Companies & Sectors
India needs to design policies that enable greater innovation
As the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) begins its platinum jubilee celebrations, it is time for India to take stock of not only its contributions to technology and research and development -- but also the contributions of Indias broader national system of innovation.
The importance of innovation cannot be overstated at the current juncture. With the world innovating at breakneck speed in several areas, it is time for India to embrace innovation as a paradigm and a long-run principle for making it more competitive.
Several schemes and institutions before and several schemes under the present dispensation do have an innovation focus. But what is needed is policy coherence over a longer time-frame. In this regard, the work of individuals and bodies like the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) becomes important. A critical element is the innovation environment -- the conditions for innovation to take place.
This includes, but is not limited to, availability of technologies for scaling, access to funding at initial stages, mentorship, leadership, availability of thinking and skilled individuals, basic infrastructure, access to markets and the like.
A forthcoming report done by us (due for release on September 30) does look at some of these elements, sourcing data from secondary sources for constructing a composite index of innovation at the state level in India. Apart from this, the report also looks at other aspects of innovation and does seek to provide direction to improve India's innovation performance over the longer time frame. The distinct learning and findings that emerge from the report are:
First, India needs to improve its performance at the national level. Several countries like the US, Israel, Sweden and, increasingly, China have invested greatly in R&D efforts and continue to do so. These have helped them reap rich dividends.
This is because such efforts have been instrumental in the development of inventions that lead to innovations and globally-competitive industries over time. It starts with increasing the R&D spend as a percentage of GDP. The need is also for making research a preferred career choice, as researchers per capita are at dismally low levels in India.
Another crucial area to focus on is creative outputs like publications, patents, copyrights and industrial designs, et al. India is continuing to become more robust in this regard but much needs to be done to improve further.
Another related area is the policy regime. Better design of laws and policies in crucial areas like industrial policy, intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment, and greater coherence between these and other areas that have a bearing on a national system of innovation will help in better innovation performance in India.
Second, at the state level, the performance of innovation shows a mixed bag. The index does work out a categorisation, with eleven indicators being used for building a stage of development. At the top of the Index are states like Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat. In various categories stacked from the most innovative to the least innovative states, the top performers in each category include Delhi, Uttarakhand, Goa, Sikkim and Mizoram.
At the state level, another imperative is improving linkages between state-level universities, MSMEs and R&D institutions. Even in states that do relatively well on innovation, few policies at present exist for improving the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem. Over time, more policies like the one existing in Karnataka for innovation called the "I4 Policy" need to come up.
Third, at a sectoral level, some sectors in India have done well while others show potential. An overarching theme is that several sectors have moved from a technology push to a more collaborative and open approach. Another important point is that the teaching and research ecosystem, which is linked to specific sectors, does have a positive impact on development of the sector and sectoral innovation.
The sectors that have done so are able to reap rich dividends with several private research labs coming up in distinct locations and the sectors becoming globally competitive over time. These include the automobiles, pharmaceuticals, food processing and biotechnology sectors.
The defence production sector has had several impediments over time and despite the good work of research organisations like DRDO and its production organisations there is a tremendous cost to the nation. It is because India has had to import the bulk of its defence equipment and this has a huge bearing, as costs of procurement from outside are exorbitantly high. The government now seems to be moving in the right direction.
Over time, policymakers must take these considerations into account for designing policies that enable greater innovation. The focus must also be on greater research on how to improve the country's current innovation ecosystem.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.


Donald Trump and the Return of Seditious Libel

In 1733, New York printer John Peter Zenger began publishing the eighth newspaper in the American colonies, and the first willing to venture criticism of the government. The New-York Weekly Journal was the second paper in a city of 10,000 or so people, 1700 of them slaves.


As we are reminded in Richard Kluger's comprehensive new book, "Indelible Ink," the first full-length account of Zenger's travails, by 1735, Zenger (and the likely editor of his paper, James Alexander) had so offended Britain's royal governor of New York and New Jersey, William Cosby, that Cosby brought suit against Zenger for seditious libel—the crime of criticizing the government. Under the law then in effect in Britain and its colonies, truth was not a defense to this charge. The leading legal treatise of the day explained that "since the greater appearance there is of truth in any malicious invective, so much the more provoking it is." And: "The malicious prosecution of even truth itself cannot… be suffered to interrupt the tranquility of a well-ordered society." This was deemed especially the case with true attacks on those in power, as they would have "a direct tendency to breed in the people a dislike of their governors and incline them to faction and sedition."


