How the Patent System has been Subverted in Favour of Corporates | Asian Age

World Intellectual Property Day is observed annually on 26 April. As we prepare to commemorate this day, it’s a good time to reflect on what the philosophy of the patent system was when it originated and what it has morphed into today. Patents were the first form of intellectual property rights (IPR) to be granted and codified formally, now there are many other forms of IPR.

Granting a patent to the inventor of a particular product was actually done with the purpose of benefiting society at large. The way to benefit society was to give an advantage for a limited period of time to the inventor of th product or a novel method or process of developing a product so that innovation was supported. If innovation was encouraged by giving privileges to the inventor then society at large would benefit because innovations would bring in new things and new ways of doing things. This would avoid stagnation and lead to fresh growth and development. The patent system granted an exclusive marketing right, usually for 20 years, so the innovator could make money by selling his or her product or process without any competition. This meant a reasonably good return on investments so to speak. The financial gain was the attraction to continue innovation.

However it cannot be in the interest of any society to grant a monopoly to a single individual or agency , to benefit just one person at the cost of everybody else. The patent system allowed exclusive financial gain but did not allow an exclusive forever monopoly. The patent was not a forever thing but valid for 20 years after which the patent information could be used by anyone. Public interest clauses were included to prevent ‘forever benefits’ to the innovator without sharing anything with the public.

The first safeguard was transparency. According to patent rules, the moment you filed for a patent you had to make your invention public in a way that anyone versed in that domain could replicate it. You had to declare the exact way you in which you invented that product, sharing the ‘know how’ and ‘do how’ of how that product was created. Thus the new technology was transferred to the public and was available for use after the expiry of the patent period. This feature has often been subverted by latter day patent applicants, chiefly companies. The declaration of the invention is kept deliberately obtuse, missing a few key steps so that it cannot be replicated effectively. 

An important public interest feature of the patent system was ‘utility’. This meant the patented product had to be useful for the public. An innovation, however creative and novel, could not get a patent if it did not have demonstrable utility. This ensured that society benefited from the grant of the patent.

Another essential step was the feature of Compulsory Licensing. This is a clause in the patent system that allows governments to intervene when a monopoly turns hostile to public interest and becomes a disadvantage to society at large. For example, in the case of a patented medicine, if the pharma company that holds the patent is not providing that medicine in the quantities required or is pricing it too high and therefore putting it out of the reach of common people, then the government can intervene. Under the Compulsory Licensing clause, the government can grant a license to another company to produce the patented medicine and give compensation to the original patent holder. In this way the welfare of society was given primacy and the patent holder was not allowed to exercise its monopoly to the detriment of citizens. 

A third important feature of the patent system which was followed in earlier times is “Working the Patent’. This means if you have been granted a patent right in a particular country you have to manufacture that product in that country. You cannot just import it and exercise your monopoly in the market, giving nothing in return. So why was it important to work the patent? Producing the product in the country where you were the patent holder made sure that there was both skill building and diffusion of technology in lieu of granting exclusive marketing rights. This feature balanced both interests and society didn’t lose out.

Unfortunately the patent system is being slowly subverted not to balance societal welfare with (limited) exclusive marketing but to weigh in favour of monopolies, the corporate sector being a significant holder of patents. Governments seem to have allowed “Working the Patent” to be disbanded to quite an extent. Patent holders increasingly import the products from their home countries and just exploit the local market, hence there is neither technology diffusion or skill building. Compulsory Licensing clauses are being fought tooth and nail by the corporate sector and becoming difficult to implement.

Another challenge to a balanced patent system is the attempt to “Evergreen” a patent and extend its life beyond 20 years. In this case the company makes small, usually trivial changes in the process or the product, without substantially altering the properties of the original product. It then claims innovation of a new product and applies for a patent on this product so that it can extend the monopoly of 20 years in the market for another 20 years. Essentially the core product remains the same into which no new R&D has been invested, no new properties have been added and society does not get any new benefits from this tweaked product. This Ever-greening of patents is a trick that the corporate sector has developed to line its coffers. Some government are able to resist this dishonest move and some are not.

