Bharat Rakshak

vishvak wrote:Any protests from anywhere? From family of fishermen killed within Indian waters?

Any protest from diplomatic community on first world god fearimg Italians forcibly setting bloody precedent?

Are European rights orgs silent now?

arun wrote: It will be interesting to see what spin the Italian born Party Boss of Congress Party , namely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi will have to put on this matter.

THE Netherlands raised its alert level for terrorist attacks to "substantial", citing an increase in the number of Islamist militants travelling from the Netherlands to Syria, as well as a radicalisation of Dutch youth.
...
"Close to a hundred individuals have recently left the Netherlands for various countries in Africa and the Middle East, especially Syria."

German authorities banned three ultraconservative Islamic groups Wednesday, including one whose Internet propaganda videos helped inspire the extremist who killed two American airmen at Frankfurt airport in 2011, the country’s domestic intelligence chief said.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/13/german ... z2NRbdig4P

Britain faces the threat of a murderous terror attack from a Far Right extremist similar to the mass murderer Anders Breivik who gunned down 77 young Norweigans, the Security Minister warned today.
...
He disclosed that one in ten cases referred to a Home Office scheme to stop youngsters being caught up in terrorism related to the Far Right.

WHEN Croatia joins the European Union in July Bosnians will no longer be able to export eggs, meat and dairy products to their richer neighbour. The reason is that Bosnia’s politicians cannot agree on who should certify whether their producers meet the EU’s sanitary and veterinary rules. Bosnians knew they had to prepare for this moment. But Muslim Bosniaks want the job done by a central body, whereas Serbs prefer agencies in the two autonomous parts of Bosnia.

The EU says it does not matter who does the certifying, although it wants one central body to talk to. Peter Sorensen, the EU’s special representative, complains that “the producers seem to think it is the EU’s fault.”

March 22, 2013

Madam Speaker

I rise to inform the House on recent developments on the issue of return of two Italian marines to India accused in the killing of two Indian fishermen.

In response to concerns raised by the Members of the House, Hon'ble Prime Minister had made a statement on 13 March 2013 on the matter regarding the decision by Italy not to send back two Italian marines accused in the killing of two Indian fishermen. Prime Minister had stated, inter alia, that the Government has insisted that the Italian authorities respect the undertaking they have given to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and return the two accused persons to stand trial in India. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Shri Kamal Nath had also stated during the Zero Hour on 13 March 2013 in the Rajya Sabha that all issues raised by Members in this matter will be addressed and answered at a time and in a manner which the Chair may decide.

It would be recalled that the Supreme Court in its Order of 22 January 2013 allowed an application by the two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone and permitted them to travel to Italy and to remain in the Republic of Italy for a period of four weeks. The Order, inter alia, stated that the marines shall travel to Italy, remain in Italy and return to India under the care, supervision and control of the Italian Republic. On return, they shall once again be bound by the conditions contained in the Order passé by the court on 18 January 2013. The Republic of Italy gave an undertaking to the court that the Italian marines will be kept under its constant custody, supervision and control during this period and took full responsibility for securing the return of the Italian marines to New Delhi on or before the expiry of the period permitted by the court.

Earlier the Supreme Court in its order dated 18 January 2013, in a writ petition filed by the Italian marines and the Republic of Italy raising several jurisdictional issues, had ruled, inter alia, that India has jurisdiction, the matter will be put before a Special Court to be set up by the Union of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India to try this case and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of UNCLOS 1982, where there is no conflict between the domestic law and UNCLOS 1982.

A communication was received by the Ministry of External Affairs from the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi late in the evening of 11 March 2013 conveying, inter alia, that Italy deems that there is an existing controversy with India concerning the applicability of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the general principles of international law applicable to the Enrica Lexie incident. For these reasons, it requested the Indian Government to set up a meeting at diplomatic level in order to reach an amicable solution of the said controversy, and conveyed that "since a controversy between the two States has been established, the two Italian Marines, Mr. Latorre and Mr. Girone, will not return to India on the expiration of the permission granted to them".

On 14 March 2013, the Attorney General of India filed an Affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court conveying these developments in this matter to the Hon'ble Court. The matter was heard by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18 March 2013. The next hearing is scheduled for 2 April 2013.

