards the public sector. Moreover, the private sector has been involved in non-critical and less required areas.

    Secondly, while the government has concluded ToT agreements, it has been inefficient in enforcing them. Moreover, even if this were to succeed, it has not established any action plan for absorbing this technology and addressing ownership of IP. It has also been overly ambitious of the utility of ToT.

     

     

    References

    [1] Kuldip Singh, ‘Yes, Indian Military Can Go the ‘Make in India’ Way – Just Not Yet’ (The Quint, 25 May 2020) <https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/india-armed-forces-defence-sector-military-expenditure-budget-technology-upgrade-make-in-india> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [2] Arjun Srinivas, ‘Private defence business gets one more nudge’ (LiveMint, 1 October 2020) <https://www.livemint.com/news/india/private-defence-business-gets-one-more-nudge-11601460654397.html> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [3] Snehesh Alex Philip, ‘China has become a major exporter of armed drones, Pakistan is among its 11 customers’ (The Print, 23 November 2020) <https://theprint.in/defence/china-has-become-a-major-exporter-of-armed-drones-pakistan-is-among-its-11-customers/549841/> accessed 4 January 2021.

    [4] Rajan Kochhar, ‘Preparing defence sector for post COVID-19 world: Time to treat private sector as equal partner’ (Economic Times, 5 May 2020) <https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/governance/opinion-make-in-india-a-dream-or-reality-for-the-armed-forces/75552970> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [5] Jayant Singh, ‘Industry Scenario’ (Invest India) <https://www.investindia.gov.in/sector/defence-manufacturing> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [6] Prof (Dr) SN Misra, ‘Make in India: Challenges Before Defence Manufacturing’ (2015) 30(1) Indian Defence Rev <http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/make-in-india-challenges-before-defence-manufacturing/2/> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [7] ‘Government Expenditures on Defence Research and Development by the United States and Other OECD Countries: Fact Sheet’ (2020) Congressional Research Service R45441 <https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45441.pdf> accessed 19 December 2020; A Sivathanu Pillai, ‘Defence R&D’ in Vinod Misra (ed), Core Concerns in Indian Defence and the Imperatives for Reforms (Pentagon Press & IDSA 2015) 132-133.

    [8] Misra (n 6).

    [9] Amitabha Pande, ‘Defence, Make in India and the Illusive Goal of Self Reliance’ (The Hindu Centre for Public Policy, 11 April 2019) <https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/article26641241.ece> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [10] Azhar Shaikh, Dr. Uttam Kinange, & Arthur Fernandes, ‘Make in India: Opportunities and Challenges in the Defence Sector’ (2016) 7(1) Intl J Research in Commerce & Management 13, 14-15.

    [11] Kishore Jayaraman, ‘How Can India Bridge The Skill Gap in Aerospace & Defence Sector?’ (All Things Talent, 24 September 2018) <https://allthingstalent.org/2018/09/24/how-can-india-bridge-skill-gap-in-aerospace-defence-sector/> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [12] Dr. JP Dash & BB Sharma, ‘Skilling Gaps in Defence Sector for ‘Make in India’’ (2017) 32(2) Indian Defence Rev <http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/skilling-gaps-in-defence-sector-for-make-in-india/> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [13] Jayaraman (n 10); Dhiraj Mathur, ‘Unlocking defence R&D in India – Do we have the skill?’ (Firstpost, 6 April 2016)<https://www.firstpost.com/business/unlocking-defence-rd-in-india-do-we-have-the-skill-2715650.html> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [14] Mathur (n 13).

    [15] PR Sanjai, ‘Indian aerospace sector needs one million skilled workforce in next 10 years’ (Livemint, 20 February 2015) <https://www.livemint.com/Politics/hRJQjq7ZKVXQ5RFkzWbmAJ/Indian-aerospace-sector-needs-one-million-skilled-workforce.html> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [16] PTI, ‘132 scientists left DRDO on personal grounds in last 5 years: Govt’ (Economic Times, 12 March 2020) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/132-scientists-left-drdo-on-personal-grounds-in-last-5-years-govt/articleshow/74579857.cms?from=mdr> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [17] Dash (n 12).

    [18] PTI, ‘India is world’s third largest producer of scientific articles: Report’ (Economic Times, 18 December 2019) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/india-is-worlds-third-largest-producer-of-scientific-articles-report/articleshow/72868640.cms?from=mdr> accessed 30 December 2020.

    [19] ‘Make in India: An Overview of Defence Manufacturing in India’ (2015) Singhania & Partners LLP Report <https://www.gita.org.in/Attachments/Reports/Make-in-India-Defence-Manufacturing-in-India.pdf> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [20] Ranjit Ghosh, ‘Defence Research and Development: International Approaches for Analysing the Indian Programme’ (2015) IDSA Occasional Paper 41, 11-34 <https://idsa.in/system/files/opaper/OP41__RanjitGhosh_140815.pdf> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [21] Dash (n 12).

    [22] Shaikh (n 10) 15.

    [23] Ibid.

    [24] Rohit Srivastava, ‘New measures for self-sufficiency in defence – industry perspective’ (Indian Defence Industries, 19 May 2020) <https://indiandefenceindustries.in/defence-reforms-industry-perspective> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [25] Pradip R Sagar, ‘How ‘Make in India’ in defence sector is still an unfulfilled dream’ (The Week, 25 May 2019) <https://www.theweek.in/theweek/current/2019/05/25/how-make-in-india-in-defence-sector-is-still-an-unfulfilled-dream.html> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [26] Ibid; Lt. Gen. (Retd.) (Dr). Subrata Saha, ‘Execution key for defence manufacturing in India’ (LiveMint, 2 April 2020) <https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/Gx9NVPGvIsVbVzLTJ0VouK/Execution-key-for-defence-manufacturing-in-India.html> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [27] Prasanna Karthik, ‘India’s strategic partnership policy is counter-productive in its current form’ (Observer Research Foundation, 8 June 2020) <https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indias-strategic-partnership-policy-is-counter-productive-in-its-current-form-67511/> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [28] Sagar (n 25).

    [29] Srinivas (n 3).

    [30] Ibid.

    [31] Singh (n 1); Sagar (n 25).

    [32] Joe C Mathew, ‘Defence offset policy performance dismal: CAG’ (Business Today, 24 September 2020) <https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/defence-offset-policy-performance-dismal-cag/story/416872.html> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [33] Lieutenant Commander L Shivaram (Retd), ‘Understanding ‘Make in India’ in the Defence Sector’ (2015) 145(601) J United Service Institution of India <https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/understandingmake-in-india-in-the-defence-sector/> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [34] Lt Gen A B Shivane, ‘India needs outcome oriented defence reforms’ (Indian Defence Industries, 22 May 2020) <https://indiandefenceindustries.in/india-outcome-oriented-reforms> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [35] Misra (n 6).

    [36] E. Uyarra & J. Edler, ‘Barriers to Innovation through Public Procurement: A Supplier Perspective’ (2014) 34(10) Science Direct <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497214000388> accessed 19 December 2020.

    [37] Kochhar (n 4).

    [38] Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Dalip Bharadwaj, ‘‘Make in India’ in defence sector: A distant dream’ (Observer Research Foundation, 7 May 2018) <https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/make-in-india-defence-sector-distant-dream/> accessed 19 December 2020.

  • Revisiting India’s Renewable Energy Sector Policy and Limitations

    Revisiting India’s Renewable Energy Sector Policy and Limitations

    One of the most important results in India from the pandemic-driven lockdown that began in March 2020 was the reduction in carbon emissions and its beneficial impact on the environment. Travel restrictions and a decrease in industrial production have caused significant reductions in emissions. But these reductions were temporary. The results, however, highlights the need for India to reduce its dependence on carbon-emitting energy sources and shift the majority of its energy production to renewable sources that will better equip India towards achieving and even exceeding its  Paris Agreement targets.

    The Indian renewable energy sector is the world’s fourth-largest, after the US, China, and Germany. Its wind energy sector has the fourth-highest total installed capacity, 38.124 GW, in the world. Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Gujarat are the leading states in wind energy.  The solar energy sector has emerged as a significant player in the power generation capacity since the establishment of the National Solar Mission 2010. India achieved 5th global position in solar power distribution with an installed capacity of 35,739 MW as of August 2020.

    Yet, over the years, the wind energy sector faced several problems such as an imbalance between demand and supply, persistent energy shortages, insufficient funds, high-transmission and distribution losses, and poor institutional infrastructure. Thus, it is important to identify the exact causes and find solutions so that upcoming projects can be better planned. This article identifies and analyses a few important barriers faced by the renewable energy sector.

    Barriers to the sector

    First, India’s renewable energy infrastructure, despite its considerable growth over the decades, lacks consistent standards as compared to other countries. Wind energy technology has not kept pace with the modernisation achieved across the world.  Research, both in public and private sectors, is one way to mitigate the problem. Despite 80% of the technology being domestic, a significant quantity of manufactured components is imported from China. A mix of foreign and indigenous parts (with different quality and technical standards) results in inconsistency in the technology used which reduces the power plants’ overall efficiency. The Government, in a move to promote domestic manufacturers and “self-sufficiency”, has levied customs duty of 20-25% on solar cells imported from China.

    A 2019 study suggests that the country would require an investment of Rs 1.65-1.75 lakh crore per year to generate cheaper power.

    Second, the renewable energy sector is capital-intensive and requires high capital investment initially to set up the farms. One way to source funds is to increase private sector participation. With increased competition among the private sector to develop technology, the country would gain from the lower costs of power generation and higher employment opportunities. A 2019 study suggests that the country would require an investment of Rs 1.65-1.75 lakh crore per year to generate cheaper power. The Government needs to encourage companies like ReGen Powertech Pvt Ltd., through generation-based incentives and tax holidays, that will invest in renewable energy power plants for its long-term financial benefits, despite the risk factors involved. At a time when investments in the sector are growing, the Government’s move to rescind benefits, may not impact the big players but will certainly have an adverse impact on the volume of investments from small investors, who largely depend on the Government’s support.

    Another financial barrier the sector faces is the lack of proper reinvestment. As the benefits from this sector are usually accrued in the long-term, the Government invests revenue from power generation in short-term development projects instead of reinvesting in the energy sector. Thus, for new solar energy projects to succeed, the efficient allocation of funds is pertinent. Alternatively, India could also follow Germany’s path. In Germany, since the energy transition set off in 2000, tens of thousands began investing in solar panels on their houses and buying shares in wind turbine producing companies, thus increasing capital. The government has actively engaged people in small cooperatives to favour energy transition from fossils to renewable sources.

     According to a recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the total hybrid capacity is at 148 MW and is expected to increase almost 80 times in the next three years.

    Third, the intensity of the wind and solar energy availability is unstable, and it restricts the total power generated. Additionally, the setting up of separate wind and solar power plants is expensive. Thus, the government’s National Wind Solar Hybrid Policy of 2018 is highly pertinent. According to the policy, the two sources of energy complement each other, since solar can fuel power in the day and wind at night. This also means that the solar panels and wind turbines can be set up on the same farm, thus reducing costs. According to a recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the total hybrid capacity is at 148 MW and is expected to increase almost 80 times in the next three years.

