Elections in India ... need for reform

Its been a very long time since my last post, and a lot has happened since ... the latest development has been the reelection of Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister in India. I have been motivated to write this post after reading Niket's post on the election. I started writing a comment on his blog, and at some point it became too big for a comment, and decided to post it on my own blog instead. Here it comes ...
--------------------
A concern I have had with the Indian parliamentary process: the lack of a 'run-off' to see who really has the mandate. Nearly every constituency has tens of candidates contesting the election. And in a large number of them, the majority of the votes are split between 3-4 major candidates. So we often have the winning candidate getting say 29% of the votes cast. Is that really a mandate?

I wonder what % of the votes cast went to the UPA coalition - I am sure it's well below the 50% of the seats that they actually hold in Parliament. Definitely not the people's vote, is it?

In many Presidential systems around the world, there is a runoff if no one gets an outright majority - heck, we even have runoffs for elections to positions in business school. But in a parliamentary system, how does one achieve a runoff? The system was inherited from Britain where its primarily a 2-party game, and worked in India for so many years where there was just one dominant party. But would it work in today's fragmented political environment, the present setup just doesn't seem right. An example of that is the elections in Maharashtra. The Shiv Sena has always been dominant, especially more so in Mumbai. But this time, the Congress swept it all - did they have a clear win? No, I think not (again I would have loved to make this argument with numbers to back me up, any help would be appreciated). Raj Thackrey's MNS was clearly able to get a significant chunk of the Shiv Sena's votes, allowing the Congress to take advantage of the situation. This was clearly a situation where a runoff would have helped the Shiv Sena not lose this battle, and yet allow the people to determine a clear victor - also eliminate some of the 'king making' opportunism that we see from the regional parties these days.

Its hard enough holding direct elections and counts for 400 million voters, but to do a runoff? Almost surely out of the question. Perhaps an electoral college type of setup? They use that for Presidential elections in India anyway. Not sure what a practical solution would look like! Any suggestions?

Tendulkar vs Chappell

Indian cricket is in turmoil - the debacle at the World Cup, a shameful premature exit, and now reports of a deep divide between the captain/coach (Dravid/Chappell) duo and the rest of the team that seems to have reached a point of no return. I personally believe that senior players like Tendulkar need to be let go - trust me, I enjoy watching Tendulkar just as much as anyone else, but this is getting to be too much. Now, when Chappell criticizes Tendulkar for not pulling his weight, Tendulkar reponds saying the coach is going to far. Some player went so far as to say,

"Does he understand the pressure Tendulkar is playing under before he
questions his fitness or attitude? .... Remember one thing, coaches come and go, but the boys are what is important. We have to play with each other through our careers."

Now I take exception to that - I agree that I cannot imagine how much pressure Tendulkar plays under - but then thats his job. He is not getting paid millions to just be a poster-boy for Airtel or whatever other brands he endorses. He is getting paid because he can get to the crease and score, and millions of Indians still believe he can. Thats no shield for not questioning his lack of performance. Either he is too old - in which case he should retire. If its not old age, and he is still not performing, its either his attitude or his fitness. And the idea that coaches come and go is ridiculous - it is the one of the biggest problems with Indian cricket - senior players permanently occupying spots in the team, despite a lack of performance. Lesser names would have long disappeared. The idea that boys are more important is ridiculous - you are professionals, be mature, grow up and perform!!

Compare that to professional athletes in sports like football in the US or even baseball - such statements will be looked upon as ridiculous. Non-performing athletes are cut as are non-performing coaches - as long as its clear who's non-performing. And in case of the Indian team, I don't think its the coach - its the players. So they are the ones who I hope will go, and give Mr. Chappell one more shot.

Gavaskar v/s Ponting

India lost to Bangladesh today ... that certainly was rock bottom as far as World Cup aspirations go for India. On another note, a storm has been quietly brewing in the days leading up to the World Cup. Gavaskar's outburst against the Aussies and their on-field behavior provoked Ponting's predictable response about the famous Gavaskar walk-off from the field (1981 at the MCG) - certainly the low point of Gavaskar's illustrious career.

But things have gone one step too far - with Gavaskar bringing in the fact that David Hookes died of injuries suffered in a bar, an apparent example of the fact that the Aussies' off-field activities could land them in hot water. I was all with Gavaskar about the sledging and the taunting by the Aussies on-field - but that was just too tangential, off-track and downright personal and dirty. Certainly not a smart thing to say, and no surprise that it has come in from condemnation from Aussie cricketers.