Our position has been conveyed in clear terms to the Italian Government. The Supreme Court has affirmed that India has the jurisdiction to try the case even as it has given another opportunity vide its judgement of 18 January, to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction by adducing evidence before the Special Court to be set up for trial of this case. The Italian requests for diplomatic or expert level meetings to consider the issue of jurisdiction or referring the case to arbitration or any other judicial mechanism cannot be accepted. I have made it clear that the Republic of Italy is bound to honour the solemn commitment that it has made to the Supreme Court to ensure the return of the marines to India within the time period permitted by the Supreme Court.

Following this, we were informed through a diplomatic approach that the Government of Italy would be willing to send the two marines back to India as per its commitment. It sought from India clarifications regarding the conditions applicable to the marines on their return and the provisions regarding the death penalty that could be applicable in this case which was an Italian concern. Notwithstanding the pending proceedings, the Government has informed the Italian Government that the two marines will not be liable for arrest if they return within the time frame laid down by the Supreme Court of India, and shall once again be bound by the conditions contained in the order passed by the Court on 18th January 2013; and that, according to well settled Indian jurisprudence, this case would not fall in the category of matters which attract the death penalty, that is to say the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, there need not be any apprehension in this regard.

These clarifications will also be placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court appropriately. Following the clarification, we have a confirmation that the Italian Government is arranging for the return of the two Italian marines within the time frame permitted by the Supreme Court.

I am glad that the matter has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion and the trial of the marines will now proceed as per the directions of the Supreme Court in its order of 18 January 2013.

"A hypocritical government is trying to end its embarrassment by sending the sailors back to India after exhibiting them as 'free' during the election campaign,"

Indian Holi festival unleashes explosion of colour in Belfast

Indian Holi festival celebrated at Custom House Square in Belfast. April 2013
08 APRIL 2013

A packed Customs House Square celebrated the 6th annual Festival of Colours in Belfast yesterday.

A celebration of Indian cultures, the traditional Hindu Festival of Colours, also known as Holi, marks the arrival of Spring with music, dance and a two-hour colour powder party which sees festival-goers throw powder paint at each other all while enjoying the carnival atmosphere on offer.

Upwards of 6,000 festival goers joined together to mark the occassion, further bolstering its reputation as one of Northern Ireland's largest multi-cultural festivals.

Nisha Tandon, Director of Arts Ekta, Northern Ireland’s award-winning ethnic arts organisation and creators of the Festival of Colours, said:

“Now in its sixth year, the Festival continues to grow in popularity and stature, attracting people of all ages, communities and cultures. The Festival marque was packed to capacity, and the atmosphere something special- the move back to the city centre has been the right one.”

BERLIN (AP) — The leaders of Germany and India said Thursday that progress is being made on a new free trade agreement between India and the European Union but cautioned that there is still work to be done.Negotiations have been ongoing for six years and officials had hoped to conclude the agreement by the end of 2012. But the agreement has been hung up over a wide range of issues, including EU demands for intellectual property protections and investor guarantees, as well as import duties on automobiles.The EU is already India's largest trade partner and the Indian economy is growing robustly, leading German and other European businesses to increasingly look there for new opportunities. India, meantime, is eager for greater integration in global markets as its economic power expands.
Speaking after a joint meeting of their governments, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said they were optimistic the agreement could be concluded soon

Hyderabad, Apr 19:

The proposed India-EU free trade agreement (FTA) may pave a way for some European car majors to flood the Indian automobile market with their vehicles, a senior official of Honda Cars India Ltd (HCIL) said here today.

The Indian government should create “a level playing field” for the auto industry in the country, Jnaneswar Sen, Senior Vice President - Marketing and Sales, Honda Cars India Ltd said.

“This kind of FTA is going to remove that level playing field...Europe (automobile market) is not growing. It is only de-growing. It is very easy for some of them to sell the same cars here,” he said.

Speaking after the launch of Honda’s sedan ‘Amaze’ here for Andhra Pradesh market, Sen said, “This (FTA) is going to impact everyone in terms of investment, employment generation. All we want is a level playing field.”