    In relation, the renewable energy sector also faces the problem of storage. Although India has developed battery storage facilities, it lacks a central framework to control the use of energy storage systems. The technology available is not enough to store energy from all power grids. This implies that an equilibrium has to be maintained between the demand and supply of power from renewable energy to reduce wastage. But this is an onerous task. The Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) has recently encouraged bids for designing, engineering, and constructing new solar projects with provisions for battery storage systems. The recent World Energy Outlook report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that India will become the largest market for utility-scale battery storage by 2040.

    The Government should treat PV waste separately and bring out recycling policies that will sustain the solar energy sector in the long run.

    Lastly, the sector faces disposal issues as there is no proper system in place to dispose of broken solar panels and wind blades. Broken solar panels emanate harmful chemicals that are detrimental to the environment and consequently, public health. Solar PV waste is by default considered e-waste and is therefore guided by the e-Waste Management Rules, 2016. According to this, manufacturers are liable for the disposal of PV waste. But this regulation is inadequate. The Government should treat PV waste separately and bring out recycling policies that will sustain the solar energy sector in the long run. Europe, for instance, has set up a recycling plant that separates the different parts of the panel and recycles them individually. Given the increasing pace at which the solar energy sector is growing in India, setting up a similar method of waste management will benefit the sector and ergo the country’s future.

    Conclusion

    While India is responsible for nearly 6.65% of total global carbon emissions, it is also leading in the renewable energy sector. Its share of coal-based power plants in new installations declined significantly from 62% in 2016 to just 19% in 2017, whereas solar power led with around 45% of total power capacity additions. But to maintain this development, the Central and State governments should make coordinated efforts and bring out policies that ensure that power is affordable to all people, and efficiently manage renewable energy waste to not only reach its energy targets but also to ensure its overall development and growth.

  • GM insect-resistant Bt cotton boosted India’s crop yields? Differing Experts

    GM insect-resistant Bt cotton boosted India’s crop yields? Differing Experts

    India was the world’s leading cotton and textile producer for millenniums. In the 1990s the traditional ‘desi’ variety of cotton was upstaged by imported hybrid cotton varities in the hopes of increased production and profits. They soon became vulnerable to pests and resulted in increased use of fertilisers and pesticides, thus increasing the production costs. The failure of hubrid cotton led to the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002 as India’s first genetically modified crop. GM crops have been strongly opposed by increasing believers of traditional agriculture and scientists, possibly for very good reasons. India’s cotton production has quadrupled by 2010 and proponents of GM crops have attributed this to Bt cotton. This has been hotly contested. The recent assertion in favour of Bt cotton by Dr Ramesh Chander of Niti Aayog, early this year, has come under scathing criticism in an article by Professor Andrew Paul Gutierrez, Dr. Hans R.Herren, and Dr. Peter E.Kenmore  as also by Sujatha Byravan. The claims by the advocates of GM crops and Bt cotton were questioned in a well-researched article early this year by scientists K R Kranthi and G D Stone. This article counters their arguements.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        – TPF
    This article was originally posted on the non-profit GeneticLiteracyProject.org website.

    Authors: Cameron English, Jon Entine, and Matin Qaim

    Was the introduction of transgenic (GMO) cotton seeds to India in 2002 the beginning of the renaissance of the country’s then struggling cotton industry? Or was it a non-event, hyped by biotechnology advocates, especially agro-businesses, to bolster the case for a technology struggling for public acceptance?

    After years of farmers losing crops to tobacco budworms, cotton bollworms and pink bollworms, costing billions of dollars a year in losses, Monsanto developed insect-resistant Bt cotton in the early 1990s. The engineered crop has become widespread since its commercial release in China and the United States in 1996, followed by its introduction to India in 2002.

    Within just a few years, India’s troubled cotton industry had done a 180, emerging as one of the world’s largest producers of GMO cotton, as exports boomed, helping to fuel India’s rapid rise as an emerging nation. But not everyone accepts this version of events. Agricultural biotechnology critics maintain that the success of Bt cotton was more smoke and mirrors than science, a story deceptively promoted by the beleaguered agricultural biotechnology industry and its supporters

    Competing research conclusions

    The Bt cotton debate was reignited this year following the publication of contrasting scholarly analyses, one challenging the success narrative and several others defending it. The latest volley of criticism was launched in March when Indian entomologist K. R. Kranthi and Washington University anthropologist Glenn Davis Stone wrote a scathing analysis of Bt cotton success claims in Nature Plants, an article widely disseminated by the global media. Reviewing 20 years of data, the authors claimed that the dramatic success of India’s first (and only) GMO crop was largely hype, and may have even been a failure. According to Stone in a press release put out by Washington University in St. Louis:

    Yields in all crops [in India] jumped in 2003, but the increase was especially large in cotton,” Stone said. “But Bt cotton had virtually no effect on the rise in cotton yields because it accounted for less than 5% of India’s cotton crop at the time.
    Now farmers in India are spending more on seeds, more on fertilizer and more on insecticides …. Our conclusion is that Bt cotton’s primary impact on agriculture will be its role in making farming more capital-intensive — rather than any enduring agronomic benefits.

    That led to a rebuke by long-time scholars in the field. In early May, four scientists at the South East Asia Biotechnology Center in New Dehli weighed in with their own take down in the open access Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Publication bioRxiv, concluding:

    This study [Kranthi and Stone] conspicuously ignores positive shifts that occurred with Bt adoption at reduced real cost of production in all states resulting in large welfare benefits netting out increased cost of cultivation. [The fallacy] associated with increasing yield trends even before [the] introduction of Bt cotton as claimed by Kranthi and Stone does not stand [up to] scrutiny of increasing yield trends from 2002-03 to 2009-10, with some years showing significant yield dips due to drought [only] to bounce back …. in 2017-18. The ignorance of drought impact tends to attribute the yield reduction entirely [to] the failure of Bt technology.

    In June, GLP published a detailed critique by plant geneticist Deepak Pental, who wrote:

    The article’s authors claim to have carried out ‘a new analysis of unprecedented scope, time depth and detail’ on cotton cultivation in India to find the real reasons behind the doubling of yields between 2000 and 2006, followed by yield stagnation. While the avowed goal of the analysis is to set the record right on the contribution of the Bt trait to cotton cultivation in India, the real purpose of the report is to cast doubts on the utility of GE technologies.

    Most recently, a number of scientists who have crunched the data responded sharply to the Stone-Kranthi hypothesis in letters published in Nature Plants. One of the most prominent is Ian Plewis, an emeritus professor at the University of Manchester in England, who has written extensively on debunked claims that the introduction of Bt cotton led to a surge in farmer suicides in India. Last year, he analyzed much of the same data cited by Stone and Kranthi in a paper in the Review of Agrarian Studies, arriving at a much more nuanced conclusion.

    The conclusions from these analyses are mixed. The more expensive Bt hybrid seeds have lowered insecticide costs in all three States, but only in Rajasthan did yields increase. An important message of this paper is that conclusions about the effectiveness of Bt cotton are more nuanced than many researchers and commentators recognise. The paper does not refute the assertions about the success of Bt cotton, but it does show that the benefits are not evenly distributed across India.

    In a letter to the journal, Plewis  challenged Kranthi’s and Stone’s methodology.

    Kranthi and Stone do not present state-wide analyses of insecticide use, relying instead on unpublished market research data for India as a whole. Their assertion that farmers are spending more on insecticide than they were before the introduction of Bt is not supported by my analyses which are based on publicly available data and show that the technology reduced the proportion of farmers’ costs going to insecticides in all three states.
    Kranthi and Stone make some important points but their approach prevents them from reaching soundly based assessments of the long-term impacts of Bt cotton on Indian farmers in different states.

    Other critics were equally challenging of their data. In a letter originally published in Nature Plants, agricultural economist Matin Qaim, who has been writing about the impacts of Bt cotton in India since its introduction, jumped into the fray:

    Kranthi and Stone’s attempt to analyze long-term effects of Bt cotton is laudable, as the effects of the technology can change over time due to evolving pest populations and other dynamics. However, their claim that Bt contributed little to the yield increases observed in India between 2002 and 2008 is unconvincing ….

    Strong arguments on both sides. What do the facts say? Let’s separate the cotton from the sharp ends of the boll.

    What is Bt cotton?

    Bt seeds produce over 200 different Bt toxins, each harmful to different insects. Bt cotton is an insect-resistant transgenic crop (GMO) designed to combat many destructive insects, most notably the bollworm. It was created by genetically altering the cotton genome to express a natural, non-pathogenic microbial protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that is found in the soil. Bt in its natural and transgenic forms has been extensively evaluated and found to be safe to all higher animals tested. Bt has been used as an insecticide in organic farming since the middle of the 20th century.

    Screen Shot at PM
    Bollworm resistance to Bt cotton problematic for farmers worldwide.

    Traditionally, pesticides have been used to combat the cotton bollworm. However, in developing nations like India, the expense of using large amounts of pesticide is often too high for marginal farmers. Bt cotton was developed with the intention of reducing the amount of pesticide needed for cotton cultivation, thereby reducing production costs for farmers, environmental impact, and the pesticide exposure of applicators, often women and children.

    Numerous independent studies have attributed anywhere from 14-30% of the cotton yield increase in India to the cultivation of Bt seeds. Five years after the introduction of Bt cotton, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and visiting fellow at Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi would write in the Wall Street Journal about India’s recently flagging cotton production: “By 2007-08, India became the largest producer of cotton with the largest acreage under Bt cotton in the world, pushing China into second place.” Many scientists and news organizations cited the surge in production of Indian cotton as one of the clearest GMO success stories.

    After its introduction, within a decade, Bt cotton accounted for more than 95% of all cotton cultivation in India, as yields increased.

    zjoyqkdyts
    During that same period marking a 55% rise in yields, overall use of insecticides remained below absolute levels from 2003, while per- hectare usage dropped precipitously.

    chart
    Source: KR Kranthi (December 2016), News reports from Reuters, Financial Express

    Stone’s critique and pink bollworm resistance

    Despite its initial success, Bt cotton seed is more costly than non-transgenic (but lower yielding) varieties, making it a target for some critics who are skeptical of crop biotechnology. One of those longtime skeptics is Washington University professor Stone. Stone is part of a cohort of scholars and activists, including Indian-philosopher Vandana Shiva, which fervently believes that the Indian Green Revolution that dramatically reduced hunger and is credited with saving more than a billion lives was a failure.

    As far back as 2012, Stone challenged a plethora of studies generally supporting the view behind the success of India’s Bt cotton crops and the resurrection of the nation’s once-threatened cotton industry. Stone looked at the data from a cultural anthropology perspective and saw more hype than substance. Writing in his influential paper in 2012, “Constructing Facts: Bt Cotton Narratives in India,” Stone maintained, “We simply cannot say how Bt seed has affected cotton production in India.”  The “triumph narrative” of Bt cotton in India, he claimed, “flows mainly from economists and the biotech industry (and its academic allies)” in “industry-journal authentication systems” (peer-reviewed journals), which “serve the interests of their constituent parties.” The arrangement is a “cosy alliance between GM manufacturers and ostensibly independent researchers,” he added.

