Amendments to the Patents Act, 1970

The Third Amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 was to be tabled in the ongoing winter session of Parliament. The opinion of the Government was that the Amendment must be passed in this session itself as the TRIPs (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement under the GATT, which the Congress Government signed in 1994, requires WTO members to make their domestic patent laws TRIPS-compliant by 1st January 2005, or else face retaliatory sanctions from other WTO members. It is highly likely that if the Bill cannot be tabled and passed in Parliament in the winter session, the Government will issue an ordinance instead. The main objective of the Amendment is to introduce product patents for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, in place of the existing system of process patents under the Patents Act, 1970. A number of criticisms have been levelled against the Amendment Bill. The main criticism is against the concept of product patents itself, a criticism that was voiced more than ten years ago by our Party and others, when the Dunkel proposals were first put forward, to which the Congress-led Government had paid no heed. A process patent gives the owner exclusive right only over the manufacturing process through which a particular product is made. Any person can manufacture and sell a particular product as long as they use a different process of manufacture. But a product patent prevents others from manufacturing, selling, or importing a patented product, even if the product has been manufactured through different processes, without taking permission from and paying royalty to the patent holder. A product patent therefore confers a monopoly over a product on a patent holder. This has dangerous consequences in the case of pharmaceuticals in particular.

But after the Congress Government joined WTO in 1994, two important Amendments have been carried out by the NDA Government to make the Patents Act, 1970 TRIPS-compliant. In the first Amendment to the Patents Act in 1999, the term of patent protection was extended from 7 to 20 years. In the second Amendment in 2002, a `mailbox facility’ was created, as required by the TRIPS agreement, to receive patent applications from companies worldwide, and to grant Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR) to the applicants, even before final clearance of their patents could be done through an amended Patent Act conforming to TRIPS. Patent applicants for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals thus received a monopoly over their products, even before their patents were approved. If the Third Amendment is passed, these patent applications will have to be scrutinised and patents given on the products to the applicant companies.

Long-term Consequence of the Amendment Bill: Retardation of Science and Technology

The most devastating long-term outcome of the Third Amendment and the product patent regime that it will bring about, is the retardation of the growth of science itself. The same capitalist system, which in its rising phase had given birth to modern science, is now turning against science in its moribund phase, stressing only the technological aspects while neglecting theoretical or basic science. The Scientific Revolution took place in the era of ascendant capitalism, hand in hand with the revolutionising of productive forces through the growth of technology and the Industrial Revolution. Modern science classified perceptual knowledge, and built conceptual knowledge by searching for the laws governing natural phenomena with the aim of purposeful utilisation of such laws. In this period, national barriers did not confine the growth of scientific knowledge. In capitalism, material production and the intellectual product used in the process of material production assume social character, but the means of production and the profit from production remain under individual ownership, giving rise to an irreconcilable contradiction which can disappear only with the destruction of capitalism. But despite this historical limitation of capitalism, the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions led to the rapid and wide spread of knowledge of science and technology. The wide spread of scientific knowledge in turn led to its further growth through fresh hypotheses, experimentation and verification – through a collective process in an expanding scientific community. Similarly, technology grew through a process of observation, experimentation and adaptation. One of the ethics of science, in contrast to the narrow base and secrecy of feudal knowledge, was openness and sharing of knowledge. Even in the early and mid-twentieth century, though capitalism had already reached its moribund imperialist stage, this ethic was displayed in the actions of many scientists like Marie Curie, Alexander Fleming and Jonas Salk bequeathing their inventions and discoveries to mankind, without any reward for themselves.

