neem case-patent

Heroes like Uday Singh, head of mycology and plant pathology at Banaras Hindu University, and Abhay Phadke, founder of Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd, may not exactly be household names in India, but they deserve the nation's recognition for outstanding efforts made in the interest of Indian heritage and culture. It was these two men who were instrumental in winning back the patent for Neem for India last week. In a major victory for India's scientific community, the European Patent Office withdrew a joint patent given to the US Department of Agriculture and the chemical giant W R Grace for their process to extract oil from the Neem tree. The patent was for a method for controlling fungi on plants with the aid of hydrophobic extract of Neem oil.

By the end of last year, American companies had already wrested away the patent rights for traditional Indian crops such as basmati, karela, jamun and brinjal. But when W.R. Grace unethically acquired the European patent for Neem Oil on the basis of a research paper on the same subject as one that had been published over a decade ago by Uday Singh, it was time for a showdown. Singh was aghast to discover that they were awarded the patent as he had written a paper on the effect of Neem extracts and oil on fungi which was published as far back as 1980. Singh's work was first published in 1980 in the journal Mycologia, brought out by the Mycological Society of America. The American research saw the light of day as late as 1989. In 1981 Singh's paper was published in the Australian journal Plant Pathology. In 1984, it was the featured story in the German Journal for Plant Protection and Plant Diseases. An outraged Singh could not understand how the premise of his paper, which was the pioneering study on the fungicidal effect of Neem could be claimed as an original study by W.R. Grace.

The Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology saw the justice in Singh's argument and decided to back him up.. Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation and Magda Alvoet, former European Parliament member and head of Green Group, an NGO, filed a suit against W.R. Grace and Co and put their case before the European Patent Office in 1996 .A favorable interim judgment from the patent office in 1997 gave them reason to be optimistic about the final outcome.

Singh, who has been working on the anti-fungal activity of Neem products and Neem oil in the control of plant diseases since 1977 and also using it for plant disease control commented that "Neem's medicinal properties have been described even in the earliest Sanskrit medical writing. Many groups from Germany and other parts of Europe have supported my claim as they are aware that Neem is an Indian plant". He saw the case as an opportunity to free at least one indigenous plant from the US patent onslaught. During the course of the five-year-old case, Shiva and Alvoet submitted affidavits from scientists, farmers, practitioners of Ayurveda and other concerned individuals who supported the fight against this immoral and unethical American patent.

Thanks to the efforts of these committed parties, on May 18, the European Patent Office withdrew the joint patent given to the US Department of Agriculture and W R Grace. A four-member panel of the Munich-based EPO upheld objections by three parties opposing the patent granted in 1995 as amounting to "bio piracy." The panel in its ruling endorsed the arguments of the critics of the patent that the process for extracting the oil from the Neem tree was actually in use in India long before the 1994 patent application. The panel also ruled that the patent granted in 1995 is characterized by a "lack of novelty."

Supporting evidence submitted by Pune-based bio-tech entrepreneur Abhay Phadke was instrumental in sealing the decision. On October 27, 1996, Phadke, managing director, Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd filed an affidavit with EPO through the opponent's lawyer Professor Dolder of Zurich. Subsequently, Phadke related how he had developed a process to manufacture Neem oil as a pesticide in 1985, which was startlingly similar to that patented by W R Grace and the United States as their "intellectual property."

Phadke's detailed presentation on the work carried out on Neem formulations provided a solid basis for the case. Phadke's affidavit claimed that as director of Rhone Poulench Agro-chemical (India) Ltd, he had informed his senior officials in Rhone Poulench, Lyon, France about the pesticidal properties of Neem and advised them about the potential to introduce Neem-based products in the international market.

Phadke's evidence was crucial for the examiners to realize that the patent was characterized by a lack of novelty thus making it illegitimate. However the patent for the process still remains in the hands of the American parties in the US. Plans to fight the patent in the US have also been formulated by the winning team.

