[A2k] Will the real Mashelkar stand up?

Sat Jan 27 15:47:15 2007

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
      OUTLOOK INDIA
      Magazine| Feb 05, 2007

      controversy: r.a. mashelkar

      Ex & Y Factor

      Is India's top science man, R.A. Mashelkar, guilty of compromising na=
tional interest, and misusing status for personal gain?

      PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA

      The Charges...
        a.. As CSIR boss, he nudged India to agree to demands of pro-West l=
obbies
        b.. His comments at WIPO panel were retracted by the Indian governm=
ent
        c.. Received Rs 1.3 crore as honorarium and hospitality during 44 f=
oreign trips, including to the UK and Switzerland
        d.. These trips were =91personal=92 but declared official, and inco=
me notdisclosed under various acts
        e.. Conflict of interest between his dual role as administrator and=
 scientist
      The Defence...

        a.. He says he fought for the poor and made medicines more affordab=
le
        b.. WIPO comments were based on government brief
        c.. The foreign trips were in his dual capacity as CSIR DG and scie=
ntist, like for honorary doctorates
        d.. So, all trips were official, entire income disclosed in his IT =
returns, and all permissions taken
        e.. He denies acting against India or for big corporates; says he c=
reated awareness for traditional knowledge
      ***

      He has been lauded as India=92s most dynamic scientist. The list of p=
restigious awards and citations he has received runs into many pages. He to=
ok science out of the lab and brought it to factory floors. He has done mor=
e than most others to protect India=92s traditional knowledge that the MNCs=
 eye avariciously. As the longest-serving (13 years) director-general of th=
e Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), which controls 40-odd=
 research outfits with roughly 18,000 employees and an annual budget of aro=
und Rs 1,500 crore, he influenced India=92s crucial policies relating to sc=
ientific research, patents and IPRS. And continues to do so even a month af=
ter he resigned.

      But his critics, including the Left parties and a few NGOs, allege th=
at as the top science administrator, he nudged India=92s policies to suit t=
he demands of developed nations. And there was a conflict of interest betwe=
en his dual role as an administrator and member of global committees. At le=
ast once, India had to retract views stated by Mashelkar at the World Intel=
lectual Property Organisation (WIPO) panel. There are also charges of finan=
cial impropriety against him, and the Supreme Court has admitted a PIL file=
d by J. Sundaresan Pillai, secretary, CSIR Scientific Workers=92 Associatio=
n, at the National Institute of Science Communication & Information Resourc=
es (NISCAIR), a CSIR constituent.

      So, who=92s the real Raghunath Anant Mashelkar? Outlook spoke to Mash=
elkar and his critics, pored through hundreds of pages of court papers and =
other documents, and pieced together a fascinating account of the life and =
times of a dynamic, but controversial, czar of the Indian scientific establ=
ishment.

      At an ideological level, Mashelkar has been criticised for not always=
 acting in India=92s interests, despite his much-publicised role in the tur=
meric (haldi) case. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who is handling Pillai=92s PIL=
, says there was a "clear conflict of interest" when he chaired a meeting c=
onvened by the WIPO at Casablanca, Morocco, on February 16, 2005. That meet=
ing resolved that WIPO=92s standing committee on patents should focus only =
on four issues (prior art, grace period, novelty and inventive steps) while=
 two other issues (on sufficiency of disclosure and genetic resources) shou=
ld be dealt with by another inter-governmental committee on intellectual pr=
operty, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.

      After the resolution became public, a =91note verbale=92 was sent by =
the Indian mission in Geneva to WIPO clarifying there had been no change in=
 India=92s position that there should be a holistic approach to inter-conne=
cted issues relating to intellectual property rights.It added that WIPO sho=
uld go in for a single negotiating framework and not two independent tracks=
, as recommended by WIPO=92s standing committee at Casablanca.

      Mashelkar, however, claims that the position he took at Casablanca wa=
s based on a brief he was provided by the Department of Industrial Policy a=
nd Promotion and that he obtained permission from industry minister Kamal N=
ath to not only attend the meeting but also represent the country. He denie=
s he acted against the country=92s interests or that his actions have only =
helped large pharma firms. Says he: "I have always fought for the poor, for=
 the deprived. Every action that I have taken has been in support of their =
cause, to make medicines accessible and affordable."

      Not many buy this logic. Bhushan, in a note, contends Mashelkar was a=
 major influencing factor in India accepting product patents, which "would =
lead to an astronomical increase in the prices of agro seeds and pharmaceut=
ical medicines.... At least 11 of Mashelkar=92s private foreign trips were =
to attend the meetings of WIPO and the Intellectual Property Rights Commiss=
ion, where he appears to accept their hospitality, without permission of th=
e government. These bodies are committed to promoting product patenting", o=
n which India and these bodies have a clear conflict of interest.

      The former CSIR DG argues that far from compromising the country=92s =
sovereignty, he has helped create a "tremendous awakening...about the impor=
tance of the rich traditional knowledge base of India" all over the world t=
hat was earlier neglected. He favours an intellectual property regime that =
balances the interests of the poor with the need to reward Indian intellect=
uals and innovators.