But as giant monopoly companies began to dominate the production process, they also began to control the process of technological innovation, using scientists and engineers as their salaried employees. Multinational corporations converted scientific and technological knowledge itself into a form of private property, though the character of its production too was social. Thus, monopoly capitalism brought about the system of patenting inventions and discoveries. The patent owner was not the individual scientist or inventor, but the company itself, while the actual inventors were mere wage-earners. Initially, the patenting system was for processes, which prevented another manufacturer from using the same process. Process patenting by itself restricted the possibilities of improvements in a particular process, by conferring a monopoly on one company. The product patent system is still worse. It prevents the development of even alternative processes, which may be more cost-effective and efficient. The patent-holding company’s monopoly acts as a fetter on technological development, because the patent-holding company has a monopoly on the product and any process to manufacture it. Further, such patenting is a disincentive even for research in theoretical sciences in the same area, given the broad scope of patents and the huge royalties involved. Therefore, product patenting throttles science itself. In this third phase of intense general crisis of capitalism, knowledge, discoveries and inventions are also being sold in the market as means of production, generating huge profits for MNCs. MNCs thus profit from the sale of goods as well as sale of knowledge commodified through product patents. The product patent system was initially confined to the imperialist nations through their national laws, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, the imperialist nations and their MNCs successfully introduced a universal system of protection of "intellectual property rights" through TRIPS at the conclusion of the Uruguay round of GATT. Members of WTO were required to amend their national patent laws and introduce a product patent system.

Public Health Consequences of the Amendment Bill

The Third Amendment Bill will have serious consequences for public health. Under the present process patent regime, relatively low-cost and locally manufactured generic drugs are available for patients suffering from a wide range of ailments, many of them chronic and life-threatening, like diabetes, asthma, hypertension, coronary diseases, schizoprenia, depression, cancer, HIV/AIDS, arthritis, spondylitis and respiratory/urinary tract infections. These relatively cheap generic drugs will no longer be available in the market once the Third Amendment is passed and product patents are granted to companies with pending patent applications for drugs for these ailments. The practice of `reverse engineering’ – preparing the same product through a different process, which was in vogue throughout the process patent era, will no longer be legal. Legalising product patents will also imply that the fruits of scientific innovation will be denied to people at large, as new and better drugs that replace older ones with harmful side effects will become inaccessible due to their high prices. Many such are currently being reverse engineered and sold cheaply by local manufacturers. (`Patently Unfair’, Ammu Joseph, The Hindu, December 12, 2004) Warnings about these serious consequences of a product patents regime for people’s health were issued when the Dunkel Draft was in the discussion stage itself.

Closures and Job Losses in the Pharmaceutical Industry

After the Indian Government joined the WTO, the processes of globalisation and liberalisation have led to the closure and downsizing of public sector units like Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and Hindustan Antibiotics Limited. The small-scale units which used to work as ancillaries of these large PSUs have also been shut outright or have retrenched thousands of workers. In the private sector, the giant pharmaceutical companies have been going on a merger and acquisition spree, leading to large-scale job losses both in the production and marketing side. Smaller units have been unable to compete with the superior technology of the pharmaceutical giants and have lost their market. With the Government coming out with new quality norms for pharmaceutical production as a part of improving the competitiveness of domestic industry, hundreds more small scale units are facing imminent closure. With the passage of the Third Amendment Bill and the enforcement of product patents, the trend of monopolisation will be further accentuated. There will be further instability as even giant Indian companies lose part of their market to MNCs. Newer technologies of production will destroy rather than create jobs. For shop-floor workers and frontline marketing staff of pharmaceutical companies, future employment prospects and service conditions will be grim.

The Amendment Bill Goes Even Beyond TRIPS

A number of other glaring shortcomings of the draft Bill have been pointed out. There are no clear-cut provisions for the Indian Government to issue compulsory licenses for the manufacture of a patented product in India if a patent holder does not "respond to production on reasonable commercial terms within a stipulated period". There is no restriction on the royalty that a patent holder can charge. The provision in the Second Amendment Act for "pre-grant opposition" to patent applications on grounds of frivolousness or spuriousness (i.e. not new or novel discoveries) has been diluted to "pre-grant representation", which can be filed only after the patent has already been granted. Under "patentable subject matter", the draft Bill has reproduced the controversial provision in the Second Amendment Act, which allows for patenting of micro-organisms, and non-biological and micro-biological processes. Whether these are patentable subjects is a matter under review in TRIPS itself and many member-nations of the WTO, apart from eminent scientists, have argued that no patenting of any life form should ever be allowed as this will arrest the growth of science itself. (`The Patent Controversy’. Rajeev Dhavan, The Hindu, December 10, 2004)

It has also been reported that consumer groups, and prominent groups and NGOs working on health and patent issues, are opposing the Bill, for example the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign, the National Working Group on Patent Laws, and Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Environment. (The Hindu, December 8, 2004). According to them, the Bill provides a loophole for pharmaceutical companies to apply for patents for existing drugs for which a `new use’ has supposedly been found. There is no obligation under TRIPS to issue patents for different uses and/or dosages of known medicines. Yet the draft Bill provides scope for such ‘evergreening’ of patents. In doing so, it even goes against the recommendation of the Government’s own Committee on Pharmaceutical Research and Development that patents be limited to `new chemical entity/ new medical entity’. This essentially means that off-patent drugs used for even common ailments, which are in the generic category, will get patented and monopolised, thereby leading to a rise in their prices too.

