Was the Country Wrong? Why India?Essay Preview: Was the Country Wrong? Why India?Report this essayWas the country wrong? Why India?In my opinion, the country is right, because India has a very large population, in 1990 Indias population reached 800 million. Even though in 1990 figures for per capita annual expenditure on drugs in India were estimated at US$3, which is much fewer than developed country. However, the total expenditure on drugs in India was still 2 billion and 400 million dollars. This huge number represented a very potential market in India. In addition, the dawn of the 1990s saw India initiating economic reform and embracing globalization. Foreign direct investment was encouraged by increasing the maximum limit of foreign ownership to 51 percent in the drugs and pharmaceutical industry. These two reasons in 1990 indicate that India is a good choice to invest.
The Economic Reversal of the Age of Big Agitation
The economic downturn of 1991-1991 has brought about a rise in drug-related crime in India. In 1995, the figure was 500,000 deaths, mostly because the country took part in the drug-related riots against the government and the government failed to act in good faith. In 2003, the violence began to decrease. In 2004 and 2005, government officials in the country stopped using drugs and stopped their use for fear that a crackdown could lead to a rise in drug traffic and the illegal trafficking of drugs from the illegal to the illegal trade.
The government has used economic incentives to provide economic incentives to businesses in order to create higher revenues in order to enhance services or to make up for a shortage. This has resulted in high drug prices, such as opium, heroin and other narcotic drugs, which are used mainly for the sale and distribution of narcotics.
The government has also created policies designed to promote the illegal trade. In 1993-4, the government launched three large drug rehabilitation programs.
At the same time, the government increased the number of rehabilitation centers. According to the 2007 NAM, drug rehabilitation is the most important source of income for citizens of India. The government also undertook comprehensive rehabilitation programs after the 2006 riots, including a drug rehabilitation program which provided 50,000 medical treatment units per year, and two multi-use residential rehabilitation programs which provided 10,000 units per year and 400 units of housing rehabilitation. Government-run drug rehabilitation centers are also in operation including more than 15,000 drug rehabilitation units, 30,000 rehabilitation units and 10,000 community programs.
In 1992, the Indian Centre for Human Rights and Crime (NCHDCC), where the state government provided about US$400 million of grants for state-run rehabilitation programs, began to develop facilities for treatment for Indian citizens of India. Indian citizens have been receiving intensive education in the state-oriented rehabilitation programs. This has led to the rapid adoption of the “three-year diploma” program that is offered by the Indian Department of External Affairs (DOE), which aims at improving educational attainment in young individuals.
As a result, the federal government has also started to introduce the program, including for the sale of drugs to the population of the country, which was conducted through a national scheme in 1998. The current rehabilitation program is conducted through the National Action Plan (NAP) and has the support of government agencies.
A significant component of the rehabilitation program is called the ‘Citizens Recovery Assistance Program’ . In this program, citizens of India receive a number of social welfare and vocational training. These include vocational training and career training in human rehabilitation. In addition, the government will contribute to the rehabilitation of the population using this program. Although it does not specify what kind of rehabilitation program the government has already started, certain activities of the government have led to the rehabilitation of some citizens. Many of these activities have included:
The provision of jobs to the young people of the country who need these jobs with the help of social welfare schemes
Support for the community
Advocating the development of vocational skills to help a young person’s health
Policing the local government to improve rural and urban infrastructure
Research and development
Nationalisation of private sector enterprises
In a nutshell, these programs contribute to maintaining the vitality of the country and to bringing its people to its prosperity. The current rehabilitation program in India is still in progress.
The Economic Reversal of the Age of Big Agitation
The economic downturn of 1991-1991 has brought about a rise in drug-related crime in India. In 1995, the figure was 500,000 deaths, mostly because the country took part in the drug-related riots against the government and the government failed to act in good faith. In 2003, the violence began to decrease. In 2004 and 2005, government officials in the country stopped using drugs and stopped their use for fear that a crackdown could lead to a rise in drug traffic and the illegal trafficking of drugs from the illegal to the illegal trade.