    Problems emerged in 2017, as the pink bollworm ravaged cotton crops in India, suggesting the pest had developed resistance. A January 2018 study released by Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) showed how the proportion of pink bollworm on green bolls of Bt cotton plants in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh rose from 5.71 percent in 2010 to 73.82 percent in 2017. GMO-skeptic Stone tweeted a link to a scathing article in Bloomberg, sarcastically asking why GMO supporters seemed to be ignoring the Bt’s failure in India.screen shot at pm

    As reporter Mark Lynas noted in an analysis for the Cornell Alliance for Science, the debate is nuanced than either pro or anti factions often maintain. The Bloomberg report did notice that similar problems have not turned up in Australia and China, where Bt cotton is grown, suggesting the resistance may be unique to conditions in India. Lynas interviewed Ronald Herring, author of numerous peer-reviewed papers on the impacts of Bt cotton in India. He acknowledged the reality of the problem, but suggested the issue was murky. The problem could be linked to a variety of issues, including the use of counterfeit Bt seeds, which are rampant in India, or the fact that many financially-pressed Indian farmers abandoned the recommended rotations of a second crop, which can be less profitable than the cash-crop cotton.

    Bt cotton has had an up and down history in India. From 2002 to 2009, cotton production, productivity and acreage grew steadily. Soon, the pink bollworm began developing resistance. Studies between 2013 and 2015 of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and CICR concluded that pink bollworm had developed resistance to Bollgard-II. Insecticide use shot up to levels not seen in a decade.

    Vijay Paranjape, the associate director of the USAID-funded Bt brinjal project in Bangladesh, and an expert in Bt cotton in India, told Lynas that the problem was largely focused in one region, Vidarbha. “[T]here is some pattern to it that could be due to [poor] agronomic practices being followed,” in that area. In other words, the facts are complicated.

    Another Bt expert, Srinivasan Ramasamy, then a visiting scientist at Cornell University, told Lynas: “I don’t agree that Bt cotton has failed in India.” Ramasamy, he said, pointed out that Bt cotton “was developed against three different bollworms — Helicoverpa armigera, Earias spp. and Pectinophora gossypiella” (the latter is pink bollworm).

    Bt cotton effectively reduced these bollworms, except the pink bollworm, that too in Maharashtra only. If the other two species remained as a major threat, the pesticide use might have been several-folds higher than the current use. Hence, Bt cotton has contributed to pesticide reduction.

    Stone’s disputations and Qaim’s response

    This nuanced history of course is often not reflected in the commentaries, or even academic studies, by supporters of GMO crops. Setbacks are often portrayed by hardened critics as absolute failures.

    Jump to 2020, and Stone, joined by K. R. Kranthi, the former director of India’s Central Institute for Cotton Research and now the head of a technical division at the Washington-based International Cotton Advisory Committee, reemerged as a sharp critic of Bt cotton—though the success narrative appears even stronger now. Since 2012, water usage has dropped sharply in Indian while Bt cotton yields have continued to climb, and are at or near historic highs, up more than 150% since the early 2000s.
    f large

    Despite these numbers, Kranthi and Stone argued that “the largest production gains came prior to widespread [Bt] seed adoption and must be viewed in line with changes in fertilization practices and other pest population dynamics.” They also cited the pink bollworm’s evolved resistance to Bt insecticide and the threat posed by other pests that are impervious to the insecticidal power of Bt cotton.

    Qaim found these arguments lacking, however. Building on previous scholarship, the agricultural economist explains that, when other relevant factors are accounted for, Bt cotton did indeed boost crop yields in India. Here are his conclusions:

    The agronomic and socioeconomic effects of insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in India have long been debated. In their recent Perspective article, Kranthi and Stone [1] used 20 years of data to analyze associations between the adoption of Bt cotton, crop yields and insecticide use, claiming that Bt technology had little yield effects and did not produce any enduring benefits.

    Here, I argue that the methods used by Kranthi and Stone are not suitable to make statements about causal effects, so their conclusions are misleading. As earlier studies showed [2–7], Bt cotton has contributed to sizeable yield gains and important benefits for cotton farmers and the environment. Kranthi and Stone’s attempt to analyze long-term effects of Bt cotton is laudable, as the effects of the technology can change over time due to evolving pest populations and other dynamics.

    However, their claim that Bt contributed little to the yield increases observed in India between 2002 and 2008 is unconvincing, as this part of their analysis looks at the same time period that was also analyzed previously by other authors with more precise microlevel data and better methodologies [7,8]. Kranthi and Stone use simple graphical analysis to compare time trends for Bt adoption, fertilizer use and yield at national and state levels.

    Comparing the graphs, they find a stronger correspondence between the fertilizer and yield trends than between the Bt adoption and yield trends. Thus, they conclude that the observed yield increases were primarily due to the higher use of fertilizer and other inputs, and not to Bt technology. The problem is that such a simple graphical comparison of time trends is inappropriate to analyze causal effects. Crop yields may increase because of more fertilizer or because of better pest control through the adoption of insect-resistant Bt varieties. It is also possible that some farmers decided to use more fertilizer because of Bt adoption. Many other factors, such as changes in irrigation, other inputs and technologies, agronomic practices, training of farmers or simple weather fluctuations may also affect cotton yields and broader socioeconomic benefits.

    In principle, Kranthi and Stone acknowledge these complexities but they do nothing to control for any of the confounding factors. Previous studies used microlevel data and more sophisticated statistical techniques to control for confounding factors and possible bias, hence leading to more reliable effect estimates. Kathage and Qaim [7] used panel data collected between 2002 and 2008 from over 500 randomly selected cotton farms in four states of India. They used statistical differencing techniques and controlled for the use of fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides, agronomic practices and many other factors, including location and time trends, to deal with selection bias and cultivation bias.

    screenshot bt cotton yields and farmers benefits qaim natureplants pdf

    Results showed that—after controlling for all other factors—Bt adoption had increased cotton yields by 24%, farmers’ profits by 50% and farm household living standards by 18%, with no indication that the benefits were fading during the 2002–2008 period. The same data also revealed that chemical insecticide quantities declined by more than 40% through Bt adop-tion, with the largest reductions in the most toxic active ingredients previously sprayed to control the American bollworm [9–11].

    There are not many other examples from India or elsewhere where a single technology has caused agronomic, economic and environmental benefits in a similar magnitude.Against this background, Kranthi and Stone’s statement that “the surge in yields has been uncritically attributed to Bt seed” is not correct. Of course, there are other factors that contributed to the observed doubling of yields between 2002 and 2008 but the 24% estimate by Kathage and Qaim is the net effect of Bt technology after controlling for other factors [7]. Using longer-term data but inap-propriate methodologies to challenge earlier results, as Kranthi and Stone do in their article, is not convincing. Bt cotton has increased yields through better pest control and has benefited adopting farm-ers in India and several other developing countries [12–14].

    References
    1. Kranthi, K. R. & Stone, G. D. Long-term impacts of Bt cotton in India. Nat. Plants6, 188–196 (2020).
    2. Datta, S. et al. India needs genetic modification technology in agriculture. Curr. Sci.117, 390–394 (2019).
    3. Qaim, M. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ.1, 665–693 (2009). Bt cotton, yields and farmers’ benefitsMatin Qaim ✉arising from K. R. Kranthi and G. D. Stone Nature Plants https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0615-5 (2020)–70–50–30–1010305070Cotton yieldInsecticidequantityCotton profitFarm householdliving standardBt effect (%)Fig. 1 |Net effects of Bt cotton adoption in India (2002–2008). Mean percentage effects are shown with standard error bars. Results are based on plot-level and household-level panel data collected in four rounds between 2002 and 2008. Net effects of Bt cotton were estimated with panel data regression models and differencing techniques to control for observed and unobserved confounding factors 7,9,11 Nature Plants| www.nature.com/natureplants matters arisingNature PlaNts
    4. Crost, B., Shankar, B., Bennett, R. & Morse, S. Bias from farmer self-selection in genetically modified crop productivity estimates: evidence from Indian data. J. Agric. Econ.58, 24–36 (2007).
    5. Qaim, M., Subramanian, A., Naik, G. & Zilberman, D. Adoption of Bt cotton and impact variability: insights from India. Rev. Agric. Econ.28, 48–58 (2006).
    6. Subramanian, A. & Qaim, M. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. J. Dev. Stud.46, 295–311 (2010).
    7. Kathage, J. & Qaim, M. Economic impacts and impact dynamics of Bt(Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton in India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 11652–11656 (2012).
    8. Krishna, V., Qaim, M. & Zilberman, D. Transgenic crops, production risk and agrobiodiversity. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ.43, 137–164 (2016).
    9. Krishna, V. V. & Qaim, M. Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India. Agric. Syst.107, 47–55 (2012).
    10. Veettil, P. C., Krishna, V. V. & Qaim, M. Ecosystem impacts of pesticide reductions through Bt cotton adoption. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.61, 115–134 (2017).
    11. Kouser, S. & Qaim, M. Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis. Ecol. Econ.70, 2105–2113 (2011).
    12. Ali, A. & Abdulai, A. The adoption of genetically modified cotton and poverty reduction in Pakistan. J. Agric. Econ.61, 175–192 (2010).
    13. Qiao, F. Fifteen years of Bt cotton in China: the economic impact and its dynamics. Wo r l d D e v.70, 177–185 (2015).
    14. Qaim, M. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy42, 129–150 (2020)
    Matin Qaim is a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development at the University of Goettingen in Germany. Visit his website. Follow Matin on Twitter @MatinQaim
    The letter was originally published in Nature Plants and has been republished here with permission. Nature Plants can be found on Twitter @NaturePlants
    Cameron English is a Science writer and the Managing Editor at Genetic Literacy Project.
    Jon Entine is a renowned journalist, author, though-leader and the Founder and Executive Director of the Genetic Literacy Project.
    This article is republished from the Genetic Literacy project under the Creative Commons 4.0

    Image Credit: GLP and India Times

  • Contemporary and Upcoming Issues In the Field of Intellectual Property Rights

    Contemporary and Upcoming Issues In the Field of Intellectual Property Rights

    1.1   Contemporary Issues: IP Awareness and Drug Price Caps

    1.1.1. Introduction

    The realm of intellectual property (IP) rights has been in existence and been a driving force for novelty and innovation for centuries and can be dated back to at least 500 BC when a state in Greece provided protection for 1 year to innovators of ‘a new refinement in luxury’, ensuring innovators can monopolize and reap benefits out of their innovations.[i] That being the case, the first international convention (known as the ‘Paris Convention’) was enforced much later in the year 1883, establishing a union for the protection of ‘industrial property’. Since then, we have seen rapid growth in the field of IP rights. It goes without saying that till the time entrepreneurs are incorporating companies, innovators are inventing technology or artists are creating their works of art and/or literature, the domain of IP will only progress further.