One of the points highlighted by these groups is that the draft Bill effectively prohibits Indian companies from exporting to Least Developed Countries. The groups correctly point out that the 30th August 2003 decision of the TRIPS Council permits such exports as a part of compulsory licensing. From the perspective of public health of LDCs, this issue is undoubtedly important. The UK-based international relief and development agency Oxfam has expressed concern over the impact of the proposed Amendment on the availability of affordable generic medicines around the world. The agency has said that competition from Indian generic companies has played a vital role in reducing the prices of life-saving HIV/AIDS and other medicines. (The Hindu, December 3, 2004)

Opposition from Domestic Industry

While these groups present these arguments from an international public health perspective, for Indian companies, these are not acts of charity but international market opportunities, which they do not want to give up easily under the pressure of TRIPS. But the most lucrative markets for generics that Indian companies want to protect are not LDCs (51 countries designated as such by the UN, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa) but India and the US. In a note submitted to the Group of Ministers now studying the Amendment Bill, the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), which represents the interests of major Indian pharmaceutical companies like Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy’s, accounting for over 30 percent of sales in the domestic market and over one-third of the export market, has said that the Bill will seriously compromise the ability of domestic industry to achieve its ambitious export target of Rs. 90,000 crores by 2010. Many patents would have expired in the US, but Indian companies would not be able to enter the US generics market as they would be bound by product patents in India granted to multinationals. Moreover, an estimated Rs. 3000 crores of the domestic drug market would get covered by multinational patents overnight. The Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA), notes that most of the over 4000 applications for pharmaceutical patents in the `mailbox’ are for pre-1995 drugs, seeking patent protection for drugs which are already being marketed by domestic companies. IPA also says that multinationals are resorting to certain strategies to delay the introduction of generic drugs after the expiry of patents. For example, certain impurities in medical substances are being patented as chemical compounds. IPA therefore has said, "This Bill should therefore clearly provide that patents intended to delay the entry of generics such as patents for polymorphs, hydrates, isomers, metabolites, particle size and blood levels must not be permitted". (The Hindu, November 28 2004)

The arguments presented by domestic industry, NGOs and public interest groups clearly show that the Amendment Bill has such provisions which even TRIPS does not require it to have. These arguments suggest that a section of the Indian pharmaceutical sector and public health and consumer groups are actually trying to join hands to block the Amendment Bill. But it should be clearly understood that none of these groups, or domestic companies, are against TRIPS or WTO per se, they are only demanding of the Government to make use of the so-called `flexibilities’ in the TRIPS Agreement.

No `Managed’ Trade in WTO: Power of Capital Determines Capacity to Earn Maximum Profit

In fact, recent developments have shown that there is no real `flexibility’ under TRIPS, as is made out by NGOs and public health groups. Whenever countries have tried to take advantage of such `flexibility’ they have been targeted by MNCs and governments of imperialist countries, led by the US. The Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health in the Doha Ministerial Meeting of WTO in 2000 has been rendered hollow by the bilateral bullying tactics of the US government and the MNCs. This bullying even forces developing countries to adopt `TRIPS-plus’ measures – measures that are not required even by the TRIPS Agreement - which will further favour MNCs. (`US Bullying on Drug Patents: One Year After Doha’. Oxfam Briefing Paper 33, 2002) Such tactics have undoubtedly been adopted by the US Government against the Indian Government, and the outcome in the form of the draft Patents (Amendment) Bill, weighted heavily in favour of the MNCs, is clear proof of this. The Government has taken a position that such a concession is unavoidable in the aggregate interest of Indian capitalism and its imperialistic urges, in return for promised, but unrevealed concessions by the imperialists in other sectors. It must be remembered that in the Uruguay Round of GATT too, the Indian Government had initially opposed intellectual property rights being brought under the purview of GATT, but later on had done a volte-face hoping to gain concessions for textiles and agriculture in exchange for giving concessions on IPRs. Therefore, there is little hope for either public health, or export markets for generic pharmaceuticals from developing countries, by making use of these so-called flexibilities in TRIPS. Ultimately, it is the power of capital that determines the ability to compete, capture markets and earn maximum profit. Imperialist nations and developing nations can never be at par, no matter what the written rules of WTO and TRIPS are, so acute are the contradictions between them.