So, there you have it. The original patent system that started out as a system to benefit the society and promote its betterment has now turned into a tool of exploitation in the hands of the corporate sector aided by pliant, and dare I say, some corrupt administrators.

source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-how-the-entire-patent-system-was-subverted-for-corporates-1952386

Women Farmers Are So Critical: It’s Time To Empower Them Worldwide | Asian Age

A lot of research has been done to understand the role of women in agriculture. It’s now fairly well established that the empowerment of rural women is the key to agricultural development, adequate food production and efforts to end hunger and poverty. Despite this, women remain ignored as key actors. Though women constitute nearly half (over 43 per cent) the global agricultural labour force, they face major cultural and socio-economic constraints which prevent them from realising their full potential.

Women farmers work hard in the fields to grow the food that feeds the world but their contribution isn’t acknowledged. They are the “invisible workforce” which fails to get recognition from the government, media and industry. Instead of being seen as farmers, they are relegated to a lower category, as farm helpers. This prevents them from accessing opportunities and training in government schemes meant for “farmers”. While they do agricultural work equal to that of men, they are paid half the wages.

Recognising this as injustice, the Gene Campaign set up groups of women working in the field in Mahila Kisan Samitis. Establishing their identity as farmers gave them confidence to claim a place in government programmes. The samitis were the recipients of all training programmes conducted by the Gene Campaign on agronomic practices, improved millet cultivation, value addition, entrepreneurship and financial literacy.

Women’s property rights are either non-existent or restricted in most places. Women farmers usually don’t own farmland. When land is in their name, it was usually bought by men to claim welfare schemes meant for women. Such land is used and administered by the men of the family and the women know they are owners only on paper. The women often don’t have any papers in their name. This lack of official recognition denies them access to government schemes for farmers, institutional credit, farming inputs like fertilisers, farm equipment and market linkages.

Women farmers often have mobility or cultural constraints that restrict their access to markets, technology, seeds, fertilisers, credit, etc. They can’t access government mandis, the market where farmers gather to sell their produce, get information on government schemes and programmes, exchange information with other farmers and make connections with government officials. Denying them all this due to cultural constraints and biases puts a limit and prevents them from optimising their farm productivity.

This is tragic on all counts. Evidence shows that if women farmers in developing countries had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20–30 per cent and raise the total agricultural output by 2.5-4 per cent. This would reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12–17 per cent.

The thrust to “modernise” agriculture by mechanisation has implications for women farmers. Who really benefits from this focus on mechanisation? Both men and women farmers? Farm machinery is almost always made for men, keeping in mind their muscular strength. This makes it difficult for use by women, who are built much smaller. In addition, the new machines do things like transplanting, which often displaces women from this labour-intensive work. While men take advantage of the mechanisation boom, women are left out of capacity building and training programmes, preventing them from using such machines in future too.

Half the pay and double the burden: Women farmers actually work harder than men. Apart from the demanding manual work in the field, they have multiple responsibilities in and around the home. Fetching water, firewood, fodder, often from long distances, household chores, childcare, etc. There is no remuneration for all this, and their agricultural work is either unpaid or underpaid. The additional burden of domestic duties with no support from the family takes a toll on their health. In developing countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific region, women typically work 12–13 hours more per week. It’s a truism, often demonstrated, that when more income is put into the hands of women, the whole family benefits — there is improved household nutrition, better health and education.

Excluded from decision-making: Scientists, policymakers and others in the government usually tend to think of farmers as unskilled and lacking in knowledge, who have to be taught farming. This bias is several times worse in the case of women farmers. The fact is that both men and women farmers are repositories of a vast amount of knowledge about biodiversity, seeds, farming, etc. Women have a different kind of knowledge base than men.

Empower them: Women farmers can show remarkable outcomes if they are given a level playing field. Giving them this level playing field does not require giant financial outlays. It’s not so hard to bring change. A few doables:

• Start community awareness programmes to break patriarchal norms and enable women’s progress.

• Ensure proper access to healthcare and employment.

• Provide opportunities for academic and vocational education.

• Introduce pro-women policies; facilitate land ownership and access to agricultural resources.

• Pay them equal wages.

• There is an urgent need to invest in mechanised farm machinery with the woman in mind. This should be appropriate to her form and be comfortable to use.

• Involve them in decision-making at both farm and policy level.

• Reduce and redistribute household duties (this one may need persuasive change).