New Yorkers in 1735, though, weren't buying it. While the jury in the Zenger trial was instructed that the truth of Zenger's attacks on Cosby was no defense, Zenger's lawyer argued that it should be, and asked the jury, if they found the stories true, to acquit the printer. This the jury did, striking a dramatic blow against the law of seditious libel, and launching a proud American tradition, ratified in 1791 in the First Amendment, and laid out over the centuries in a range of Supreme Court decisions.


For at least the last 30 years, since Chief Justice William Rehnquist acquiesced in the constitutionalization of the law of libel, which has safeguarded the American press for more than a half century, we appeared to have a consensus in this country around our modern system of protections for the value of a free and untrammeled press to the process of self-government.


Until now. This year, for the first time since at least Richard Nixon, the leader of one of our major political parties has pledged to limit press freedom by restricting criticism of his prospective rule.


But Nixon's threats were private, revealed only by his own taping system, while Donald Trump's are very public, loud and clear. And to be fair to Nixon, he never made good on his private threats, and in the one Supreme Court case he argued personally as a lawyer, he seemed to accept modern constitutional protections for libel.


In fact, Trump is more hostile to the legal and constitutional rights of the press than any major presidential candidate of the last two centuries. What he proposes is reminiscent of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 championed (to his immortal disgrace) by President John Adams in the last serious attempt to relitigate at the federal level what had seemed resolved in the Zenger case. It is cold comfort—although it may be some warning to Republicans inclined to go along—that Adams was not only defeated for re-election after passage of those laws, but lost the White House to Thomas Jefferson and his close associates James Madison and James Monroe for a quarter of a century, while Adams' Federalist Party never really recovered.


In case you think a comparison of Trump's goals with Zenger's opponents or the sponsors of the Alien and Sedition Acts is unfair, a quick review of the record may be in order.


Trump has said that most reporters are "absolute dishonest, absolute scum." He's said that "I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I've ever met. They're terrible."


In February he pledged that "one of the things I'm gonna do if I win, and I hope that I do, and we're certainly leading, is I'm gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're gonna open up those libel laws. So that when the New York Times writes a hit piece that is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money rather than have no chance of winning because they're totally protected. You see, with me, they're not protected, because I'm not like other people, but I'm not taking money, I'm not taking their money. We're gonna open up those libel laws, folks, and we're gonna have people sue you like you never got sued before."


Nor is a threat by Trump to sue for libel an idle one. In 2006 he brought such a suit against a book that asserted he had wildly overstated his wealth. He lost the case on the merits as well as for failure to prove fault. But the Washington Post reported that "Trump said in an interview that he knew he couldn't win the suit but brought it anyway to make a point. 2018I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make [author Tim O'Brien's] life miserable, which I'm happy about.'" Trump has also sued the Chicago Tribune and comedian Bill Maher, and threatened to sue the New York Times (more than once), ABC, the Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, the Huffington Post, reporter David Cay Johnston, TV host Lawrence O'Donnell and comedian Rosie O'Donnell


In the February rant, Trump also seemed to threaten to force Jeff Bezos to divest himself of the Washington Post, asserting that it had been purchased to obtain political influence, and declaring that such purchases should be forbidden.


Asked in June if his stance on the press would continue as president, he said, "Yeah, it is going to be like this… You think I'm gonna change? I'm not going to change." He repeated his view that "I am going to continue to attack the press. I find the press to be extremely dishonest. I find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest."


In August he tweeted that "It is not 2018freedom of the press' when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!"


Melania Trump's libel lawyer (she is suing the Daily Mail in Maryland for a story on her modeling days) is even more specific, saying that New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that established modern press protections, should be overruled.


Anyone paying attention knows there is a great deal at stake in this election. Freedom of the press in this country may be among those stakes.


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.



Amid date confusion, Google celebrates 18th birthday with Doodle
As Google celebrated its 18th birthday with an animated, festive-balloon Doodle on Tuesday, there were some confusion regarding the date as the search engine giant has celebrated its birthday on other days in the month of September in the past.
The company was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998. The company's own history lists its incorporation date in 1998 as September 4.
Since 2006, Google has celebrated its birthday on September 27, but the year before that, had it as September 26.
"In 2004, its 6th birthday Doodle went online on September 7 and in the year before that, it was September 8," the Telegraph reported.
Google has celebrated its birthday with a Doodle every year since its fourth birthday in 2002.
In fact, Google has spent much of the month of September, celebrating its birthday with sending out posts and decorating Googleplex - the corporate headquarters complex of Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc at Mountain View, Santa Clara county, California.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.



We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)