Indian Bourgeoisie’s Response to TRIPS

There has been a significant increase in patent applications in India since 1994-95, when the policy changes began taking place. But there is a significant increase in the proportion of foreign to domestic applications in the post-1995 period as compared to previous years. MNCs have been able to take advantage of changes in patent laws much faster and have rapidly increased their applications since 1995. Though there is also a rising trend in domestic patent applications, this is in no way due to the uniformly increased ability of domestic companies to take advantage of changes in patent laws. Domestic patenting activity is confined to a very small number of public and private institutions. (`Policy Implications of India’s Patent Reforms’. Anitha Ramanna. Economic and Political Weekly, May 25, 2002) But Indian companies are not accepting this fate of being out-competed by MNCs passively. They are trying a number of alternative strategies simultaneously, clearly showing the typical dual character of the Indian bourgeoisie that had been recognised by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh long back. On the one hand, in order to satisfy their imperialistic urge for a share of the global market, they are fiercely competing with MNCs. On the other hand, in the absence of the alternative market that had been provided by the erstwhile socialist camp, and increasingly constrained by the aggressive strategies of MNCs backed by imperialist nations led by the US, they are entering into collaboration with MNCs as junior partners. The strategies adopted by the top Indian pharmaceutical companies in recent years have included export-led growth through subsidiaries or acquisitions in high-margin markets, partnering with MNCs through licensing, collaborative R&D or co-marketing arrangements, and contract research and manufacturing. Indian generic drug makers who have successfully developed alternative processes for the manufacture of patented drugs are aggressively challenging patent claims and trying to have longer exclusivity periods. In 2003, Indian companies filed over 126 drug sale applications in the US, accounting for 20 percent of all drugs coming into the US market. MNCs in turn see major cost advantages in outsourcing manufacturing and clinical research to Indian companies. Clinical research outsourcing to Indian companies has seen fast growth, with MNCs like Pfizer doubling its R&D investment in India. Studies indicate that a handful of large domestic pharmaceutical firms like Dr. Reddys, Nicholas Piramal and Ranbaxy have the capacity to use their aptitude for reverse engineering for new drug discovery. They are in turn selling these new molecules to MNCs for further development and sale. The Indian Government is in turn providing a range of tax concessions to encourage such R&D. (Ernst & Young Global Pharma Report 2004; IMS Pharma 16 June 2000; `Pharmaceuticals: Uneasy Alliance’, Economic and Political Weekly Editorial, October 19, 2002)

Indian Corporates’ Opposition to Bill Half-hearted

Now, as the deadline for amending the Indian Patents Act and introduction of product patents has been reached, it is clear that the top Indian pharmaceutical companies have expectedly lost the race for patenting against the MNCs, and face the prospect of losing their domestic and international market for generics to the MNCs. They are desperately lobbying the Government to remove at least some of the `TRIPs-plus’ provisions in the Amendment Bill and curb the patent applications of MNCs which will reduce even their domestic market. The Indian pharmaceutical companies are increasingly faced with the prospect of becoming only adjuncts or junior partners of MNCs.

Companies like Dr. Reddy’s, Ranbaxy and Nicholas Piramal are all members of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which has openly opposed the Third Amendment Bill in its present form. While these companies have partnerships and alliances with MNCs, they also have sharp contradictions with them over the market – both the domestic market and export markets like the US generics market. However, it should be underlined that the opposition of the IPA to the Amendment Bill is dictated only by the narrow business interests of each of its members and their assessment of whether their profit lines will be improved or damaged by the Bill, all in a fluid business environment. It is reported that Cipla has parted ways with the IPA, and other companies too are vacillating. (www.pharmabiz.com) The opposition of domestic industry to the Bill is therefore partial, half-hearted and unreliable.