Source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-women-farmers-are-so-critical-its-time-to-empower-them-worldwide-1929677

‘Ghost Villages’ a Growing Threat in Uttarakhand & India’s Hill Areas | Asian Age

Recently, a tragic situation arose at a village in Uttarakhand’s villages are emptying out, with young people moving out for a variety of reasons, sometimes leaving elderly parents, and often just locking up their homes.

Forsaking the village has become common in Uttarakhand’s hill districts. The youth don’t want to continue with the traditional occupation of agriculture: it’s not remunerative enough. Thus, abandoned fields, collapsing cattle sheds and locked houses define areas that once sustained vibrant agrarian communities.

These “ghost villages” are described as a natural outcome of modernisation. But that’s a false narrative. Modernisation does not mean abandoning the traditional, rather improving and enhancing the traditional. That is where policymakers have failed. Little effort has been made in villages in hill areas, particularly in Uttarakhand, to diversify and develop the village economy, create good educational and health facilities and provide attractive jobs and income opportunities. It’s also the result of not investing in agriculture, which is the economy’s mainstay in these areas. The new element is the contribution of television and now social media, showing fantasy worlds. The triumph of illusion over reality creates a magnetic attraction for the younger generation. It’s not just farming (seen as backward anyway) and not paying enough, it’s the lure of city glamour that is drawing the youth there.

Today’s rural youth don’t migrate merely in search of jobs; they also migrate in search of a status they think rural life does not offer them. Urban life is projected as success. TV and social media relentlessly glorify consumption, leisure and spectacle. For young men, ogling fashionably dressed women holds a particular fascination. Farming, by contrast, is physically demanding, socially invisible, and economically unrewarding. Simply not “sexy” enough!

This cultural shift has had devastating consequences. Working on one’s own land, tending crops, or managing livestock is now seen by many young people as a lowly activity and a mark of failure, of non-achievement. The dignity historically associated with farming has been systematically eroded. The pride in being masters of your own land and the idea of caring for the land has been replaced by the desire for the “successful” urban lifestyle.

Young women’s aspirations reflect similar pressures. Rural women have always carried a disproportionate burden as unpaid labour: caring for livestock, collecting fodder, managing households and working in fields. These contributions remain invisible and unvalued. Many young women see village life as a trap, rather than a life within a community. Marriage increasingly becomes a route out of rural life, not a partnership to strengthen it. At the same time, young men aspire to urban-oriented partners, while rural women seek spouses with salaried jobs and city addresses.

Underlying this is the economic reality of farming. Agriculture no longer provides a reliable or adequate income. Rising input costs, volatile prices, lack of assured markets and weak institutional support have made farming unviable for small and marginal farmers. Governments have spoken endlessly about doubling farmers’ incomes, but that piece of propaganda blew up in no time, making farmers even more cynical about any government support.

Land ownership patterns add another layer of complexity. In many villages, land remains jointly held by extended families. Fragmentation, disputes and economic interest make sale or consolidation difficult. Families migrate but retain ownership, leaving land uncultivated. Terraces collapse, invasive species spread, and fragile hill ecosystems degrade. Social migration becomes ecological decline.

The irony is that the urban economy absorbing this migration is far less stable than it appears. Most rural youth do not enter secure, well-paid employment in the cities. They enter informal jobs with long hours, poor working conditions and no social security. Housing is expensive, public services are stretched and social isolation is common. Yet the illusion persists.

The cost of empty villages is far greater than the loss of a population. When villages die, food security weakens, agro-biodiversity erodes and traditional knowledge disappears. India’s resilience has always rested on its rural systems: diverse crops, local food cultures and decentralised livelihoods. So if villages continue to empty out, India will lose the foundations of self-reliance in food systems, ecological balance and social stability.

Yet reversing this trend requires more than emotional appeals. Farming must be made economically viable, socially respected and institutionally supported. Rural areas need education, healthcare, connectivity and opportunities for local enterprise. Most important, agriculture must be repositioned as skilled, modern and dignified work.

Let’s recall the most far-sighted and inspiring call to action made by Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965: “Self-sufficiency in food to be no less important than an impregnable defence system in the preservation of our freedom and independence.” This was how the “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan” slogan was born.

https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-ghost-villages-a-growing-threat-in-uttarakhand-indias-hill-areas-1942449