It is a shame that the Indian Government or its institutions hardly provided any aid in this battle. A majority of the funding was provided by the European NGOs. If the administration does not wake up to the reality that India's cultural and scientific heritage is being stolen from right under our noses, then Indians will soon be facing the event of having to pay Americans to utilize their own indigenous biological wealth.

Courageous scientists like Phadke and Singh cannot fight the patent onslaught unleashed by powerful and moneyed American companies by themselves alone. As Singh says: "Nowadays, one small Neem plant is being sold for $60 in American markets. It is our plant. We have already lost basmati, karela, brinjal and jamun to them. I didn't want us to lose Neem as well."

On his return Uday Singh brought back a poignant symbol of victory ; a tiny Neem sapling in his hands.

    

india as a brand image

 

Many countries in the world can be identified with a BRAND. Means whenever ,we think of them  automatically their brand image flashes in our mind. For example:-

GERMANY ----      AUTOMOBILES

JAPAN -------      TECHNOLOGIES

AMERICA ----       CAPITALISM

ITALY -------       FASHION

SAUDI ARABIA       PETROLEUM

SOUTH AFRICA      RACIALISM

CHINA -------       HARDWARE

SWITZERLAND       WATCHES

INDIA -------       ?

Big Question here is what INDIA as a Brand is -?

Is it- DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE TO CHINA-ASK UNCLE SAM

OR: A FAST GROWING FREE MARKET ECONOMY- FROM THE MNC'S BOOK

OR: BPO OF THE WORLD- FROM THE EYES OF US EMPLOYEES WHO LOST THEIR JOBS

OR: PEOPLE WITH THE BEST BRAIN- WHO WANTS THE PROOF, HAVE YOU SEEN THE SILICON VALLEY

OR: THE BIRTH PLACE OF GREAT ENTREPRENEURS—TATA'S ,MITTAL'S, MURTHY,PREMJI

OR: THE LAND OF BABUDOM, RED TAPISM- IS ENRON HEARING

OR: SIMPLY THE LAND OF SADHUS, SNAKE CHARMERS, MOUNTAINS, RIVERS

So, actually what India as a brand is! It contains more or less the images of all the above , but right now can't be identified with any single image.

India is a land containing diverse culture, society and huge population having its thick and thin . We are the second largest country in the world but having no bones about it!

Illiteracy Rate is very high but at the same time we are considered as the people with the Best Brain and have been highly instrumental in creating Silicon Valley

Most of our Rural population don't have access to Basic Medical Facilities but our Doctors are considered as one of the best and are exporting to U.K. like Hot Indian Curry!

Unemployment rate is very high but it is Indians who are responsible for the unemployment   of a chunk of  U.S. Populations

We are not visible in any truly global sports like FootBall but our Cricketers are worshipped like GOD and who have the time to worry about FOOTBALLERS!

So, for a moment consider what should be the USP for Brand India? Or it contains a bit of everything but dnot any single as a whole.

Or, India is like an Onion which contains Several layers. Or, like jinjoism, we should keep on murmuring " MERA BHARAT MAHAN". Our Country is truly great and everyone agree with but what "INDIA AS A BRAND IS"

So lets consider the prospective Brand images of India one by one!

(1) LAND OF SNAKE CHARMERS Now , we have moved miles ahead of that image  and our urban population is increasing at a very high rate and Indians are proving their excellence in each and every sector whether it is Technology, IT, BIOTECH

(2) BPO OF THE WORLD  India indeed is BPO of the world as most of the outsourcing work of U.S.A., U.K. are coming to India and our BPO Industry is rising day by day but China is catching up with us

(3) PEOPLE WITH THE BEST BRAIN Definitely , Indians are the people with having Best Brain and it is the Indians who have prove their excellence in each and every nook and corner of the world whether it is SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SPACECRAFT etc.Also, if we examine the Faculty List of leading Universities of world, no prize for guessing , we will find many Indians Name