Congress, NDA Join Hands

Reports suggest that the draft Bill has been discussed in a Group of Ministers, where the issue of `pre-grant objection’ has been raised by a minister. Nevertheless, Commerce Minister Kamal Nath has only conceded that a "credible" pre-grant opposition procedure, which "cannot go on infinitely", will at best be provided. (The Telegraph, October 25, 2004) The NDA has completely backed the Bill in its present form, with former Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley of the BJP merely vaguely asking for safeguards for consumers and domestic industry. (Times of India, October 22, 2004) The first two Amendments to the Patent Act had been wholly supported by the Congress when it was in the Opposition, and the NDA is doing likewise now when it is in the Opposition. It has also been reported that the Third Amendment Bill is the same as that tabled by the NDA in Parliament in December 2003, but which could not be passed then. In short, there is no difference at all between the BJP-led NDA Government and the Congress-led UPA Government on amending the Patent Act in conformity with TRIPS. This is unsurprising, as both parties are bourgeois parties, which formulate laws and policies in the aggregate interest of the Indian bourgeoisie – the Indian ruling class, which has no interest in the development of science or the health of its people. Between them, the two major bourgeois parties have sufficient number of seats in Parliament to pass the Amendment Bill, and they are committed to do so. It only remains to be seen whether a few last-minute minor changes will be made to satisfy the anxieties of the top Indian pharmaceutical firms.

Treacherous Role of the CPI(M)-CPI

The Left parties – the CPI(M), CPI, RSP and Forward Bloc – have played a dubious role. They first demanded that the draft Bill be referred to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament and discussed thoroughly, inviting opinions from all sections of society. (Economic Times, November 13, 2004) But after a meeting with the Union Ministers of Commerce, S&T and Defence, the CPI(M)-CPI abruptly dropped this demand and agreed to place their detailed suggestions in a letter to the Government. (The Hindu, November 20, 2004) What was the reason for this sudden turnaound? What transpired in this meeting to make the CPI(M)-CPI change their stand? The demand for reference to a Joint Select Committee might at least have served to delay passage of the Bill. A mere letter to the Government counts only as token opposition, which the Government can also pretend to take into account. The letter to the Government has not been made public, but an earlier note published in the CPI(M) organ People’s Democracy gives some pointers as to what the CPI(M)-CPI’s demands are like. The position taken is that fundamental changes in the Patents Act 1970 need to be carefully examined, "so as not to compromise the interests of India’s pharmaceutical industry and its ability to service the health care needs of the country"…"domestic laws, while being TRIPS compliant, need to make full use of "flexibilities" available in the TRIPS agreement"…"it is also necessary to press for a review of the TRIPS agreement itself – something that is mandated in the original agreement, but which has not been followed up"…"the principal concern should be that the amended law protects the country’s interest adequately". (`Left Parties Note on Third Patents (Amendment) Bill’. People’s Democracy. Volume 28, No. 47, November 21, 2004)

The CPI(M)-CPI’s position therefore is one of protecting a vaguely defined `national interest’ and protecting the Indian pharmaceutical industry, which has the "ability to service the health needs of the country". Its position is that while being a member of WTO, the Indian Government must demand review of TRIPS, as mandated in the TRIPS Agreement and must not concede more than what TRIPS requires. We have shown through our analysis above that the `flexibility’ of TRIPS and the commitment of the Indian pharmaceutical industry to `national interest’ are mere myths. The Indian pharmaceutical industry is interested only in the global market, of which the Indian market is but a part, and it is opposing only some aspects of the Bill. It has been the position of the CPI(M) right from the beginning that the Indian State is led by the "big bourgeoisie", who are surrendering to imperialism through the WTO. But the CPI(M) has no fundamental opposition to India’s membership of the WTO. It has no fundamental opposition to the concept of product patents and the destructive effect it has on the development of science. In sum, through its compromising stance and its refusal to mobilise people’s opinion at the grassroots against all the previous and pending amendments to the Patents Act, the CPI(M) has once again betrayed the working class and common people it claims to represent. Once again, the CPI(M)-CPI have proved themselves to be a compromising social-democratic force between labour and capital, as pointed out by Comrade Shibdas Ghosh when he began his struggle for the formation of SUCI in 1946.

