Under his leadership, the company established world-class state-of-the-art research and manufacturing facilities covering Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) and finished dosage forms as well as infrastructure for new drug discovery.

He instilled the most stringent quality standards in his pharmaceutical enterprise. As a result, Micro Labs has to its credit, all the international regulatory approvals including US FDA, UK MHRA, Australian TGA etc., reflecting the high standards of quality and regulatory compliance of research and manufacturing facilities.

He pioneered the concept of specialty – wise focused divisions in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry and established various divisions that cater to special therapeutic segments in chronic disease management.

• Carsyon – Cardicare specialty division in 1994
• Synapse – Neurology – Psychiatry division in 1995
• Vision – Ophthalmology division in 1998
• Gratia – Dermatology Division in 1998
• Diabetic Task Force – Diabetology division in 2005
• Foresee – Nephrology – Division in 2008

He is a regular participant in various International seminars and summits relating to Pharma industry. He is instrumental in inducting Senior Pharma veterans in the company, to bring in the much needed professionalism in the company.

Recognizing the dynamism and contribution of Mr. Dilip Surana to the pharmaceutical Industry, he has been honored as the ‘Outstanding Entrepreneur of the year 2010’. Besides, Micro Labs is a regular recipient of IDMA Quality Excellence Awards, with a clean hat-trick of 3 awards in 2009, an unprecedented 4 in 2010and three consecutive awards in 2011. Micro Labs has also been conferred upon the ‘India’s Most Admired Pharma Company’ award in 2011.

As the semiconductor industry, vital for modern electronics, faces global supply chain disruptions, India is aiming to enhance its role in semiconductor manufacturing, driven by government initiatives like the National Policy on Electronics and substantial investments in semiconductor facilities. Despite challenges such as high costs and the need for skilled labour, India is making significant progress towards becoming a major player in the global semiconductor market.

On 11 September 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the SEMICON India 2024, wherein he highlighted India’s ambition to become a global hub for semiconductors, showcasing the nation’s growing role in the industry He highlighted India’s favourable ecosystem, ease of doing business, and a skilled workforce of 85,000 semiconductor experts, which has attracted Rs 1.5 trillion in investments.He stressed the significance of resilient supply chains and the combination of technology with democratic values, reaffirming India’s commitment to building a robust semiconductor industry and contributing to global efforts.

Semiconductors, which are central to the production of electronic devices, are projected to become a trillion-dollar industry by 2030.3 Semiconductors are essential for developing electronic components like transistors, diodes and integrated circuits (ICs). These components, together constitute a chip, and are the building blocks of modern electronics such as computers and smart devices, and form the crux of the automobile industry and also modern military weapons.

The semiconductor industry began to thrive in the 1960s, with China, Japan, South Korea, the United States and Taiwan, emerging as key players. Specialised companies with advanced manufacturing facilities, known as foundries, produce semiconductor chips for design firms, which are referred to as fabless companies. This allows the optimisation of chip manufacturing for multiple clients, and is integral to the global semiconductor ecosystem, allowing rapid scaling up and innovation. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and the multinational companies such as Global Foundries are examples of dedicated foundries creating ICs.

The semiconductor industry’s supply chain has faced significant disruptions due to various events such as the 2011 tsunami in Japan, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, and the Red Sea shipping crisis. The widespread lockdowns, worker shortages and disruptions to shipping and logistics led to chip shortages and increased prices, affecting the car manufacturing industry, digital devices for remote work, and other major electronics. Furthermore, with Taiwan being the leading hub for semiconductor production, the growing threat from China, along with trade disputes between the United States and China, underscores the need to diversify manufacturers and suppliers and to de-risk supply chains to reduce dependence on a limited number of suppliers.

Critical and strategic technologies increasingly drive innovation and modernisation within India’s manufacturing and technological sectors, with an aim to transform India into a global manufacturing hub by improving product and service quality to meet international standards. There is a strong emphasis on ‘Design in India, Design for the World’, encouraging the creation of products that serve both domestic and global markets.