But contrary to that , we wont able to establish even quarter of Silicon Valley and most of Brilliant Brains who reside in India , don't take up the teaching Job  

(4) BOLLYWOOD CORRIDOR   Now, Bollywood really gone Global with our movies penetrating new markets in U.S, Middle East and all and AMITABH BACHAN or AISH or PREITY ZINTA have to tackle the same kind of mob outside also..Now the Hollywood is copying the Bollywood like NICOLE KIDMAN dancing to the tune of CHAMMA CHAMMA

Bollywood can provide the Brand image to India but it is badly suffered by the PYRACY which is now grow into industries worth crores

(5) A TRUE DEMOCRATIC Indeed, India is true democratic and nobody disagrees about it. Unlike China and all we Indians have the liberty to elect our representatives

(6) CURRY, SAMOSA Indian foods WAH! Curry is making everybody in the world Crazy. Now, people of UK, USA and all are going crazy about the Indians Foods and people like BILL CLINTON, TONY BLAIR and all have openly praised Indian Food.

(7) LAND OF SPIRITUALITY India from the very early stage considered as the Land of Spirituality where one can found calmness and can get rid off the worldly tension. Now more and more Foreigners are visiting India in search of Peace. Indian Ayurvedic Medicine and Yoga is trusted by the world

Today we really grow as a nation. We are having lots of people who is famous in the world like

NARAIYAN MURTHY

A. PREMZI

AMARTYA SEN

VIKRAM SETH

LATE> KALPANA CHAWLA  & all

So, to sum up , india have lots of attribute which can give it a brand image only requirement is that every Indians should work honestly towards it!

poverty in india

Poverty in India

India Anti poverty Programs by Indian Government

The government has initiated, sustained, and refined many programs since independence to help the poor attain self sufficiency in food production. Probably the most important initiative has been the supply of basic commodities, particularly food at controlled prices, available throughout the country. The poor spend about 80 percent of their income on food while the rest of the population spends more than 60 percent. The price of food is a major determinant of wage scales. Often when food prices rise sharply, rioting and looting follow. Until the late 1970s, the government frequently had difficulty obtaining adequate grain supplies in years of poor harvests. During those times, states with surpluses of grain were cordoned off to force partial sales to public agencies and to keep private traders from shipping grain to deficit areas to secure very high prices; state governments in surplus-grain areas were often less than cooperative. After the late 1970s, the central government, by holding reserve stocks and importing grain adequately and early, maintained sufficient supplies to meet the increased demand during drought years. It also provided more remunerative prices to farmers.

India poverty . In rural areas, the government has undertaken programs to mitigate the worst effects of adverse monsoon rainfall, which affects not only farmers but village artisans and traders when the price of grain rises. The government has supplied water by financing well digging and, since the early 1980s, by power-assisted well drilling; rescinded land taxes for drought areas; tried to maintain stable food prices; and provided food through a food-for-work program. The actual work accomplished through food-for-work programs is often a secondary consideration, but useful projects sometimes result. Employment is offered at a low daily wage, usually paid in grain, the rationale being that only the truly needy will take jobs at such low pay.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, Indian government programs attempted to provide basic needs at stable, low prices; to increase income through pricing and regulations, such as supplying water from irrigation works, fertilizer, and other inputs; to foster location of industry in backward areas; to increase access to basic social services, such as education, health, and potable water supply; and to help needy groups and deprived areas. The total money spent on such programs for the poor was not discernible from the budget data, but probably exceeded 10 percent of planned budget outlays.