“It is not just car manufacturers, but also others, such as suppliers of spare parts, who will be affected by the (proposed) FTA,” he added.

EU is demanding heavy duty cuts to ensure sale of its automobiles. However, the auto industry in India is strongly opposed to duty cut in the sector.

Notwithstanding the differences resulting in delay in inking of India-EU free trade agreement, the Commerce and Industry Minister, Anand Sharma had yesterday said the negotiations are progressing “very well”.

Paul wrote:The article does not say what India is getting in return for this concession.

Varoon Shekhar wrote:^^^

Doesn't India have other priorities besides importing cars from Europe, for its rich class of people? Why isn't that money instead put into poverty alleviation and building hospitals and schools. Or perhaps the money that is spent by these well to do Indians, could be channeled into India's space programme, which is currently experiencing a shortfall in transponder capacity. Unlike imported big ticket items, the space programme does contribute directly to India's telecommunications, information and broadcasting and weather forcasting capability and infrastructure.

Varoon Shekhar wrote:...
But criticising the space programme is more about jealousy and bewilderment, than it is about genuine concern for India's poverty.

Neela wrote:We might as well roll over and die!

Remember the Italian marines? They seem to be having a nice time partying .
Also seen enjoying the party:
- Archbishop of Delhi
- Secretary to former president Pratibha Patil.

Neela wrote:The Indian state is at its weakest now. No wonder everyone is having a good time trampling over us.

Raise cut-off limit in plan to issue more visas, India tells EU
Amiti Sen

Share · Comment · print · T+

Move part of free trade talks for duty cut on auto

New Delhi, May 4:

India has asked the European Union to have a higher cut-off for triggering visa curbs introduced in the latter’s proposals offering additional 40,000 visas to Indian professionals every year.

This is part of the ongoing India-EU free trade agreement talks. New Delhi has argued that the a lower cut-off margin could render the concessions meaningless.

In a safeguard clause, the EU will allow individual member countries to take measures to check entry of professionals from India as soon as 20 per cent of the committed number is breached.

Since the EU’s offer is one of the main bargaining chips to nudge India to agree to deep tariff cuts in cars and alcohol, any limit on the number of visas is not acceptable, a Commerce Department official said.

These additional visas are to be issued by the EU-member countries without any Economic Needs Test to show its impact on local workforce, which is otherwise mandated by many countries. “The threshold level is way too low. This means that as soon as a member gives out one-fifth of the total number of visas it has agreed to issue, it could be free to impose restrictions. This is like giving with one hand and taking back with the other,” the official said.

India has listed the issue as top priority to be discussed in the meetings of the negotiating group before the next India-EU ministerial meet scheduled in June. The main problem with EU’s proposed commitments for additional professional visas could be the fact that it imposes different burden on different countries, with the heaviest weight on the UK.

UK’s share of 12,000 is 30 per cent of the total - despite the country making up only 12 per cent of the EU’s population.

The Commerce Department argument is that since these visas are short-term, for up to six months, it would not be burdensome for any country.

India has also asked the EU to grant secondary mobility inside the EU-member state to Indian professionals so that they can move from one EU country to the other without restrictions.

India-EU FTA talks likely to hit roadblock


Spark Energy - Low Prices - Protect Yourself From High Electric Bills. Lock in a Low Price SparkEnergy.com/Spark.Energy

Ads by Google
Sujay Mehdudia

Share · Comment · print · T+

TOPICS

economy (general)

economic policy


economy, business and finance

social infrastructure

As Centre fails to get through the legislation on hiking FDI in insurance

Negotiations in the crucial round talks between India and the European Union (EU) for the free trade agreement (FTA) set to take place on May 15 here are likely to hit a roadblock in view of India’s failure to get through the legislation on hiking foreign direct investment (FDI) limit in the insurance sector to 49 per cent, a major demand by EU member countries, especially Germany.

The government, on Wednesday, informed Parliament that final positions of India and EU were yet to emerge as the negotiations on various contentious issues, including duty cuts in the automobile sector, were still on. “Final positions are to emerge as the negotiations across various sectors, including cars, are ongoing,” Minister of State for Commerce and Industry D. Purandeswari said.

