TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE MASHELKAR REPORT CONTROVERSY: PART II
I’ve deliberately changed the title of this “series” to enable a more constructive engagement with the debates around this theme. I’ve received a number of emails that continue to query me on why I argue that section 3(d) is incompatible with TRIPS and why my report stated so. I do no such thing. Let me use this post to briefly dispose of this issue. I’ve argued in an earlier post that section 3(d), according to my reading, is perfectly compatible […]
TOWARDS A CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE MASHELKAR REPORT CONTROVERSY: PART II Read More »