India has had a number of antipoverty programs since the early 1960s. These include, among others, the National Rural Employment Programme and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme. The National Rural Employment Programme evolved in FY 1980 from the earlier Food for Work Programme to use unemployed and underemployed workers to build productive community assets. The Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme was instituted in FY 1983 to address the plight of the hard-core rural poor by expanding employment opportunities and building the rural infrastructure as a means of encouraging rapid economic growth. There were many problems with the implementation of these and otherschemes, but observers credit them with helping reduce poverty. To improve the effectiveness of the National Rural Employment Programme, in 1989 it was combined with the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme and renamed Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, or Jawahar Employment Plan (see Development Programs, ch. 7).

State governments are important participants in antipoverty programs. The constitution assigns responsibility to the states in a number of matters, including ownership, redistribution, improvement, and taxation of land (see The Constitutional Framework, ch. 8). State governments implement most central government programs concerned with land reform and the situation of small landless farmers. The central government tries to establish programs and norms among the states and union territories, but implementation has often remained at the lower bureaucratic levels. In some matters concerning subsoil rights and irrigation projects, the central government exerts political and financial leverage to obtain its objectives, but the states sometimes modify or retard the impact of central government policies and programs.

Development Planning

Planning in India dates back to the 1930s. Even before independence, the colonial government had established a planning board that lasted from 1944 to 1946. Private industrialists and economists published three development plans in 1944. India's leaders adopted the principle of formal economic planning soon after independence as an effective way to intervene in the economy to foster growth and social justice.

The Planning Commission was established in 1950. Responsible only to the prime minister, the commission is independent of the cabinet. The prime minister is chairperson of the commission, and the minister of state with independent charge for planning and program implementation serves as deputy chairperson. A staff drafts national plans under the guidance of the commission; draft plans are presented for approval to the National Development Council, which consists of the Planning Commission and the chief ministers of the states. The council can make changes in the draft plan. After council approval, the draft is presented to the cabinet and subsequently to Parliament, whose approval makes the plan an operating document for central and state governments (see The Legislature; Local Government, ch. 8).

The First Five-Year Plan (FY 1951-55) attempted to stimulate balanced economic development while correcting imbalances caused by World War II and partition. Agriculture, including projects that combined irrigation and power generation, received priority. By contrast, the Second Five-Year Plan (FY 1956-60) emphasized industrialization, particularly basic, heavy industries in the public sector, and improvement of the economic infrastructure. The plan also stressed social goals, such as more equal distribution of income and extension of the benefits of economic development to the large number of disadvantaged people. The Third Five-Year Plan (FY 1961-65) aimed at a substantial rise in national and per capita income while expanding the industrial base and rectifying the neglect of agriculture in the previous plan. The third plan called for national income to grow at a rate of more than 5 percent a year; self-sufficiency in food grains was anticipated in the mid-1960s.

Economic difficulties disrupted the planning process in the mid-1960s. In 1962, when a brief war was fought with China on the Himalayan frontier, agricultural output was stagnating, industrial production was considerably below expectations, and the economy was growing at about half of the planned rate (see Nehru's Legacy, ch. 1). Defense expenditures increased sharply, and the increased foreign aid needed to maintain development expenditures eventually provided 28 percent of public development spending. Midway through the third plan, it was clear that its goals could not be achieved. Food prices rose in 1963, causing rioting and looting of grain warehouses in 1964. War with Pakistan in 1965 sharply reduced the foreign aid available. Successive severe droughts in 1965 and 1966 further disrupted the economy and planning. Three annual plans guided development between FY 1966 and FY 1968 while plan policies and strategies were reevaluated. Immediate attention centered on increasing agricultural growth, stimulating exports, and searching for efficient uses of industrial assets. Agriculture was to be expanded, largely through the supply of inputs to take advantage of new high-yield seeds becoming available for food grains. The rupee was substantially devalued in 1966, and export incentives were adjusted to promote exports. Controls affecting industry were simplified, and greater reliance was placed on the price mechanism to achieve industrial efficiency.