Of late, Germany, along with some other member EU countries, has been very vocal in its demand for opening up of the insurance and automobile sectors for EU companies. The Indian Government had assured the EU leaders that India was actively working on opening up of the insurance sector and legislation was now pending before Parliament for hiking the FDI limit to 49 per cent from 26 per cent. In fact, Germany’s Ambassador to India Michael Steiner, before Dr. Singh’s visit to Berlin last month, has pitched strongly for opening up of the automobile sector for EU companies and hiking the FDI limit in the insurance sector.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel had also raked up the topic with Dr. Singh, and strongly pushed for an increase in FDI cap in the insurance sector and termed it as an ‘undeniably’ important issue.

However, the failure of the government to get through the insurance legislation in Parliament is likely to cast a shadow over the May 15 round of negotiations. “The inability of the government to get through the Bill on hike in insurance sector is likely to impact the progress of talks. We don’t expect anything dramatic to happen in view of the latest developments,” a senior official in Commerce and Industry associated with the negotiations said.

On the other hand, Dr. Purandeswari said India was seeking a good package on services, including cross-border flow of IT and ITeS, movement of Indian professionals and grant of data secure status. Negotiations across a number of tracks, including trade in goods and services, investment, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (dealing with basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards), technical barriers to trade, trade remedies, government procurement, customs cooperation and trade facilitation, dispute settlement, competition and intellectual property rights are underway. So far, 15 rounds of negotiations have been held since the launch of the talks.

Negotiating a sell-out?

The India-E.U. free trade agreement could lead to the bypassing of established legal procedures and the limiting of the government’s role in enacting progressive, pro-people legislation, thus posing a threat to the sovereignty of the country. By SAGNIK DUTTA in NEW DELHI

WHILE negotiations are on between India and the European Union (E.U.) to sign a free trade agreement (FTA), a number of contentious issues about public health, access to medicines, and sovereignty remain unresolved. The secretive manner in which the negotiations are being carried out has raised legitimate concerns of public health activists, lawyers and generic pharmaceutical companies about the E.U. trying to push for greater powers for multinational corporations (MNCs) at the cost of larger public concerns. The negotiating text of the agreement has not been made public yet; however, sections of the text leaked on websites such as those of Medecins Sans Frontieres and Knowledge Ecology International, an international non-governmental organisation that tracks debates on intellectual property policy, indicate draconian provisions that will considerably consolidate and strengthen the monopolies of MNCs lobbying for a stricter patent regime.

On April 10, public health activists and a number of groups representing cancer patients and people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) joined a protest in Delhi demanding that the government reject the E.U’s demands in the proposed FTA. Following high-level dialogue with E.U. members recently, Minister of Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma said that the talks on the India-E.U. FTA and the broad-based bilateral trade and investment agreement (BTIA) were progressing “very well”. The proposed BTIA extends “investor protection” to MNCs, which will then have the power to initiate legal proceedings in arbitration councils against the Indian government for any pro-public interest legislation they perceive as hurting their investments. In fact, in the past decade, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of investor-state disputes in which states have had to pay compensation after being sued by investors under bilateral investment treaties. Most of these disputes are addressed at the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). There have been several instances in recent times of FTAs and bilateral investment treaties being used as instruments to challenge and overturn progressive legislation by governments in developing countries.

Speaking to Frontline, Nagesh Kumar, chief economist of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), said: “In the ongoing negotiations, India should not agree to any additional conditions beyond TRIPs [Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]. The Patents Act is already TRIPs-compliant and it leaves some space for not allowing evergreening of patents. If this space is taken away, it will adversely impact access to affordable medicines produced by generic companies. India has earlier taken a position against investor-to-state arbitration. There are instances where investor-to-state arbitration has led to huge liabilities incurred by the state. A treaty that leads India to move away from its earlier position can be very damaging.”


Enforcement provisions

The most contentious provision in the proposed FTA is the one that allows the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) through a set of draconian measures that threaten access to medicines. The leaked text of the negotiations is available on the portal of Knowledge Ecology International. In an analysis of the enforcement provisions on its website, Medecins Sans Frontieres states: “These stricter enforcement measures proposed by the E.U. go beyond the requirements of the 1994 TRIPs Agreement and will negatively impact millions of people relying on affordable generic medicines produced in India.”