    Although the evolution of international IP regime has been rapid and the laws have become a lot more complicated than they initially were, it appears that we have only scratched the surface of the extent and reach of IP rights. It cannot be stressed enough that IP rights are crucial to every company, creator and inventor since it ensures that their rights and interests are protected and gives them the right to claim relief against any violation.

    Insofar as the Indian IP regime is concerned, we have seen a gradual but crucial development in our laws which has now motivated not only foreign corporations to seek IP protection in India but has also supported start-ups in seeking protection of their IP to the extent that these enterprises have the liberty to seek the protection of their IP at significantly reduced fees (barring copyright and geographical indications). The Indian Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has also taken measures to promote e-filing by reducing costs associated therewith and improving its e-filing system/mechanism. However, the issues arise when start-ups and small enterprises seek to register their IP and are unaware of these common, but cost-effective mechanisms in place.

    Besides, our intellectual property policies (especially patent policies) have been a subject matter of criticism for a long time at a global stage due to the government’s intervention in the enforcement of patent rights. One of the primary concerns for foreign corporations and organizations have been related to working of patented inventions in India and the issue of compulsory licensing.

    1.1.2. Lack of Awareness of Intellectual Property Rights

    Launched by the Government of India in 2014, the ‘Make in India’ project has motivated entrepreneurs to establish their business with the help of government funding and foreign direct investments (FDI) of up to 100%.[ii] This step has led to a boost in people exploiting their entrepreneurial skills to establish a successful business (in most cases). Although the Make in India project also focuses on the importance of IP rights by attempting to educate the entrepreneurial minds of the importance and benefits of their IP, it appears that small businesses are yet to benefit from the IP aspect of the project. These businesses/start-ups do not realize the importance of their IP and tend to often misuse violate another’s. This leads to the institution of a lawsuit seeking infringement (or passing off) against such businesses by big corporations and since defending such Suits is an expensive and time-consuming process, it becomes an uphill task for the entrepreneurs to defend the Suits and run their business effectively. Entrepreneurs are often misinformed and miseducated of the basics of IP by professionals who do not have an expertise in the area of IP law, which leads them to believe that their acts of adopting an identical or deceptively similar trademark would go unnoticed or would not constitute infringement or passing off. Due to their lack of knowledge in the domain of IP and lack of proper guidance by professionals, these entrepreneurs tend to believe that: –

    • Adopting an identical mark (intentionally) in a different class does not constitute infringement or passing off;
    • Adopting a similar mark in the same (or allied and cognate) class does not constitute infringement or passing off;
    • Even if the competing marks are identical or deceptively similar, filing a trademark application with a user claim would give them a defensible stand against the true proprietor’s claim.

    Needless to say, these are some of the common misconceptions which lead to a claim of infringement or passing off being raised by true proprietors of the marks. Also, the possibility of the Court of law imposing damages and/or costs on a defendant cannot be ruled out either. In such a scenario, due to the limited funding of these start-ups, they are often forced to reconsider their entire business strategy in-line with the pending lawsuit. This can, however, be avoided if the entrepreneurs are either well-educated in the field of IP law or take necessary steps to ensure that they receive proper guidance regarding risks involved in registration and use of their mark, from a professional with expertise in the field of IP laws. Instances of start-ups adopting a similar or identical mark of a big corporation/start-up are quite common nowadays with some of the known cases being instituted by ‘Bookmyshow’ against ‘Bookmyoffer’, ‘Shaadi.com’ seeking relief against use of ‘Secondshaadi.com’, ‘Naukri.com’ suing ‘naukrie.com’, etc.[iii]

    In instances involving the pharmaceutical industry, the issue becomes far severe since adopting a similar or identical mark can result not only in infringement of IP but can only be extremely harmful to the patients/consumers. Unlike any other consumable item, patients/consumers are at much greater risk if they consume wrong medication and such instances where corporations adopt a similar or identical mark for its pharmaceutical drug, the consequence can be fatal to the extent that it may even lead to death. In one such famous instance in India where the Defendant was a repeated/hardened infringer, the High Court of Bombay while imposing exemplary costs of INR 1.5 crores stated “Drugs are not sweets. Pharmaceutical companies which provide medicines for the health of the consumers have a special duty of care towards them. These companies have a greater responsibility towards the general public. However, nowadays, the corporate and financial goals of such companies cloud the decision of its executives whose decisions are incentivized by profits, more often than not, at the cost of public health. This case is a perfect example of just that”.

    Another issue these entrepreneurs/start-ups tend to face in the realm of IP law is vis-a-vis use of copyrighted material without knowledge/intention to infringe upon someone else’s IP rights. For instance, when start-ups launch their online portals, they tend to use images/GIFs or music for their videos which are copyrighted and use thereof without permission is illegal. On account of lack of knowledge of IP laws and consequences of such misuse, they often violate rights residing in the copyrighted work and are then subject to either a legal notice from the owner/proprietor of the copyrighted material or a lawsuit before the Court of law.

    The United States of America’s (USA) Chamber of Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) which promotes innovation and creativity through intellectual property standards, in its 2019 list of countries performing in the field of IP law, places India at a substantially low rank of 40 out of 53[iv] which indicates that USA considers India as a major threat when it comes to development and investment the field of IP rights in India (especially in the field of patents). Additionally, India also lacks in the number of patent applications filed before the Indian Patent Office, averaging at around 9,500 filings per year, compared to 2,69,000 filings in the USA.[v] One of the primary reason behind this difference might have something to do with India’s lack of support towards the encouragement of IP protection, especially for start-ups.

    1.1.3. Raising Awareness on Intellectual Property Laws for Entrepreneurs

    With almost 50% of litigations within the domain of IP pertaining to trademark infringement and passing off,[vi] entrepreneurs and small businesses must take the following necessary steps to ensure that their rights and interests in their business are protected: –

    • Entrepreneurs/Business owners must entrust lawyers/law firms specializing in the field of IP rights to advise and prosecute their trademark applications;
    • Understand or attempt to understand each and every step involved in prosecuting and registering a trademark application and participate in discussions leading to every step taken in the prosecution of their IP; and,
    • Approach IP lawyers/law firms to get a gist of importance of IP protection along-with freedom to use a mark either before registering it or using the said mark for goods in classes not forming part of the trademark registration.

    It is also the duty of IP lawyers/law firms to promote IP protection for entrepreneurs and small businesses by organizing interactive sessions with new and/or domestic clients and providing competitive charges for prosecuting and enforcing IP rights of these entrepreneurs and businesses.

    Statistics reflect that majority of IP infringement cases in India involve a small enterprise being unaware of the basics of IP rights and therefore, using an IP that is either deceptively similar or virtually identical to a registered and/or well-known IP.[vii] Often businesses expanding their presence in the online portal (either through their website or a social media page) use copyrighted material without realizing that their use of the same would tantamount infringement.   Raising awareness of the importance of IP and consequences of infringement (and passing off) would ensure that start-ups avoid misusing an IP belonging to someone else.

    1.1.4. The imposition of Price Caps on pharmaceutical drugs in India and its work-around

    One of the primary reasons why the USA considers India’s IP regime a major threat has something to do with India’s patent laws, especially vis-à-vis the pharmaceutical industry. Albeit the US Trade Representative (USTR) last year stated that the USA is attempting to restrict patentability for new pharmaceutical drugs which are “essentially mere discoveries of a new form of a known substance which does not result in enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance ….. machine or apparatus” (which is identical to Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970),[viii] it still considers India as a threat to its IP regime, especially due of India’s patent laws.

    To better understand the problems faced in the Indian pharmaceutical industry, it would be prudent to point out that unlike developed nations, the Indian government (through its Patents Act and policies) keeps strict control over the drug pricing with an intention to make healthcare (specifically medication) accessible amongst all States and income groups. This can especially be observed in pharmaceutical drugs for cancer and diabetes medication. The Government of India has imposed strict price restrictions for its pharmaceutical drugs, thereby diluting IP rights and causing a severe impact on IP valuation of those pharmaceutical drugs.[ix]Although the impact might seem insignificant to consumers since they benefit from these price reductions, making cancer medicines 90% cheaper due to price control would not make IP holders happy or promote invention. Simply put, once the government slashes prices of pharmaceutical drugs intending to make them easily accessible to the majority of patients, it severely impacts the profit margin of the pharmaceutical industries, forcing them to invest more into the industry of generic drug manufacturers because of a bigger profit margin and lesser costs, rather than invest into inventing new drugs, which might although tackle a currently incurable disease (or a curable disease more effectively), but would at the same time, lead the corporation into losses. These price cuts would also force the pharmaceutical corporations to compromise on the quality of drugs which might, in a longer run, have a severe impact on healthcare.

    India’s investment in its healthcare sector has been a major concern since the Indian States ideally spend as low as 1.3% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare which results in a substantial increase in out-of-pocket expenses and placement of poor healthcare mechanisms.[x] India’s heavy reliance on generic drugs supporting the lesser privileged consumers has been expressed as a concern by the USTR[xi] and global pharmaceutical giants to the extent that investors and pharmaceutical corporations have restricted their investment into the Indian pharmaceutical industry since their price margin would result in government either forcing price caps on the drugs or implement compulsory licensing for the expensive and life-saving drugs.

    As stated above, this approach of placing price caps towards the Indian and global (vis-à-vis their sale of drugs in India) pharmaceutical industry has a major impact on India’s patent laws since it affects innovation, and since innovation is an essential part of the invention in the healthcare sector, pharmaceutical industries tend to focus more on generic drug production, profit from out-of-pocket expenses of consumers/patients, hospitalization costs, etc.[xii] The imposition of price caps has shown to have no significant improvement in accessibility of pharmaceutical drugs.

    Although the imposition of price caps is necessary for a developing nation, the same should be practiced to a limited extent. For instance, instead of capping the price of a pharmaceutical drug and dropping its price by 90%, the price caps should be dependent on the situation and need for the drug. For instance, cancer and diabetes medication are in high requirements in India[xiii] (and other nations) and therefore, the government can impose price caps and reduce the cost of the drugs by 50%. Insofar as other (less crucial/critical) pharmaceutical drugs are concerned, the government can either refrain from price caps or impose a price cap of a maximum of 20%. This would not only promote investment in innovating patented drugs but would also increase FDI in the Indian pharmaceutical sector, thereby permitting Indian pharmaceutical corporations to invent new and possibly better pharmaceutical drugs.

    At the same time, a concerned person always reserves their right under Section 84(1)[xiv] of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 to request for issuance of a compulsory license (after the expiry of three years from the date of grant of the patent) against the said pharmaceutical drug in case it does not comply with the guidelines issued under Section 83[xv]  of the afore-mentioned Act like in the case of Bayer Corporation v. Union of India.[xvi] In essence, the Indian government must invest more in its healthcare sector policies to reduce out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients/consumers and reduce the price caps by a significant amount to promote innovation in the field of patent laws, especially in the pharmaceutical sector.