The Fourth Five-Year Plan (FY 1969-73) called for a 24 percent increase over the third plan in real terms of public development expenditures. The public sector accounted for 60 percent of plan expenditures, and foreign aid contributed 13 percent of plan financing. Agriculture, including irrigation, received 23 percent of public outlays; the rest was mostly spent on electric power, industry, and transportation. Although the plan projected national income growth at 5.7 percent a year, the realized rate was only 3.3 percent.

The Fifth Five-Year Plan (FY 1974-78) was drafted in late 1973 when crude oil prices were rising rapidly; the rising prices quickly forced a series of revisions. The plan was subsequently approved in late 1976 but was terminated at the end of FY 1977 because a new government wanted different priorities and programs. The fifth plan was in effect only one year, although it provided some guidance to investments throughout the five-year period. The economy operated under annual plans in FY 1978 and FY 1979.

The Sixth Five-Year Plan (FY 1980-84) was intended to be flexible and was based on the principle of annual "rolling" plans. It called for development expenditures of nearly Rs1.9 trillion (in FY 1979 prices), of which 90 percent would be financed from domestic sources, 57 percent of which would come from the public sector. Public-sector development spending would be concentrated in energy (29 percent); agriculture and irrigation (24 percent); industry including mining (16 percent); transportation (16 percent); and social services (14 percent). In practice, slightly more was spent on social services at the expense of transportation and energy. The plan called for GDP growth to increase by 5.1 percent a year, a target that was surpassed by 0.3 percent. A major objective of the plan was to increase employment, especially in rural areas, in order to reduce the level of poverty. Poor people were given cows, bullock carts, and handlooms; however, subsequent studies indicated that the income of only about 10 percent of the poor rose above the poverty level.

The Seventh Five-Year Plan (FY 1985-89) envisioned a greater emphasis on the allocation of resources to energy and social spending at the expense of industry and agriculture. In practice, the main increase was in transportation and communications, which took up 17 percent of public-sector expenditure during this period. Total spending was targeted at nearly Rs3.9 trillion, of which 94 percent would be financed from domestic resources, including 48 percent from the public sector. The planners assumed that public savings would increase and help finance government spending. In practice that increase did not occur; instead, the government relied on foreign borrowing for a greater share of resources than expected.

The schedule for the Eighth Five-Year Plan (FY 1992-96) was affected by changes of government and by growing uncertainty over what role planning could usefully perform in a more liberal economy. Two annual plans were in effect in FY 1990 and FY 1991. The eighth plan was finally launched in April 1992 and emphasized market-based policy reform rather than quantitative targets. Total spending was planned at Rs8.7 trillion, of which 94 percent would be financed from domestic resources, 45 percent of which would come from the public sector. The eighth plan included three general goals. First, it sought to cut back the public sector by selling off failing and inessential industries while encouraging private investment in such sectors as power, steel, and transport. Second, it proposed that agriculture and rural development have priority. Third, it sought to renew the assault on illiteracy and improve other aspects of social infrastructure, such as the provision of fresh drinking water. Government documents issued in 1992 indicated that GDP growth was expected to increase from around 5 percent a year during the seventh plan to 5.6 percent a year during the eighth plan. However, in 1994 economists expected annual growth to be around 4 percent during the period of the eighth plan.

Four decades of planning show that India's economy, a mix of public and private enterprise, is too large and diverse to be wholly predictable or responsive to directions of the planning authorities. Actual results usually differ in important respects from plan targets. Major shortcomings include insufficient improvement in income distribution and alleviation of poverty, delayed completions and cost overruns on many public-sector projects, and far too small a return on many public-sector investments. Even though the plans have turned out to be less effective than expected, they help guide investment priorities, policy recommendations, and financial mobilization. poverty in India Data 1995. Courtesy Library of Congress.