Greg Baum uses these episodes to highlight the East-West divide in his article in the Australian newspaper The Age. Baum correctly argues - "Gavaskar invoked the late Hookes' name needlessly, carelessly and tactlessly. It did not belong in this dialogue." He also points out that such rhetoric can also bring forth extreme reactions from the public like someone calling in a radio program in Australia asking that Gavaskar's name be removed from the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. The East-West divide is exemplified by his concluding remark:

Former Australian prime minister and cricket enthusiast Robert Menzies wrote once that Englishmen and Australians were of such like minds that "thankfully, we don't have to be too tactful". Between Indians and Australians, it is not so simple.

The World Cup is well and truly underway - and if the Aussies win again, with India perhaps not even making it to the Super 8 stage, it will be a needless point used in the above argument.

Novartis v/s the Government of India

In my freshman year in college, i had a course on "Perspectives in Society, Science and Technology". It was essentially an introduction to the social and ethical ramifications related to the technology as I started on getting a Chemical Engineering education. It dealt with situations such as pollution, plastics, DDT, cleaner pesticides, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, severe mercury poisoning of Minamata Bay in Japan, the Bhopal disaster, and last, but not the least, the far reaching implications of the Indian Patent Act of 1970. The law had far reaching consequences for the Indian pharmaceutical industry. According to the law:

In the case of inventions-

(a) claiming substances intended for use, or capable of being used, as food or as medicine or drug, or
(b) relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical processes (including alloys, optical glass, semi-conductors and inter-metallic compounds),

no patent shall be granted in respect of claims for the substances themselves, but claims for the methods or processes of manufacture shall be patentable

In other words, this act prevented issuance of product patents in India for pharmaceuticals and drugs, while only processes to make drugs could be patented. This led to the development of India's formidable generics industry, which could reverse engineer manufacturing processes with remarkable efficiency, without having to spend billions to discover the drugs - today, this industry is led by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ranbaxy and Cipla.

While the act ensured that pharma industry in India was sheltered from the fierce competition from big pharma worldwide, India's entry to the WTO has changed all that. The WTO entry has resulted in the adoption of a new Indian Patent Act in 2005 - one which was supposed to spur the generics driven pharma sector from reverse engineering to innovation. While the rise in prices of new drugs was anticipated, it turns out that the new patent act seems to be very carefully designed to take into account the socio-economic situation in india and tries to enforce a lot of protections for the common individual to prevent big bad pharma from coming in and exploiting him. Kudos to the Indian government for ensuring this. I was not aware of this ...

In the aftermath of the new patent act has risen another controversy. Currently in the eye of this storm is the situation with Novartis' drug Glivec, which was denied a patent by the Indian Patent Office. The reason given was that the law does not allow patents for marginally modified drugs, which do not constitute a novel molecule or original invention. In response, Novartis has challenged the ruling and filed litigation against the Govt of India saying that some of the provisions of the new patent act be scrapped, because they violate WTO rules. Indian generic manufacturers are already selling generic versions of the drug at 10% of the price that Novartis was charging for Glivec.

Novartis has certainly stirred up a major situation, given how much the indian generics have managed to impact the availability of low cost drugs in third world economies. In fact - Indian generics companies supply 84% of the AIDS drugs that Doctors without Borders uses to treat 60,000 patients in more than 30 countries. Given this situation, its going to be very interesting (and important) to see how the judgement comes out in this case. The New England Journal of MEdicine has a very good 'Perspective' article on this - its a very good 'plain English' discussion on the situation. This issue has drawn a lot of attention in the pharmaceutical industry and among lawmakers around the world. US Congressman Henry Waxman wrote to the Novartis CEO Dr. Daniel Vasella saying “I do not dispute your right to apply for a patent or appeal a denial. I am concerned, however, that your attempt to influence domestic Indian law could have a severe impact on worldwide access to medicines.” He concluded his letter by urging Vasella, “to reconsider your position in this case.” He highlights the critical role played by the Indian generics industry in providing low cost drugs to the entire developing world, and making health care more affordable to a large number of people.

The case brings to the forefront an important issue - the role of governments in trying to protect the interests of their people seemingly in conflict with their role in driving innovation and development through the protection of intellectual property. Another fact highlighted is the strategy tried by large corporations to ensure that they reach their profit goals even at any cost, irrespective of the consequences. While I have clearly come across as a socialist in this matter, I don't quite disagree with Novartis' right to get appeal their patent denial or even the claim from pharma cos. that IPR protection is needed to spur innovation and improvements in treatments. I am actually quite supportive of the position that Waxman has taken about Novartis' challenge to the Indian law itself. I would however be quite keen to know how folks feel about this issue in general - esp Indians working in the pharma industry in the US.

The progress of the Novartis vs the Govt of India case will be closely watched all over the world, and the outcome will certainly have far reaching consequences on the future availability of low cost pharmaceuticals. I bet this will certainly be discussed in the "Perspectives in Society, Science and Technology" course for several years to come.