    1.2. A Global Upcoming Issue: Impact of Use/Commercialization of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights

    1.2.1. Introduction

    “Can machines think?” – Alan Turing, 1950

    A few years after Alan Mathiso Turing, a renowned English mathematician, cryptanalyst and computer scientist played a pivotal role in defeating Hitler’s Nazi Germany, he wrote a paper titled ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (1950) where he asked a simple, yet intriguing question: “Can machines think?”. His paper and subsequent research established the basis of what we refer to as ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) or machine learning/intelligence. Fast forward to today, the concept of AI has become a lot more complex than what had been imagined by researchers around half a century ago. AI or a machine which reflects the ability to think and act in as close of a manner as a human mind is as of date, an exciting new development in the field of technology.

    From ‘The Turin Test’ in the year 1950 to creation of Sophia, a humanoid robot created by Hanson Robotics in the year 2016, technology, especially in the field of AI has progressed at a drastic rate, with some of the major developments being the creation of Google’s Home device (2016), Apple’s virtual assistant ‘Siri’ (2011), Microsoft’s virtual assistant ‘Cortana’ (2014), Amazon’s home assistant ‘Alexa’ (2014), etc. occurring in the past decade (2010 to 2019) itself. It is safe to say that with this progress, it is not far-fetched to assume that we may soon see the age of commercialization of much smarter versions of currently existing machine learning devices. The technology relating to AI has seen explosive growth in recent times with the number of patent applications for technologies relating to AI exceeding 1,00,000.[xvii]

    Today, AI can be dissected into two types of intelligence, namely:

    • Weak AI: This is a more common type of AI which is used amongst major corporations like Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. and although it is being used widely, its abilities are limited to performing tasks that it has been trained to perform. Such AI can store data and present it to the consumer upon enquiry or on need-basis. However, the algorithms do not permit this AI to think and act in a manner a human mind would and therefore, this AI does not pose a threat within the domain of IP.
    • Strong AI: Unlike weak AI, this form of AI would perform more cognitive functions that imitate a human mind more closely as against weak AI. Even though weak AI is known to perform basic functions more efficiently (when compared to humans), the strong AI will not only perform those basic functions of a weak AI but also will also perform more complex tasks such as inventing or creating a new IP (like a new copyrightable sound or video or a unique design, etc.).

    To a certain extent, researchers worry about the consequences of AI in case its goals end up being misaligned to ours. But at this stage, AI seems to be more promising than dangerous, especially in the field of healthcare and agriculture which is a critical industry for India.

    Needless to say, corporations are investing a lot of resources to develop this field of technology which is said to have revolutionary impacts including prediction of epidemics, advanced disaster warnings and damage prevention methods, increased productivity in all industries, etc. The possibilities and benefits (and in many cases, risks) of AI are innumerable and at the current rate of its development, it will quite possibly be overwhelming. Regardless of its pros and cons, commercialization of AI is inevitable and therefore, this raises a material question: Do we have the appropriate laws in place to tackle issues arising out of commercialization (or use) of AI? The answer, unfortunately, is no.

    1.2.2. The Current Scenario

    Being an upcoming digital frontier, it is apparent that AI will have a huge impact on our current laws and practices. For instance, our current world IP regime only permits a ‘person’ to be a proprietor and/or owner of an IP (see Naruto v. Slater[xviii]) which implies that any form of IP that is generated/invented by an AI cannot be a subject matter of registration. However, a recent decision by the Chinese Court wherein a tech giant ‘Tencent’ claimed copyright infringement against a local financial news company overwork created by its Dreamwriter robot might reflect a contrary view. The Court in the said case held that an article generated by AI is protectable under Chinese copyright law.[xix] Holding a contrary view, the European Patent Office (EPO) in the case pertaining to patent applications filed by ‘DABUS’ an AI technology, gave a finding similar to the Naruto case wherein it held that application has to be filed by a human being.[xx] Professor Ryan Abbott along-with his multi-disciplinary team at the University of Surrey had filed (through their AI called DABUS) the first-ever patent application without a human inventor[xxi] indicating that the move towards AI-based IP filing is underway, however, given that the laws are currently not in place, the application was, unfortunately, refused.

    Although an old principle, the Courts around the world at times rely (either directly or indirectly) on the principle of “sweat of the brow”, which indicates the inventor’s effort and hard work invested in creating an IP. However, the application of the said principle becomes rather complicated when the issue of IP generated by AI comes into the picture. At the same time, the commercialization of AI might also lead to dilution of IP rights, given that the possibility of AI being better and quicker at generating IP than human beings cannot be ruled out. Undoubtedly, AI might eventually be considered as a ‘smarter’ variant of a human inventor since an AI would require a significantly less amount of time and effort to generate a registrable IP. Apart from the ones already mentioned above, several unknown issues are likely to arise upon commercialization of AI (to generate IP) and there is a dire need to highlight and resolve these issues at the earliest.

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has recently taken an initiative to invite public feedback on possible impacts of AI on the world IP regime[xxii] by conducting press conferences to tackle the impending issues vis-à-vis IP laws upon commercialization or use of AI. Although the topic of discussion during the previous conference was somewhat restricted to Patent laws and did not tackle IP laws holistically, the next round of sessions might emphasize on all IP laws and be more holistic towards progress. Needless to say, AI will impact our IP regime all the way from the creation of an IP to valuation, commercialization, transfer/assignment, etc. thereof, which would require a complete overhaul of our current laws in order to inculcate and appreciate the investment (in terms of time and costs) and labour involved in the creation of the AI, as well as use/transfer/assignment of an IP generated by that AI.

    1.2.3. India’s Approach towards Artificial Intelligence

    India has seen rapid growth in its information technology (IT) sector which has further contributed to other primary sectors like agricultural sector, healthcare sector, etc. by developing various mechanisms such as a system for online trading or integrated crop management system (amongst other things). It is safe to say that technology has a big role to play in India’s growth. Apart from the agricultural industry, the software industry has played a pivotal role in India’s move towards becoming the fastest-growing trillion-dollar economy.[xxiii]

    Being amongst the most profitable investment jurisdictions, India has recently been a hub for tech-related start-ups. Understanding the importance of technology, Indian entrepreneurs, along-with government support, have started to invest heavily in the technology field and with the help of FDI, there has been a substantial boom in the field of technology. Since other fields such as agriculture, healthcare and education are all somewhat dependent on this field, the scope of AI transforming all the other sectors through the tech sector is clearly perceivable.

    As discussed earlier, India’s healthcare sector is in a dire need for investment and development and on account of lack of funding and need to make medication accessible, reliance on AI would drastically reduce costs incurred in labour, research and development, trials, etc., which would eventually reduce the costs of pharmaceutical drugs themselves, thereby impacting the final sale price of the drug. Reliance on AI (by developing the tech sector) would extinguish the need for State governments to invest heavily in their healthcare programmes. Although the current investment might not cut it, a substantial investment, in that case, would not be required. AI support in the development and marketing of pharmaceutical drugs, thereby reducing the overall costs and increasing production and sale would also invite more FDI in India’s healthcare sector. This will also eventually make healthcare more accessible in less developed regions in India. Statistics indicate that healthcare is majorly accessible/available in limited States/Cities like Bengaluru, Chennai, Gurugram, etc.[xxiv] while cities like Singrauli continue to suffer.[xxv] With the major impediment of drug pricing out of the way, access to healthcare will become more of a focus and would eventually thrive with AI support.

    Insofar as the agricultural sector is concerned, the same plays an essential role in our developing economy. According to a report issued by India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), around 58% of Indian population relies on India’s agricultural sector with a contribution of an estimated $265.51 billion (approximately INR 18.55 lakh crore) of gross value added to its economy (in Financial Year 2019).[xxvi] This implies that majority of the lesser developed States and Cities in India rely solely on production and sale of their agricultural produce.[xxvii] With an FDI inflow of up to 100% and an increasing reliance on technology, the sector keeps looking for methods to increase crop yields in a cost-effective manner. Having said that, the agricultural sector still faces some major issues like weather instability and fluctuations, condition of agricultural labourers, poor farming techniques, inadequate irrigation facilities, etc.[xxviii]  Unlike the healthcare sector, the agricultural sector is already witnessing the impact of AI from companies like Microsoft India and Intello Labs which have introduced mechanisms to maximize crop yield and reduce wastage/infestation. For instance, Microsoft India has introduced an AI-based sowing app which determines and informs the farmers of the best time to sow their crop based on analysis of climate data for the specific area and amount of rainfall and soil moisture the crops have received.[xxix]  Farmers can benefit from these AI-based apps without spending any additional costs on installing sensors.

    Indian (and foreign) tech industries have already played an important role in providing ease of business through reliance on weak AI and therefore, if India invests and conducts thorough research into strong AI, the implications of AI can be countless. However, since research and investment in the field of strong AI are extremely limited in India, commercialization thereof seems far-fetched as of date. Due to lack of expertise in the field of AI, it has been difficult to conduct research and yield any result. Colleges/Universities often refrain from investing in the field of AI research due to lack of participation and heavy research costs. Also, since the education system in the majority of institutions is somewhat traditional, graduates (or post-graduates) lack the required skill set to work in this technical field.[xxx]

    In contrast, however, the Chinese government is already taking steps to become a leader in the AI space by 2030s. It has adopted a three-step method which involves appreciating AI-based applications by the year 2020, making cutting edge breakthroughs in the said field by 2025 and leading in the industry by 2030. To support this process, a Chinese Court has already ruled in favour of AI-generated copyright work in its decision favouring Tencent,[xxxi] a tech company focusing on communication and social platforms. Since India (through its tech industry) has started taking steps to work towards its AI technology (albeit weak AI for now) and has also entrusted its think-tank ‘NITI (National Institution for Transforming India ) Aayog’ for assistance in such development through the National Program on AI,[xxxii] we hope to see India catch-up to tech giants like China, USA and Europe.