education sector

The success of the software industry in India in terms of its global impact has clearly underscored the fact that Indian engineers can rival the best in the world.  Software has provided a quick vehicle to demonstrate this point, although for those who have seen the achievements in   nuclear, space and the missile development, this was obvious long ago. This image is strengthened by the observation that a number of Indian computer scientists have made it big in the U.S. as entrepreneurs, by going up the corporate ladder or being successful in academia after getting an excellent post-graduate education in the U.S.  It is equally true that an entrepreneurial spirit in India has also spawned forth a number of successful software ventures.  But these successes have also to be tempered with the fact that in terms of software products Indian firms have had negligible impact on the global market.  The strength so far lies in the services, which is less dependent on hi-tech manpower such as higher degrees in computer science beyond the Bachelor degree.  Basically one has to draw conclusion that the training of the engineers in India is good and that in technical education India is not a third world country.

Engineering--A Brief Look Back:

         India has had a long tradition of research in the physical sciences starting from the pre-independence days.  In the engineering or more broadly in the technical education field, it really started in a big way in the 50's thanks to the vision of Nehru.  The Sarkar committee created the five Indian Institute of Technologies and each of them produced excellent engineers through state of the art curriculum.  Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur gave the lead in terms of a new approach to technical education through the introduction of a semester system, course wise promotion, integration of science with engineering, production of indigenous textbooks and finally starting the B.Tech, M.Tech and Ph.D degree programs in computer science.  Needless to say these activities have had a big multiplier effect nationwide and have become the norm.  Education being primarily a state subject, has seen phenomenal growth in Indian engineering colleges, and like in any other industrially advanced countries, we also have engineering institutions that can be calibrated in terms of quality.  In the 50's, the vision of Nehru together with men like Bhabha, Sarabhai and Bhatnagar created the infrastructure of space, atomic energy, national as well as defense laboratories which have legitimately made India a self reliant country.  Events like the Pokhran, Agni or the ISRO satellites are ample testimony to the high level of Indian expertise.  It is also noteworthy that the success of these technologies relied very little on the graduates of the IITs.  For example, Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) had its own in-house training program for the Bachelor degree holders in science.  There is an important lesson to be learnt from this.  The basic background of most of those seeking admission to degree-granting engineering schools is good.  The successful and the well-prepared ones for the entrance examination get into the IITs.  The rest get into other technical institutions.  This is somewhat similar to the U.S., where there is fierce competition to get into the Ivy League or so-called elite schools.  Recent research has shown that those graduating from these elite schools are better "connected" and have "peer" competition[1].  In the long run they do slightly better than equally good students going through not so elite schools. 

        In India, those graduating from IITs have definitely a better chance of getting into post-graduate studies abroad in good schools.  However, noting from the success of Indians in the Silicon Valley, there are a large number of non-IIT people who are equally successful.  Assuming that an IIT student stays in India, it is difficult to guess whether in the long run they have an edge over other students.  This is a point that authorities must consider before allocating resources to technical education.

Choices, Solutions & Strategies:

          After the Sarkar committee report in the 50's, there has been negligible growth in the number of IITs.  Out of nearly 120,000 students who take the Joint Entrance Exam (JEE), about 3000 get into the IITs.  Judging by the law of large numbers, at least 10,000 should be entitled to a comparable education. This will happen by lowering  the cutoff point for admission in JEE slightly, and increasing intake into IITs or having more institutions having the same autonomy and well qualified faculty like the IITs. Herein lies the tragedy of technical education.  If proper mid-course corrections had been made, IITs  should have had an output at least twice than in the 70's by incremental investments in the infrastructure. Among the private institutions Birla Institue of Technology & Science (BITS (Pilani)) is of comparable quality and those who do not get into an IIT their first choice is BITS (Pilani). Institutions such as Regional Engineering colleges (RECs) should have been elevated to the status of IITs by negotiating with the state governments over the seat quotas etc. Thus the aspirants for higher technical education would have had access to quality education.  Current news reports suggest that, the government is thinking along these lines.  By a cursory look and from the writer's own experience, if the intake to IITs  is 10% of those taking the entrance exam, the country would have a much better technical manpower pool.  Those aspiring to go abroad will do so, which cannot and should not be discouraged.  In the long run they create a brand equity in the countries they go to and succeed.  Some form of reverse brain drain will eventually occur and help the country as we are witnessing today in the Information Technology (IT) sector.