India started its pursuit of semiconductor technology in 1976 when the Semi-Conductor Laboratory was founded in Mohali, Punjab However, the commercialisation of fabrication plants was not successful. ISRO and DRDO have their own semiconductor foundry system which is being utilised for their in-house productions. In order to establish a robust semiconductor ecosystem and give a boost to the electronics export market, India has set a goal of reaching US$ 500 billion in electronics production by 2030.This is in order to facilitate the integration of India into the Global Value Chains (GVCs) in the electronics and manufacturing domain

Amid the global economic shifts, India stands out as a strong investment and production hub for high-tech industries like clean energy, medical devices, electronics and ICT hardware. India has long been a leader in semiconductor design, housing 20 per cent of the world’s chip design talent Recently, the focus has shifted to semiconductor manufacturing, which was initiated with the partnership with the US-based Micron Technology in June 2023 to establish a major Assembly, Testing and Packaging (ATP) facility in Gujarat.

On 2 September 2024, the central government approved a proposal by Kaynes Semicon to establish a semiconductor Assembly, Testing, Marking and Packaging (ATMP) facility in Sanand, Gujarat, with an investment of Rs 3,307 crore. This is the fifth semiconductor unit approved under the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM). India is offering generous incentives to attract semiconductor investments, recognising the strategic importance of this industry amid other competing priorities.

Efforts to Establish a Global Semiconductor Hub

In 2019, the Government of India introduced the National Policy on Electronics (NPE) with the goal of making India a global centre for Electronics System Design and Manufacturing (ESDM) and fostering a robust semiconductor chip design ecosystem. The policy focuses on boosting domestic production and exports across the ESDM value chain, providing incentives for manufacturing core components, and supporting high-tech mega projects such as semiconductor facilities. It also encouraged R&D, innovation in emerging technologies and expansion of existing units, while promoting skill development and a special emphasis on areas such as fabless chip design, medical electronics and automotive electronics.

About Rs 76,000 crore was allocated for the development of India’s semiconductor and display manufacturing ecosystem under Semicon India programme held on 15 December 202.To support this goal, the government launched the Programme for Development of Semiconductors and Display Manufacturing Ecosystem in India on 21 December 2021.This programme provides incentives to companies involved in semiconductor and display manufacturing, covering areas such as Silicon Semiconductor Fabs, Display Fabs, Compound Semiconductors, Silicon Photonics, sensors and packaging. Additionally, the government has approved the modernisation of the Semi-Conductor Laboratory in Mohali as a brownfield Fab.

The India Semiconductor Mission, the appointed nodal agency, oversees the programme, which provides a fiscal incentive covering 50 per cent of the project cost for companies, consortia or joint ventures to establish Semiconductor Fabs, including mature nodes, and Display Fabs with specified technologies in India. On 29 February 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the establishment of three semiconductor units: a fabrication facility in Dholera Special Investment Region (DSIR), Gujarat, and Outsourced Semiconductor Assembly and Test (OSAT) facilities in Morigaon, Assam and Sanand, Gujarat. The foundations of these facilities worth about Rs 1.25 lakh crores were laid via video conferencing on 13 March 2024.

Source: Media Reports

India’s path to semiconductor self-reliance requires both national determination and coordinated efforts at the state level. Various states are taking the lead in this endeavour, implementing diverse strategies and incentives to achieve technological advancement. Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Odisha, Karnataka and Maharashtra are actively pursuing growth in the semiconductor industry with distinct strategies. Tamil Nadu has introduced a comprehensive semiconductor policy featuring financial incentives, infrastructure development and talent programmes, aiming to become a leader in semiconductor and advanced electronics manufacturing while addressing challenges like land acquisition and high operational costs.