As of now, trademark and copyright piracy is already covered by the TRIPs Agreement. The FTA text, however, proposes stringent enforcement mechanisms for patent infringements. Article 22 of the proposed text allows for the issuing of injunctions and the seizure of medicines merely on the suspicion of patent infringement. It states: “The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring, and in particular to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of goods, including imported goods immediately after customs clearance and to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement.”

The text provides for freezing the assets of generic drug companies in case of an allegation of patent infringement. In Article 30 of the text, the E.U. has asked for broader enforcement measures to eliminate “international trade in goods infringing intellectual property rights”. This poses a grave threat to the export of affordable generic medicines to the developing world from India as they could even be seized for suspected trademark infringement.

Speaking about the far-reaching impact of such provisions, Y.K. Sapru of the Cancer Patients Aid Association said, “The Supreme Court’s judgment keeping Section 3(d) alive and intact has captured global attention, sparking off global debates on the need for developing countries to protect only genuine innovations in medicines, not evergreening. Having failed to get its way at the Supreme Court in the Novartis case, we can expect the E.U. to push its industry’s demands for changes in the Indian law to curb the Indian judiciary.”


Investor protection

The investment chapter in the negotiating text is particularly problematic as it provides foreign investors extensive investment protection and limits the powers of the Indian government to formulate progressive legislation in the public interest. An analysis of the investment chapter by Medecins Sans Frontieres highlights the grave risks posed by this provision: “This arbitration mechanism gives foreign investors, including foreign IPR holders, the right to circumvent normal legal processes and bring a case directly to a secret arbitral tribunal.” Anand Grover, senior counsel for the Cancer Patients Aid Association in the Novartis case and director of Lawyers Collective, told Frontline: “The provisions for investor protection in the proposed India-E.U. FTA will completely obliterate the sovereignty of India and judicial processes in India which would otherwise have jurisdiction in these matters.”

In fact, in the past decade there has been a manifold increase in the number of investor-state disputes, leading to states being dragged to arbitration councils and sued for exorbitant sums of money, sometimes running into millions of dollars. In several of these instances, the state has been sued for framing legislation that addresses larger public concerns.

A report titled “Profiting from Injustice” published in November 2012 by the Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute notes that the number of investment arbitration cases has surged in the past two decades from 38 cases in 1996 to 450 in 2011 (according to data registered at the ICSID). It further notes that the amount of money involved has also expanded dramatically. In 2009-10, 151 investment arbitration cases involved corporations demanding at least $100 million from states. The study also notes that arbitrators earn hefty salaries, as much as $1 million in one reported case. It states, “These costs are paid by taxpayers, including in countries where people do not even have access to basic services. For example, the Philippines government spent U.S. $58 million defending two cases against German airport operator Fraport: money that could have paid the salaries of 12,500 teachers for one year or vaccinated 3.8 million children against diseases such as TB, diphtheria, tetanus and polio.”

The assertion of private investor rights has proved particularly harmful for the public interest in the developing world as most arbitrators tend to defend investor rights above the public interest. The study cites a number of instances of progressive legislation being challenged by private corporations. In 2001-02, Argentina froze utility rates of energy and water in response to a financial crisis. It was sued by 40 investors, including giant companies such as CMS Energy (U.S.), Suez S.A. and Vivendi S.A. (both France), Anglian Water (United Kingdom) and Aguas de Barcelona (Spain), who demanded multimillion-dollar compensation packages for revenue losses. In 2007, Italian investors sued South Africa over the Black Empowerment Act, which required mining companies to transfer a portion of their shares to black investors. The dispute, settled under South Africa’s Bilateral Investment Treaty in 2010, provided the investors with new licences with much lower requirements for disinvestment of shares. In another instance, the tobacco giant Philip Morris sued both Uruguay and Australia in 2010 for their anti-smoking laws. The company argued that large warning labels on cigarette packets prevented it from displaying its trademarks and caused a loss in market share.