         For one reason or another there has always been an opposition to the increase of admissions to IITs since the 70,s. If one looks at he space utilization of the class rooms and labs, one can easily make a case for increasing enrolment by incremental investment. If one cannot increase the intake to IITs what are the choices left?  There are several that one should consider.  Apparently the fees are increasing at the IITs and they are encouraged to find funding from industries or the alumni.  This is a welcome move.  But this increases their "eliteness" even more. It is also argued that it is difficult to recruit faculty with Ph.Ds in IITs. This problem has always been solved by taking top ranked M.Techs who teach as well as work for a Ph.D.  In a country of one billion people, there has to be more of the institutions of the quality of IITs. 

        The key factor that distinguishes an IIT from other schools is the undergraduate curriculum and of course the quality of faculty.  The non IITs must upgrade their curricula.  This is beginning to happen in some schools.  In the early 70's through the Quality Improvement Programs (QIP) many faculty from non IITs got their Ph.Ds from the IITs.  This has resulted in some improvement of the curricula.  However, more needs to be done to bring many of them on par or even close to the level of IITs.  Human Resource Developmen (HRD) Ministry must allocate proper resources and monitor the performance through an accreditation mechanism.  The discussion so far has been restricted to undergraduate curricula only.

Stressing Post-Graduate Education-need for a Paradigm Shift:

          If the country has to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world in the next century, it can only be through quality postgraduate training on the same scale as the undergraduate training of the 50's and 60's.  Only through such investments can real R&D flourish in the technical areas in India.  Sciences have had a good track record by producing enough Ph.D's.  But in Engineering there are not enough M.Tech's to go around and Ph.D's are a mere trickle.  This may be one reason why the country cannot enter the software product area as opposed to services or hard core engineering design fields. On this base of manpower, the country cannot compete with the industrialized world.  What the country will witness is that the Multi-National Corporations (MNC's) will open up Research & Development (R & D) centers for the benefit of their parent companies, and the fruits of research will not be available to the country at large.  This is the inevitable consequence of globalization, and there is no point in preventing it.  Indian companies must compete for the best talent, and just as in the software services sector a level playing field may eventually result.  But for that to happen the institutions must produce enough M.Techs and Ph.Ds of good quality to meet the demand. 

        The question is can the existing IITs deliver?   Given the current scenario, only the IITs can increase the output of M.Techs and Ph.Ds.  One possible solution, though drastic, is to convert IITs into post-graduate institutions only, just as the  Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has done.  IITs can take good talent from engineering schools and concentrate on R&D and postgraduate training.  As indicated, this is a drastic solution and perhaps may not be welcomed by many.  The other alternative is to have QIP type program for the industry.  This is particularly needed for the engineering and software industry if they have to graduate to the level of producing products instead of services and collaboration. Academic institutions also need these products for maintaining their excellence. IITs & IISc must take a lead in Distance Education (DE) at the post graduate level where many foreign universities are already making their presence felt.

Conclusion:

   The bottom line is that technical education requires immediate attention on the part of the HRD ministry.  It cannot be business as usual any more if India has to make best use of its best resource, namely human potential.  India is not a third world country in technical education.  Instead India should get the maximum out of its vast human capital.  In certain key areas of infrastructure, such as power and transportation, we have failed.  In the telecommunication area, perhaps we are slightly better.  In the computer area, the country has to go beyond providing merely software services.  In the other engineering areas, the country must invest in training R&D personnel at the IITs and IISc in a massive way.  Industry must be encouraged to have the QIP version for upgrading of their skilled personnel.  In the long run it will be a win-win situation for the country.

---

[