    1.2.4. Development of Intellectual Property Laws on Artificial Intelligence: An Indian Perspective

     Since WIPO has only recently started discussing the implications of AI on global IP laws, the member states of WIPO are yet to come out with laws pertaining to AI-based IP. While beginning its public consultation process on AI and IP policy, Director General of WIPO Mr Francis Gurry said: “Artificial intelligence is set to radically alter the way in which we work and live, with great potential to help us solve common global challenges, but it is also prompting policy questions and challenges,”.[xxxiii]  On December 13, 2019 WIPO also published ‘Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence’ with an intent to invite feedback/opinion on the most pressing issues IP policymakers will face in the near future. One of the most crucial questions where jurisdictions conflict is whether AI can be an inventor/owner of an IP. While the EPO held that an AI cannot be the inventor of a patent application, the Chinese Court observed the contrary, holding that an AI can be an inventor of a copyrightable subject matter. Apart from the issues arising vis-à-vis prosecution of such applications (assuming an AI can be an inventor/originator of an IP), another important issue would pertain to enforcement by or against IP owned by an AI. For instance, if an AI generates a copyrightable subject matter which is deceptively similar or identical to a copyrighted matter, against whom will a Suit claiming infringement and damages lie? Further, in case of a finding against the AI wherein damages have been awarded, will the AI be expected to bear the damages or the owner of the AI? To answer these complex questions, WIPO has invited inputs from member States on issues (not exhaustive) published on December 13, 2019.[xxxiv]

    In view afore-mentioned development, India should establish a team of technical and legal (IP) experts to review the current laws and issues drafted by the WIPO Secretariat, draft possible answers to the issues and suggest required amendments to our current laws to inculcate rights of AI in the best way possible and then discuss the same at a larger stage, i.e., at the 25th Session of the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Until now, India’s role/participation in WIPO’s sessions/meetings has been passive and considering how AI would impact its various sectors, especially the agricultural and healthcare sector (a sector which needs an improvement), India must play an active role in the development of IP laws to support AI. Given the fact that India is one of the fastest-growing economies and one of its cities is also considered as the ‘Silicon Valley’ of India,[xxxv] commercialization/use of AI would greatly benefit its economy to the extent that it would substantially reduce labour costs and at the same time, benefit a lot of entrepreneurs in the tech industry. Additionally, AI would also be crucial for government offices as it would greatly reduce delay in processing time and errors. For instance, the use of AI in Indian Intellectual Property Offices would enable machines to review applications for basic defects such as non-filing of an essential document or improper authentication, etc. In case strong AI is adopted by these departments, it would also enable machines to raise basic objections on applications and upon clearance thereof, advertise or register the same, thereby reducing significant costs and time.

    It goes without saying that AI is the next big thing in the field of technology and once it is commercialized at a large scale, it is going to have a huge impact on our laws (especially IP laws). Given India’s interests and possible benefits in the field of AI, its involvement in the development of our current IP regime is pivotal.

     

    Notes

    [i] Jeff Williams, The Evolution of Intellectual Property, Law Office of Jeff Williams PLLC; link: https://txpatentattorney.com/blog/the-history-of-intellectual-property(published on November 11, 2015).

    [ii] Foreign Direct Investment, published by Make in India; link: http://www.makeinindia.com/policy/foreign-direct-investment.

    [iii] Top 17 Startup Legal Disputes, published by Wazzeer; link: https://wazzeer.com/blog/top-17-startup-legal-disputes (published on May 02, 2017).

    [iv] GIPC IP Index 2020, published by Global Innovation Policy Center; link: https://www.theglobalipcenter.com/ipindex2020-details/?country=in.

    [v] Darrell M. West, India-U.S. relations: Intellectual property rights, Brookings India; link: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/india-u-s-relations-intellectual-property-rights (published on June 04, 2016).

    [vi] Thehasin Nazia & Rajarshi Choudhuri, The Problem of IPR Infringement in India’s Burgeoning Startup Ecosystem, IPWatchdog; link: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/11/16/problem-ipr-infringement-indias-burgeoning-startup-ecosystem/id=116019 (published on November 16, 2019).

    [vii] Press Trust of India, Absence of legal awareness root cause of rights’ deprivation, Business Standard, Nagpur; link: https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/absence-of-legal-awareness-root-cause-of-rights-deprivation-119081800664_1.html (published on August 18, 2019).

    [viii] Kristina M. L. Acri née Lybecker, India’s Patent Law is No Model for the United States: Say No to No Combination Drug Patents Act, IP Watch Dog; link: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/06/26/indias-patent-law-no-model-united-states/id=110727 (published on June 26, 2019).

    [ix] Amir Ullah Khan, India’s drug price fix is hurting healthcare, Live Mint; link: https://www.livemint.com/politics/policy/india-s-drug-price-fix-is-hurting-healthcare-11572334594083.html (published on October 29, 2019).

    [x] Ibid.

    [xi] E Kumar Sharma, Hard bargaining ahead, Business Today; link: https://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/focus/us-to-pressure-india-change-intellectual-property-ipr-regime/story/214440.html (published on February 01, 2015).

    [xii] Amir, supra note 9 at __(page No.)__.

    [xiii] Key diabetes, anti-cancer drugs among 92 in price-ceiling list, published by ET Bureau, The Economic Times; link: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/key-diabetes-anti-cancer-drugs-among-92-in-price-ceiling-list/articleshow/65433283.cms?from=mdr (published on August 17, 2018).

    [xiv] Section 84(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 :-

    Compulsory licenses –

    (1) At any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the 170 [grant] of a patent, any person interested may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license on patent on any of the following grounds, namely:-

    (a) that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or

    (b) that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, or

    (c) that the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

    [xv] Section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970:-

    General principles applicable to working of patented inventions –

    Without prejudice to the other provisions contained in this Act, in exercising the powers conferred by this Chapter, regard shall be had to the following general considerations, namely;-

    (a) that patents are granted to encourage inventions and to secure that the inventions are worked in India on a commercial scale and to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable without undue delay;

    (b) that they are not granted merely to enable patentees to enjoy a monopoly for the importation of the patented article;

    (c) that the protection and enforcement of patent rights contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations;

    (d) that patents granted do not impede protection of public health and nutrition and should act as instrument to promote public interest specially in sectors of vital importance for socio-economic and technological development of India;

    (e) that patents granted do not in any way prohibit Central Government in taking measures to protect public health;

    (f) that the patent right is not abused by the patentee or person deriving title or interest on patent from the patentee, and the patentee or a person deriving title or interest on patent from the patentee does not resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology; and

    (g) that patents are granted to make the benefit of the patented invention available at reasonably affordable prices to the public.

    [xvi] Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(S). 30145 of 2014.

    [xvii] Ryan N. Phelan, Artificial Intelligence & the Intellectual Property Landscape, Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP, published by Lexology; link: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8c2b5986-95bb-4e8e-9057-e4481bfaa471 (published on September 14, 2019).

    [xviii] No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018).

    [xix] Stefano Zaccaria, AI-written articles are copyright-protected, rules Chinese court, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR); published on January 10, 2020 (link:https://www.worldipreview.com/news/ai-written-articles-are-copyright-protected-rules-chinese-court-19102).

    [xx] EPO refuses DABUS patent applications designating a machine inventor, European Patent Office; link: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2019/20191220.html(published on December 20, 2019).

    [xxi] Laura Butler, World first patent applications filed for inventions generated solely by artificial intelligence, University of Surrey; published on 01 August, 2019 (link: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/world-first-patent-applications-filed-inventions-generated-solely-artificial-intelligence).

    [xxii] WIPO Begins Public Consultation Process on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy, published by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); PR/2019/843; published on December 13, 2019 (link: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0017.html).

    [xxiii] Caleb Silver, The Top 20 Economies in the World, Investopedia; link: https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/#5-india (published on November 19, 2019).

    [xxiv] Akriti Bajaj, Working towards building a healthier India, Invest India; link: https://www.investindia.gov.in/sector/healthcare (published on January 18, 2020).

    [xxv] Leroy Leo, Niti Aayog calls healthcare system a ‘sinking ship,’ urges private participation in Ayushman Bharat, Live Mint; link: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/niti-aayog-calls-healthcare-system-a-sinking-ship-urges-private-participation-in-ayushman-bharat-11574948865389.html (published on November 29, 2019).

    [xxvi] Agriculture in India: Information About Indian Agriculture & Its Importance, Indian Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF); link: https://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india.aspx (published on November 2019).

    [xxvii] Ayushman Baruah, Artificial Intelligence in Indian Agriculture – An Industry and Startup Overview, Emerj; link: https://emerj.com/ai-sector-overviews/artificial-intelligence-in-indian-agriculture-an-industry-and-startup-overview (published on November 22, 2019).

    [xxviii] Vidya Sethy, Top 13 Problems Faced by Indian Agriculture, Your Article Library; link: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/agriculture/top-13-problems-faced-by-indian-agriculture/62852.

    [xxix] Ibid.

    [xxx] Neha Dewan, In the race for AI supremacy, has India missed the bus?, The Economic Times; link: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/features/in-the-race-for-ai-supremacy-has-india-missed-the-bus/articleshow/69836362.cms (published on June 19, 2019).

    [xxxi] Rory O’Neill and Stefano Zaccaria,

    AI-written articles are copyright-protected, rules Chinese court, World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR); link: https://www.worldipreview.com/news/ai-written-articles-are-copyright-protected-rules-chinese-court-19102 (published on January 10, 2020).

    [xxxii] National Strategy On Artificial Intelligence, published by NITI Aayog; link: https://niti.gov.in/national-strategy-artificial-intelligence.

    [xxxiii] WIPO Begins Public Consultation Process on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy, PR/2019/843, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Geneva; link: https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2019/article_0017.html (published on December 13, 2019).

    [xxxiv] WIPO Secretariat, WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), Second Session, WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); link: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_ai_ge_20/wipo_ip_ai_2_ge_20_1.pdf (published on December 13, 2019).

    [xxxv] Bangalore, published by Wikipedia; link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore (last updated on February 07, 0220).

     

    Image Credit: WIPO

  • India-Australia Strategic Partnership: Leveraging Aerospace Capacity

    India-Australia Strategic Partnership: Leveraging Aerospace Capacity

    Category : India India’s, Military, India-Australia Relations
    Title : India-Australia strategic partnership: Leveraging aerospace capacity
    Author : M Matheswaran 02-06-2020

    The forthcoming virtual summit between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison assumes considerable significance for an India-Australia strategic partnership, particularly as it comes against the backdrop of heightened friction with China for both countries. Enhanced defence cooperation between the two countries could be an important signal to Beijing of the costs of overly assertive strategic behaviour – whether in the Himalaya or in trade. For some years, defence cooperation has largely focused on the naval relationship. Now is the time for enhanced air-power cooperation.

    Read More

  • India’s Farming Progress Lies In Adoption Of Smart Agriculture

    India’s Farming Progress Lies In Adoption Of Smart Agriculture

    From being a country that was a food importer till the early 1970s, India’s green revolution transformed the country into becoming self-sufficient in food production and a significant exporter of agricultural products. However, Indian agriculture, hampered by marginal farm holdings suffered from poor technology and lack of modernisation, resulting in production that is far below its potential. With a population of 1.24 billion, Indian agriculture is already challenged.
    The Railway versus Irrigation controversy during the early years of the 20th century was evidence that the British undervalued the significance of improving irrigation in an agrarian economy such as India. R C Dutt, in his famous book ‘The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age’, shows the disparity in funds allocated for railways and that for irrigation purposes. The glaring disparity is believed to be one of the reasons for the 1890 famines. Akin to the pre-independence time, the Economic Survey 2019-20 shows static growth in agriculture from 2014 to the present day. The growth rate in agriculture was a negative 0.2% in 2014-15. Inadequate fund allocation, illiteracy of the farmers, deficient safety nets, lack of microcredit organizations and low incentive for the farmers to adopt climate-smart and efficient technology are some of the reasons for prolonged sluggishness in Indian agriculture. India’s prosperous neighbour, China, however, has managed accelerated growth in both agricultural and industrial sectors. The reason is the proactive nature of the Chinese and the ability to make the most out of little. Since the 1990s China has left India far behind in the field of revamping farming techniques. A leader of innovation, China has turned its weaknesses into strength- rooftop agriculture to compensate for the lack of adequate farming land, AI sensing smart robots to store data and supplement human labour, automated water management schemes that led to rice becoming one of Chinas staple food grains. China has surpassed India in rice production, despite India having more available freshwater for crop production. This indicates the need for India to improve its learning curve as far as international agricultural policies are concerned.
    China has surpassed India in rice production, despite India having more available freshwater for crop production.