Common People Fundamentally Opposed to the Bill

But for the working class and the common people, the opposition to the Bill is fundamental. Firstly, as discussed earlier, the Amendment Bill and the product patent regime it will bring about will act as a fetter on the development of science and technology itself. This will threaten the future of humanity and civilisation itself, as the ability to understand the laws of nature and to harness nature for the benefit of mankind will be severely impaired. Secondly, as is well-known, public healthcare is all but absent in India. Public health expenditure as a proportion of GDP has been relentlessly falling. Under the influence of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation policies, there is a further attempt to reduce Government expenditure on healthcare. The National Health Policy 2002 went a step further and suggested that `user charges’ should be imposed on those who use Government healthcare services. All this means that the common people are at the mercy of the completely unregulated private sector – private practitioners and private or corporate clinics and hospitals, the vast majority of whom charge exorbitantly for their services. There is no doubt that prices of both common generic drugs and new inventions will sharply increase after the product patent regime comes into effect, with the passage of the Third Amendment. The common people will therefore be doubly burdened – by expensive and unregulated private practitioners and hospitals and by expensive medicine. The Commerce Minister’s assurance in the face of the token opposition from the CPI(M)-CPI parties that measures will be taken to prevent price rise after the introduction of product patents has no substance whatsoever. The National Pharmaceutical Policy 2002 expressed the "need for reducing further the rigours of price control particularly in view of the ongoing process of liberalisation". Essentially, this meant that the basket of drug price control shrunk from the 74 bulk drugs and formulations under the Drug (Price Control) Order of 1975, to about 30. (`Pharmaceuticals: Peripheral Vision’. Economic and Political Weekly, November 23, 2002) Further, it is well known that the Essential Drugs List prepared by the Government is not enforced and these drugs are never available in the constantly under-funded and mal-administered public health facilities. Consequently, patients are prescribed formulations, the ceiling prices of which are not monitored by the Government at the level of the retailer. Hence, even if the prices of bulk drugs are controlled, patients follow doctors’ prescriptions and are routinely sold the highest priced formulations by retailers. These formulations are manufactured by the top pharmaceutical companies that make huge profits through this process. In this virtually uncontrolled price environment, the product patent regime, which will exacerbate monopolisation, will inevitably lead to a steep rise in prices of all essential drugs. What then remains of the tall promises in the CPI(M)-CPI-supported UPA Government’s Common Minimum Programme: "The UPA government will take all steps to ensure availability of life-savings drugs at reasonable prices"?

Scrap Amendments, Withdraw from WTO

In conclusion, we can say that our earlier analyses of imperialist globalisation is upheld by the international and national developments in TRIPS and the pharmaceutical industry. We had said that after the collapse of the socialist camp which had hitherto acted as an alternative market for the developing countries, the Indian bourgeoisie, having an independent sovereign national state of its own, are left with no other choice to fulfil their own imperialistic urge than to go for the integration of the Indian economy with the global market economy. In their attempt to find an easy and wide entry into the foreign markets which are already in the grip of the highly developed capitalist-imperialist countries and also their powerful multinationals, the Indian bourgeoisie are obliged to enter into collaboration with them and in return to open entry into the Indian market for those multinationals. This is what served as the motivation for its signing the GATT, agreeing with the Dunkel proposals without paying any heed to the country-wide people’s protest movement against the same. (Resolution on National Situation: Adopted at the First All India Plenum, 1994; On Latest Designs of Imperialism, 1998) Therefore, the CPI(M)-led Left parties are only perpetuating an illusion that the Indian people can oppose imperialism in alliance with the Indian Government and the Indian bourgeoisie, while remaining within the WTO. The Amendments to the Patent Act 1970 in accordance with TRIPS are both out and out anti-people and against the future development of science. The new patent laws therefore threaten humanity and civilisation itself. Our demands are loud and clear. Withdraw the Third Amendment Bill, and scrap the earlier amendments to the Patent Act. Our demand that the Government of India must pull out of WTO immediately, is the only correct demand which provides the correct political direction to the people, namely, to build up people’s movements against the Indian bourgeoisie, which has joined WTO to satisfy its imperialist aspirations, thereby fully opening the door to imperialist-capitalist attack on the common people of India.