      Apart from the battle over patent-related policies, Mashelkar=92s cri=
tics level personal charges against the former CSIR chief. Over the last fo=
ur years, over 50 questions have been raised in Parliament about Mashelkar=
=92s foreign junkets. Many of these were raised by A. Vijayaraghavan, leade=
r of the CPI(M) in the Rajya Sabha. Less than a fortnight before Mashelkar =
resigned as CSIR DG, on December 18, 2006, Pillai dashed off letters to the=
 prime minister, minister for science & technology Kapil Sibal, the cabinet=
 secretary, the CVC and many others, levelling a host of other allegations =
against Mashelkar.

      Pillai pointed out that between November 1997 and July 2004, the CSIR=
 DG undertook 44 foreign visits, during which he received Rs 61.5 lakh as h=
onorarium, and Rs 68.3 lakh as hospitality. These included 18 visits to the=
 UK, six each to South Africa and Switzerland, four to the US, and a simila=
r number to Indonesia and Croatia. On his trip to Brazil in December 2001, =
he earned over Rs 2.5 lakh as honorarium, and Rs 2.5 lakh as hospitality. D=
uring the Croatia visit in March 2004, he was given over Rs 1.7 lakh as hon=
orarium and Rs 2.8 lakh for hospitality.

      According to Pillai, Mashelkar=92s visits were of a =91private=92 or =
=91personal=92 nature but were declared =91official=92. Lawyer Bhushan clai=
ms the science doyen has violated the provisions of the Foreign Contributio=
n (Regulation) Act (FCRA). Based on a home ministry response under RTI, Pil=
lai was told "granting of honorarium" to the CSIR DG was outside its purvie=
w. So, he claims Mashelkar may not have taken the requisite FCRA clearances=
.

      Mashelkar denies he has violated the law. Says he, "When a secretary =
to the Government of India goes out, there are certain rules and procedures=
 he has to follow, which implies taking permission of the minister of scien=
ce & technology.... The rules also specify that in case one is going out fo=
r undertaking any, let=92s say, scientific activity like giving a keynote l=
ecture or offering some consulting advice to a country, and in case, he rec=
eives an honorarium, that has to be declared and for which appropriate perm=
ission has to be taken.As far as I am concerned, all these permissions have=
 been taken...."

      He adds that there was an overlap between his status as a scientist a=
nd his former role as an administrator. But none of his foreign visits can =
be categorised as =91private=92 or =91personal=92. "I=92m a scientist," he =
says.. "Therefore I get invitations for purposes which are not normally the=
 purposes for which administrators get invited. For example, if you get an =
honorary doctorate from the University of London, you go there to receive t=
hat honorary doctorate and this is not considered as a personal visit, beca=
use I also occupy the position of DG, CSIR . I=92m as much of a scientist a=
s I=92m an administrator. So these invitations come to me in my capacity as=
 a scientist for having done research. Several such honours have come my wa=
y=97they come to you in an individual capacity as a scientist. When you go =
there, they actually provide you with local hospitality, this cannot be con=
sidered as a private visit."

      Mashelkar describes as "scandalous" and "irresponsible" Pillai=92s su=
ggestion that his IT returns be scrutinised because he has not given the go=
vernment its share of the income he earned outside. He asserts: "I have fil=
ed all my income tax returns...declared every single penny. Every single do=
llar goes into my official bank account.... I feel embarrassed such questio=
ns are being asked."

      Pillai makes an even more serious allegation of "forgery" and "fraud"=
 against Mashelkar in his representation to the PM. He has affixed photocop=
ies of four sets of forms filled up by the CSIR DG in 2004 to comply with F=
CRA provisions in which Mashelkar=92s signatures do not match. These forms =
were forwarded by his then secretary S.C. Kalra. Mashelkar, in his defence,=
 admits: "I do have two signatures, one...a rapid signature when I=92m resp=
onding to letters=97R.A. Mashelkar. The other is on passport forms and (whe=
n I sign) bank cheques...."

      The former CSIR chief discredits Pillai saying the latter had been su=
spended from his job as a scientist by the then director, NISCAIR, G.P. Pho=
ndke, for "misbehaving" with his colleagues, and that the association he re=
presents is not recognised by the CSIR . Pillai counters his association is=
 registered under the Trade Union Act and has international affiliation. Mo=
reover, he claims he has been vindicated of the above charges. A 41-page re=
port of a departmental inquiry on allegations against Pillai and two of his=
 colleagues conducted by retired judge Usha Mehra that was submitted on Sep=
tember 28, 2006, says the charges against the three "have not been proved".=
 When told Outlook had a copy of this report, Mashelkar said he hadn=92t se=
en it.

      What cannot be doubted is that Mashelkar has =91managed=92 his politi=
cal masters well and created an aura about his dynamism. Post-retirement, h=
e is currently CSIR Bhatnagar Fellow at the National Chemical Laboratory, P=
une, and has reportedly received offers from more than two dozen private co=
mpanies to serve on their boards of directors.

      Given his pro-West views on patent-related issues, it isn=92t surpris=
ing that the current campaign against Mashelkar is being pushed through by =
the CPI(M). Left parties have been agitated by the stance that India=97and =
Mashelkar=97have taken on the issues of patents, genetic resources and trad=
itional knowledge.

      A brilliant, iconic scientist or a materialistic individual? Or a bit=
 of both? Will the real Mashelkar stand up?

--
[ space.gif of type application/octet-stream deleted ]
--

___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from=
 your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html=0D