    Smart Techniques and Precision Farming

    In this vein, the identification of the techniques of smart farming that can give a boost to the decaying agricultural sector of India is critical. Using smarter techniques like Precision farming, efficient water management techniques and Artificial intelligence are sure-shot methods to increase productivity per acre of land. Precision Agriculture avoids the improper and excess application of pesticides and fertilizers and enables the farmer to use land according to its quality and nature. This leads to a reduction in cost, increase in output and climate-friendly agriculture. ‘Big data’ in Precision farming provides the farmer with data regarding soil quality, raw material requirements and weather changes, which can be stored for a later date. This is a massive game-changer for a sector which substantially depends on weather conditions and faces the brunt of climate change. China has been using automated ‘driverless’ tractors, mowers, AI drones to spray pesticides, and smart robotic sensors to analyse environmental conditions. This increases the speed of farming at an exceptional rate. Precision Farming is a potential salvager at a time when the water tables in India are diminishing at a rapid rate due to unprecedented demand by the agricultural and industrial sectors. Smart farming can potentially break the nexus between outmoded agriculture, climate change and hunger. The longer we delay the implementation of such techniques, the closer we move towards an impasse, which even modernisation might not be able to fix.
    ‘Big data’ in Precision farming provides the farmer with data regarding soil quality, raw material requirements and weather changes, which can be stored for a later date. This is a massive game-changer for a sector which substantially depends on weather conditions and faces the brunt of climate change.

    Predicament of Marginal Holdings

    The Indian predicament can be traced back to decades of neglect towards the agricultural sector. Even with plans like ‘doubling farmer’s income by 2022’, most states except Punjab, Haryana and Karnataka have not even envisaged a plan for smart farming. A plethora of structural barriers impedes the coveted modernization required by our agricultural sector. The average size of landholding by an Indian rural household is a marginal 1.1 hectare. This restricts the use of modern equipment like large tractors and robot sensors as a smart substitute for manual labour. The digital illiteracy of the farmers also presents a hurdle owing to the absence of local experts to impart training and information to the farmers. The connectivity and problem of unstable internet is also a cause of roadblock. Government policies historically have adopted a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, thus excluding approximately 86% of small and marginal farmers. For schemes like PM-Fasal Bima Yojana, the small farmers have to pay balance of the premium for crop insurance, which is almost impossible for a debt-strapped farmer. The newly extended PM-KISAN scheme requires farmers in a digitally primitive nation to check their balance by registering themselves on a web-portal page. With basic crop insurance schemes not living up to the expectation, we naturally question the efficacy of schemes to promote smart agriculture. The evaluation of the NMMI scheme for Micro Irrigation recorded that the benefit from the scheme did not reach almost half of the intended beneficiaries, even after they applied for it. The PMKSY scheme simply reached a meagre 1/10th of the farming population targeted.
    A plethora of structural barriers impedes the coveted modernization required by our agricultural sector. The average size of landholding by an Indian rural household is a marginal 1.1 hectare.

    Policy Focus for Smart Agriculture

    A dedicated approach to developing smart agriculture with mass disbursements of benefits, education and economic incentives to our farmers will eventually translate into long-run economies of scale for the agricultural community at large. The US government extensively aids research and development in agricultural technology, along with training given to farmers to understand the new technology. The British government, besides allocating 20 million dollars for sustainable agriculture, also incentivizes private aggrotech firms to invest in smart technology. South Korean government has already created 4,300 jobs in the smart agricultural sector through timely action and aid. India, although lagging in several fields, is endowed with cheap rural labour, the second largest arable land area after the US, a leader in global trade in raw agricultural products and a massive potential growth trajectory in agriculture. Extension services and R&D are at a nascent stage in India and only within reach of large farmers. To expand the scale of the programme it is necessary to ease the transition of small and marginal farmers into the ambit of smart farming. Institutional setups, adequate support and building a steady architecture to execute smart farming should be focus areas for the Indian government in the face of dwindling food production.

    References:

    https://www.smart-akis.com/index.php/network/what-is-smart-farming/
    https://www.smartindianagriculture.com/https://www.changemakers.com/discussions/entries/smart-agriculture-helping-structure-new-industry-chinahttps://www.basf.com/cn/en/media/BASF-Information/Food-nutrition/future-farming.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdIr6pP-Rec&list=PLTeiJVqL7DL6yhlOMh4lPv_BCQ5KKMgBd&index=2&t=0shttps://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/natural-disasters/climate-smart-agriculture-54437https://www.futurefarming.com/Smart-farmers/Articles/2018/5/South-Korea-creates-4300-jobs-in-smart-farm-industry-283765E/https://krishijagran.com/agriculture-world/amazing-how-smart-farming-techniques-by-south-korea-can-future-proof-agriculture/Image Credit: Adobe Stock

  • Daulet Beg Oldi: Operating from the World’s Highest Airfield

    Daulet Beg Oldi: Operating from the World’s Highest Airfield

    [vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1594635921306{margin-bottom: 0px !important;}”]

    Daulet Beg Oldi (DBO) is a historic campsite in Ladakh on an ancient trade route connecting Ladakh to the Tarim Basin. It is named after Sultan Said Khan (Daulet Beg), who died here on his return journey after the invasion of Ladakh and Kashmir. DBO is strategically significant as it is close to the Siachen Glacier, the Karakoram Pass, and China’s Xinjiang-Karakoram highway. The Chip Chap river flows just to the south of DBO from east to west. It has an airstrip at an altitude of 5064 meters (16,614 ft), the world’s highest airstrip. India activated DBO as a military base and Advanced Landing Ground (ALG) following the border dispute with the PRC in the late 1950s. The IAF activated DBO airfield in 1962 and it became a crucial ALG since then. DBO continued to be in use till 1966. The airfield was damaged following an earthquake in 1966, which put a stop to its further use. The IAF maintains many of the forward posts and villages in the himalayan regions through airdrops using a string of ALGs. Following increased belligerence from China, DBO was reactivated in 2008. The completion of the Darbuk-Shyok-DBO road added immense logistical strength to the Indian military in the region. Since 2013, China has intensified its probing incursions in this region. The recent clash in the Galwan valley is a high point of increasing tensions along the borders.

    Operations from the DBO have been a huge challenge, given its high altitude, mountainous terrain, and loose soil conditions. Group Captain A G Bewoor VM (Retd), an air force veteran with immense transport flying experience, describes the challenges overcome by the IAF in activating the DBO through first landings spaced out by 46 years.

    Download Full Paper

    The Law of Armed Conflict and its continuing relevance to the South Asian Region[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

  • India’s impending Fighter Aircraft Choices: Finding the Elusive Solution?

    India’s impending Fighter Aircraft Choices: Finding the Elusive Solution?

    Category : Defence & Aerospace/India

    Title : India’s impending Fighter Aircraft Choices: Finding the Elusive Solution?

    Author : M Matheswaran 02.02.2020

    The Indian Air Force has been afflicted with decreasing force strength due to phasing out of old aircraft and increasing obsolescence of its fleets. Despite the induction of Rafale and Tejas, the IAF will continue to face challenges of reducing numbers and a large chunk of old platforms in its inventory. The IAF is facing serious shortages in its fighter aircraft strength. Air Marshal M Matheswaran examines the possible strategy that can best address IAF’s choice of fighter aircraft for its future.

    Read More

  • Qatar Rafale Issue: Getting a Realist Perspective

    Qatar Rafale Issue: Getting a Realist Perspective

    M Matheswaran                                                                                                       May 23, 2019/Commentary

    Over the last two weeks, much has been written about the controversy emanating from the possibility of Pakistan Air Force pilotshaving trained and flown the Rafale aircraft in France. A lot of concern has been expressed about the operational capabilities of the Rafale being compromised. One needs to examine this carefully. A better understanding of technology would make it easy even for the layman to appreciate and deduce from available open source knowledge what  modern aircraft are capable of. Given this, one can imagine what a trained and experienced fighter pilot would be capable of deducing, and hence evolve his tactics, by visually observing and studying various parameters of the aircraft, leave alone flying it. Hence, to get a realist perspective of this situation, we need to examine various factors, particularly Qatar-Pakistan relations.

                But first take a look at the technical issues. The Rafale is a 4.5 generation aircraft. Its design, in terms of its clean aerodynamics and an optimal design to create minimal radar signature, would make it clear to any professional that this is an aircraft capable of exceptional manoeuvring. It is also an established fact that amongst all 4.5 generation aircraft, there would be very little difference in terms of combat performance. Quite obviously, the most critical elements of the aircraft consist of its sensors, avionics systems, radar, and weapons. Both India and Qatar have contracted for similar version of aircraft, F3R.The systems and weapons have some similarities but also major differences. Modern fighter aircraft are systems intensive and function as system of systems.

                Features that are common to both Qatar Air Force and Indian Air Force Rafales are primarily the RBE 2-AA AESA radar, SPECTRA self-protection suite, IFF with full Mode-5/Mode-S compatibility, Elbit’s TARGO-II Helmet Mounted Display System, and some of the most critical weapons such as Meteor BVRAAM, Mica air-to-air missile, and SCALP air-to-ground long-range cruise missile. Anyone who flies the aircraft will, obviously, get to know the full functioning, performance, and envelope of the systems and the weapons. Most critical would be the intimate knowledge of the AESA radar and the important weapons. However, one must understand that deeper technical knowledge of systems like the radar would not be available to Qatar. Given the long-standing relationship between France and Qatar, any high level systems programming and integration would be retained by the French. This has been the practice in the past, and it is so with most Arab countries. Additionally, AESA radar configurations and source codes are highly secure and it would be virtually impossible for anyone to break into it, even if we assume that Pakistani pilots and technicians would make an attempt to do so, which is very unlikely. Weapon envelopes would certainly be known in the course of training on them. Training on systems like SPECTRA, while providing its functional knowledge, does not compromise any security. The crux of SPECTRA lies in its threat library programming, which is exclusive to the host nation, and on response algorithms that will not be open to anyone other than the designer.

                Indian Rafales, however, will have significant security measures. These lie in completely different secure communication systems that would be incorporated, and India’s own secure datalink capability that would be incorporated. Qatar Rafales would have the Link-16 compliant datalink systems, which India will never incorporate. As the French Rafales upgrade to F4 status, much of those upgrades may become available to India, and IAF aircraft will become uniquely different and highly secure with its own NCW architecture. In terms of EO designation and Recce pods, Qatar Rafale will have the Lockheed Martin’s Sniper pod while IAF have the well-proven and advanced Litening-4 EO pod integrated. EW capabilities and hence, EW tactics and strategies will be completely different for IAF’s aircraft. Unlike in the past, this contract envisages French cooperation and full access to integrating additional weapons and systems of India’s choice, which will make the aircraft considerably different.