Against the backdrop of an increasing number of investor-state disputes causing a threat to the public interest, several governments, such as those of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, have terminated investment treaties and withdrawn from the ICSID. Argentina has refused to pay arbitration awards. In 2011, Australia announced that it would not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements.

Another study, by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled “Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement” released in March 2013, states that the total number of treaty-based cases reached 518 in 2012, and the total number of countries that have responded to one or more such case increased to 95. It further states, “In 70 per cent of the public decisions addressing the merits of the dispute investors’ claims were accepted, at least in part. Nine public decisions rendered in 2012 awarded damages to the claimants, including the highest award in the history of ICSID (U.S.$ 1.77 billion) in Occidental [Exploration and Production Co.] vs Ecuador, a case arising out of the unilateral termination by the state of an oil contract.”


Other concessions

According to highly placed sources in the government who did not wish to be identified, the E.U. is also pushing for patent term extension, data exclusivity and patent linkage to be included in the FTA.

As of now, Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement provides for 20 years’ patent protection from the date of filing of the patent application. According to informed sources, the E.U. is pushing for a patent term that takes into consideration the time taken for regulatory procedures, approvals and delays. This in effect means that if it takes 10 years for a multinational company to be granted a patent for a drug, it can ask for patent protection for 30 years. This will have an adverse effect on generic drug companies and access to affordable medicines.

Shiba Phurailatpam of the Asia-Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS said, “The majority of people living with HIV in the Asia-Pacific region are dependent on Indian generics. The impact of the E.U’s demands will be felt far beyond India’s borders.”

Patent linkage will prevent the government from granting marketing approval for generic versions of patented drugs. There has been a consistent demand for patent linkages by MNCs. Earlier this month, Merck Sharp & Dohme sought an injunction from the Delhi High Court against the sale of the generic drug Januvia launched by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, alleging an infringement of intellectual property rights on the grounds that it had a patent for the drug.

Data exclusivity provides exclusive rights to technical data generated by innovator companies through clinical trials and prevents competitors from producing low-cost generic versions of the drug during the period of exclusivity. The TRIPs Agreement already provides for data protection. However, data protection is different from data exclusivity. Anand Grover explained: “Article 39(3) of TRIPs prevents unfair commercial use or marketing by generic companies of the data generated by clinical trials from innovator companies and submitted to the drug regulator. However, this is not the same as data exclusivity. As of now, Indian firms that make generic versions of innovator medicines get their approvals after proving that their product is bio-equivalent to the original drug. The drug regulator uses the data submitted by the innovator to decide the safety and efficacy of the generic drug. Data exclusivity will prevent this. The regulator will not be able to use the innovator’s data to make decision. This will in turn oblige generic companies to undertake clinical trials and delay the entry [into the market] of generic drugs.”


Concerns of other sectors


Other sectors of the economy, including the dairy industry, agriculture, and micro, small and medium enterprises, have also voiced a number of concerns about the FTA. There are legitimate concerns that the FTA heavily favours the E.U. and will lead to substantial duty cuts on the imports of agricultural and milk products and greater market access for the E.U.

In a statement, Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general of the Confederation of All India Traders, said: “The E.U.-India FTA will apparently involve cutting duties on more than 94 per cent of all goods (agricultural and industrial). This means more and more agricultural goods will have to be included.”

Naresh Sirohi, general secretary of Rashtriya Kisan Morcha, said that the agreement would threaten food security and self-sufficiency and pose a threat to the livelihoods of people.

In negotiating any bilateral trade agreement with the E.U., the Indian government should tread cautiously so as to safeguard domestic concerns and the public interest at large.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Novartis case was lauded worldwide for upholding the public interest and protecting access to affordable medicines. The judgment has wider ramifications not only for India but for the whole of the developing world as it recognises the importance of placing public concerns above MNCs. Any bilateral trade negotiation that encourages the bypassing of established legal procedures and limits the role of governments in enacting progressive, pro-people legislation will pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of the country and undermine democratic structures of governance.

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Weird article on Washington Post: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries
More India baiting- India is shown as one of the most racially tolerant countries.




Where and how did they come to this conclusion. This needs to be investigated and rebutted.