The government has used economic incentives to provide economic incentives to businesses in order to create higher revenues in order to enhance services or to make up for a shortage. This has resulted in high drug prices, such as opium, heroin and other narcotic drugs, which are used mainly for the sale and distribution of narcotics.
The government has also created policies designed to promote the illegal trade. In 1993-4, the government launched three large drug rehabilitation programs.
At the same time, the government increased the number of rehabilitation centers. According to the 2007 NAM, drug rehabilitation is the most important source of income for citizens of India. The government also undertook comprehensive rehabilitation programs after the 2006 riots, including a drug rehabilitation program which provided 50,000 medical treatment units per year, and two multi-use residential rehabilitation programs which provided 10,000 units per year and 400 units of housing rehabilitation. Government-run drug rehabilitation centers are also in operation including more than 15,000 drug rehabilitation units, 30,000 rehabilitation units and 10,000 community programs.
In 1992, the Indian Centre for Human Rights and Crime (NCHDCC), where the state government provided about US$400 million of grants for state-run rehabilitation programs, began to develop facilities for treatment for Indian citizens of India. Indian citizens have been receiving intensive education in the state-oriented rehabilitation programs. This has led to the rapid adoption of the “three-year diploma” program that is offered by the Indian Department of External Affairs (DOE), which aims at improving educational attainment in young individuals.
As a result, the federal government has also started to introduce the program, including for the sale of drugs to the population of the country, which was conducted through a national scheme in 1998. The current rehabilitation program is conducted through the National Action Plan (NAP) and has the support of government agencies.
A significant component of the rehabilitation program is called the ‘Citizens Recovery Assistance Program’ . In this program, citizens of India receive a number of social welfare and vocational training. These include vocational training and career training in human rehabilitation. In addition, the government will contribute to the rehabilitation of the population using this program. Although it does not specify what kind of rehabilitation program the government has already started, certain activities of the government have led to the rehabilitation of some citizens. Many of these activities have included:
The provision of jobs to the young people of the country who need these jobs with the help of social welfare schemes
Support for the community
Advocating the development of vocational skills to help a young person’s health
Policing the local government to improve rural and urban infrastructure
Research and development
Nationalisation of private sector enterprises
In a nutshell, these programs contribute to maintaining the vitality of the country and to bringing its people to its prosperity. The current rehabilitation program in India is still in progress.
Was deciding to partner wrong? Is partnership a good or bad thing?Actually，partnership is a good thing for Lilly company to enter India market. On the one hand, some resistance was met due to the recognition that a lot of Lillys products were already being sold by Indian manufacturers due to the lack of patent protection. On the other hand, Lilly was a name that most physicians in India did not recognize despite its leadership position in the United States. The joint venture will help Lillys product increase recognition. Secondly, Eli Lilly Ranbaxy sounded foreign enough for Indian people, in that period, where “good quality” rightly or wrongly, was associated with foreign imported goods. Thirdly, joint venture always takes some advantages and tax benefit provided by local government.
3. Was the partner choice wrong?The partner choice is right. Firstly, Ranbaxy was the leader within India while Lilly is still unfamiliar brand for Indian people. In that case, Ranbaxy will enhance the recognition for Lilly. Secondly, with Ranbaxys help, it is getting easy for Lilly getting government approvals, licenses, distribution and supplies. Thirdly, Lilly could leverage distribution network that Ranbaxy established and Lilly did not want to invest heavily in setting up a distribution network.
4.Was the JV structure wrong?The JV structure was right, because an initial subscribed equity capital of Rs84 million (US$3 million), with equal contribution from Lilly and Ranbaxy, leading to an equity ownership of 50 percent each. Meanwhile, the board of directors for the JV would comprise six directors, three from each company. A management committee was also created comprising two directors, one from each company, In that case, both parties make equal contribution and take equal responsibilities, so they could supervise each other, and this kind of 50% to 50% structure in favor of long term development of VJ.
5.Was the JV leadership wrong?The JV leadership was right, from March 1993, Andrew Mascarenhas, an American citizen of Indian origin assigned as managing director of the joint venture. Rajiv Gulati was response for marketing and sales at the JV. These two people collaborate closely. They both