                So what should we make of the news about Pakistani pilots flying the Rafale in Qatar and subsequent denial by the French ambassador in India? As for Pakistani pilots sizing up the Rafale against the F-16, it is a non-issue as the two are just not comparable. The upgraded F-16s of PAF is of Block-50 standard at best, and that is clearly one generation behind Rafale. The concern, therefore, is irrelevant.

    One must take into account various regional geopolitical issues to get a realist perspective. Qatar is a small country of 2.8 million inhabitants, with nearly 80% of the population located in the capital city of Doha. With highest per capita GDP in the world, Qatar focuses on rapid development towards first world status, and displays its ambitions in playing a geopolitical role, punching well above its weight much like Singapore. Doha has been host to major international events, and will be hosting the FIFA 2022.

                Considering that Qatar is a tiny kingdom on the Arabian peninsula, Saudi Arabia has always tried to dominate and control the state as a subordinate. Qatar has successfully dismissed these attempts by breaking out and engaging countries at the global level. It has made itself a major diplomatic player, a generous donor of foreign aid, and a leader in modernising education in the region. It has maintained strong relations with Iran and Turkey as much as with other Islamic states. It has sought to balance different groups and organisations with a moderating influence and has sought to push for peace in the region. These efforts, and the overwhelming popularity of ‘Al Jazeera’ has riled countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and UAE into sanctioning Qatar and curtailing diplomatic relations.

                Pakistan, which has very strong relationship with all Arab countries, has maintained a neutral stance in the Qatar-Saudi Arabian dispute, despite strong pressures from Saudi Arabia. Pakistan’s military presence in these countries, in terms of training local forces as well as providing fully deployed troops to augment local defences has been a long-standing practice. Pakistan Air Force pilots have regularly flown for the Air Forces of these states. Hence, access to military resources in terms of operational flying experience on these aircraft has been a huge advantage for PAF. Since the Iraq war in 1991, Qatar has sought to build a significant military capability, its Air Force in particular.

                While India and Qatar have excellent relations (Qatar meets nearly 60% of India’s LPG needs), to meet its military training and force requirements Qatar has engaged Pakistan’s services in addition to European and British professionals. All these pilots, essentially mercenary in nature, have become Qatar citizens as well. Qatar has provided air base for US air forces  at al-Udeid, 20 miles from Doha. The base services US Central Command, including US forces in Afghanistan and Syria. Qatar addresses Pakistan’s energy security significantly, and both nations have cultivated their relationship carefully. Qatar has allowed Taliban to set up office in its territory and has worked to encourage dialogue with all parties involved in the Afghan conflict. In return, Pakistan has been careful to balance its relations with all gulf countries, and values its engagement with Qatar highly, as the recent visit of Pakistan’s Prime Minister shows.

                For a very small state, Qatar is on track to building significant air power capability. After signing initial contract for 24 Rafales with French Dassault in 2015, Qatar placed additional orders for 12 more aircraft, making it a total of 36 Rafales. This was preceded by an earlier order for Boeing’s 36 Qatar advanced-variant Eagles from the USA for $ 12 billion, with an option to increase the order later to 72. In another major deal with BAe, Qatar concluded a contract for supply of 24 Eurofighter Typhoons and 9 Hawk advanced jet trainers, worth over $ 6.6 billion, with first payment made in Sep 2018. For an air force whose strength was just 2100 personnel in 2010 and just 13 Mirage 2000-5 fighters in early 2000s, this build up with three fleets of 4.5 generation aircraft and substantial increase in numbers is unprecedented. Qatar’s decision to go in for a seven-fold increase in its air power capability is curious and there are questions as to how this tiny air force will absorb the massive capabilities in which it is investing. More importantly, it is inevitable that it would need pilots on hire to fly these aircraft. This where the Pakistani relationship comes into focus. In addition work is already underway to increase the infrastructure  in terms of building an additional base and expanding existing bases at al-Udeid and Doha.

                Pakistani pilots who fly for Qatar air force may do so after being given Qatar citizenship. Unlike India, Pakistan allows dual citizenship passports. It is therefore, quite obvious that Pakistani pilots will fly all these aircraft being procured by Qatar. It is irrelevant whether they have been trained in France on Rafales contracted for Qatar, in all likelihood they would have. India, therefore, would do well to factor this reality in its calculations.

    The author is the founder Chairman of TPF, IAF veteran and former Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff. Opinions expressed are the author’s own.

    A shorter version of this article was published in Deccan Herald.

    Image Credit – rafale.co.in

  • How the newly inducted IAF Chinook heavy-lift helicopters provide huge versatility in operations

    How the newly inducted IAF Chinook heavy-lift helicopters provide huge versatility in operations

    M Matheswaran                                                                                                 May 22, 2019/Opinion

    The Indian Air Force inducted the first batch of four Boeing C-47 F(I) Chinook helicopters last month into its inventory. These are part of the order for fifteen heavy lift helicopters. With a payload capability of 10 tonnes and a significantly good high altitude performance, the Chinooks fill a long-felt gap in IAF’s heavy lift helicopter capability. For long the IAF had depended solely on its small fleet of Russian built Mi-26 helicopter, which is still the world’s largest and heaviest payload helicopter. The Mi-26, with an enormous payload capability of 20 tonnes, had provided yeoman service for more than two decades.

    Starting with a fleet of four aircraft, the Mi-26 has played extensive role in meeting major airlift requirements of material, machinery, and men, for the military and civil administration in the Himalayan border regions.With one aircraft having crashed few years ago, the surviving fleet had been hampered by maintenance and technical support problems, virtually bringing to halt the heavy heli-lift capability of the IAF. Besides, increasing emphasis on infrastructure build-up in the border regions has highlighted the importance of heli-lift capabilities for both the IAF and the Indian Army. This is what prompted the IAF to look out for building and enhancing its heli-lift capabilities in the heavy-segment.

    India’s borderlands, dominated by the mighty Himalayan ranges, are unique, treacherous, and the most demanding in the world. The need to operate at altitudes higher than 20000 ft on regular basis is unique to India, and is a challenge to most helicopters designed in the West and Russia. Operations in Indian environment puts gruelling demands on these helicopters. High altitude performance in other parts of the world is at less than 20000ft, in fact, it would average between 5000 and 10000 ft, with exceptions at 15000 ft. In India, 20000 ft operations would be routine in the Himalayan stretches and valleys all across our nearly 4000 km long border in the north and north-west. High altitude operations put severe demands on the engine, has a drastic reduction in effective payload, and has adverse impact on total technical life. These will need to be addressed by appropriate technical enhancements that are fairly expensive as well.

    Indian MOD signed the contract with M/s Boeing in Sep 2015 for supply of 15 CH-47F(I) Chinook Helicopters. The contract is for USD 1.1 billion, with an option clause for further seven aircraft. All 15 aircraft are planned to be supplied before March, 2020. It is almost certain that the option clause would be exercised. The first aircraft was handed over in a ceremony at the manufacturer’s production facility in Philadelphia on Feb 1 st , and the first batch of four were shipped out to Mundra Port in Gujarat. The four were then assembled and integrated into fully operational helicopters at the IAF base in Chandigarh and inducted on the 25 th March. Some of the specialist systems, self-protection systems and EW equipment are contracted through the FMS (Foreign Military Sales) procedure.

    While the payload capability is only half that of the Mi-26 helicopter, the Chinook provides huge versatility in operations. The IAF version is the CH-47 F(I), which is the latest and advanced version of the Chinook, designed more than 50 years ago in 1962. The IAF aircraft is upgraded with new generation avionics and flight control systems that make the aircraft capable of very precise and versatile operations during day and night. The Chinook’s twin-rotor design gives it good agility and stability in high altitude operations. Its advanced mission computer and the DAFCS (Digital Automatic Flight Control System) allows the pilot to feed in the complete mission profile and fly automatically and with hover precision in one foot increments vertically and laterally. The CH-47 F(I) is an advanced multi mission helicopter with the true multi-role, vertical-lift capability. It contains a fully integrated, digital cockpit management system, Common Aviation Architecture Cockpit and advanced cargo-handling capabilities that complement the aircraft’s mission performance and handling characteristics. Its primary role will be for transportation of troops, artillery, equipment, and fuel. The army is particularly keen on the Chinook heavy heli-lift capability for transportation and deployment of its recently procured M-777 Ultra-Light howitzer artillery guns in the Himalayan border regions with China.

    As opposed to the small fleet of three Mi-26 helicopters, the larger fleet size of the CH- 47 F(I) would provide the IAF immense flexibility and availability of aircraft for a variety of tasks. It will provide a boost to the construction of infrastructure and border road projects, long overdue. Border Roads Organisation would get a fillip to its long-delayed road construction projects in the north-east. Our continued requirements of aerial maintenance in remote regions will be better served with this new capability, as also for critical needs of HADR operations, in missions for transportation of relief supplies, and evacuation of refugees. The IAF plans to deploy the two squadrons, one in the Western sector in Himachal Pradesh and adjoining Himalayan regions, and the other in the East sector in Assam/Arunachal Pradesh.

    The Chinook acquisition was also accompanied by acquisition of the Apache attack helicopter, also from Boeing. Both contracts, worth together over USD 3.5 billion, were signed on the same day on 28 Sep 2015. Both are also a combination of DCS (Direct Commercial Sales) and FMS (Foreign Military Sales) processes. The two inductions have followed a series of procurements from the USA, mostly through the FMS route. Having started with the first major defence deal in 2008, the Indo-USA defence business is likely to touch a whopping USD 18 billion by the end of 2019. Most of these acquisitions are through FMS and are virtually replacing the earlier Russian fleets: Apache replacing the Mi-35, Chinook replacing Mi-26, Sikorsky MH-60 Romeo replacing the Kamov in the Navy, with the likelihood of 110 NMRH to follow; this is a sort of indirect CAATSA in play.
    It is important for India to realise that while many of these acquisitions have given significant teeth to Indian operational capability, in terms of business it has been huge business to the US companies with very little to show for India in 3 terms of Technology transfer or industrial gain in terms of manufacture or co-design and co- development.

    The CAG report number 3 of 2019 comes down heavily on these acquisitions. It castigates the MOD and the IAF for procedural lapses, long drawn out acquisition processes, and more importantly of having skewed the QRs in such a way that only Chinook and Apache would have been successful. That’s a serious indictment. However, India will do well to remember that major procurements like the Apache and the Chinook at huge costs, while meeting the IAF’s operational requirements, should also be leveraged to benefit India’s larger strategic interests of technology acquisition, industrial capability, global partnerships, and of course, strengthening US-India strategic partnership. It needs to be a win-win for both.

    The author is retired Air Marshal and former Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff. He is the founding Chairman and President of The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. Views expressed are personal. 

    This article was published earlier in Financial Express.

    Image Credit.