Gujarat, through its Vibrant Gujarat initiative and the Gujarat Semiconductor Policy 2022–27, is attracting major investments with significant capital assistance and the creation of ‘Semicon City’ to enhance its semiconductor ecosystem.The semiconductor policy of Odisha offers incentives such as land cost reimbursement and subsidised power tariffs, capitalising on its deep-water ports and industrial corridors, though it needs to further develop its talent pool and infrastructure.Each state presents unique advantages and challenges, and streamlined regulatory processes and transparent governance will be crucial in attracting investments to the semiconductor sector.

Challenges to the Semiconductor Industry

Although various steps have been undertaken in way of creating a robust semiconductor manufacturing ecosystem, certain limitations remain. Chip manufacturing is highly complex and capital-intensive, requiring cutting-edge technology, sophisticated material and precision in the production process, which necessitates significant and sustained investment. The initial set-up for fabrication plants is cost-intensive. The Tata Electronics Private Limited (TEPL), the first commercial semiconductor fab at the Dholera Special Investment Region (DSIR), required an initial investment of over Rs 91,000 crores. Additionally, TEPL also set up an Outsourced Semiconductor Assembly and Test (OSAT) facility in Morigaon, Assam, with an investment of around Rs 27,000 crores, while CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited will build another OSAT facility in Sanand with an investment of about Rs 7,500 crores.

Developing a semiconductor manufacturing ecosystem in India presents significant challenges, including the need for uninterrupted power, vast quantities of clean water, and the establishment of expensive water purification facilities, especially for chip fabrication. Furthermore, establishing a successful semiconductor ecosystem depends heavily on attracting and nurturing a highly skilled workforce. In order to counter this limitation, there has been an attempt to connect the youth talent pool of the state to academia, educational institutions, and even R&D centres to the semiconductor mission by establishing Centres of Excellence (CoEs). These have been established in IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, Andhra Pradesh MedTech Zone Limited (AMTZ), Visakhapatnam and IIT Madras.

There have also been challenges and delays in joint venture efforts, like the Vedanta-Foxconn JV, which planned to set up a semiconductor fabrication facility in Dholera Special Investment Region (SIR). Foxconn withdrew from the agreement despite having signed an MoU with the Gujarat state government.

The semiconductor industry demands intricate processes and substantial investments in R&D and fabrication facilities. As chip sizes shrink, there is a growing need for innovation and skilled labour. To address these challenges, the Design Linked Incentive (DLI) Scheme has been introduced in January 2022 to provide financial incentives and design infrastructure support at various stages of semiconductor design and deployment, of between Rs 15–30 crore per applicant. Financial support is provided to domestic companies, start-ups and MSMEs from the domestic sector. Under the DLI scheme, the government has approved 12 companies for financial assistance of around Rs 133 crores, while 21 applications are still under review. These companies include DV2JS Innovation, Vervesemi Microelectronics, Fermionic Design, Morphing Machines, Calligo Technologies, Sensesemi Technologies, Saankhya Labs, Aheesa Digital Innovations, Netrasemi, Green PMU Semi, WiSig Networks and MosChip Technologies. The government aimed to fund at least 100 start-ups through the DLI scheme.

The Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), part of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), is responsible for implementing the DLI scheme, which includes Chip Design Infrastructure Support, Deployment Linked Incentive and Product Design Linked Incentive. Additionally, initiatives like the Scheme for the Promotion of Electronic Components and Semiconductor Manufacturing (SPECS) aimed to expand the country’s electronics manufacturing sector.However, this Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme expired in March 2024, and the government is currently considering revisions for a new PLI programme.

With its pivotal role in powering modern electronics, semiconductors are integral to technological advancements across various industries. India, recognising the strategic importance of this sector, has embarked on an ambitious journey to establish itself as a global semiconductor manufacturing hub. Despite challenges such as high capital costs, the need for skilled labour, and technology transfer restrictions, India is making strides through government initiatives, strategic partnerships and educational investments. The country’s focus on building a robust semiconductor ecosystem aligns with its broader goals of fostering innovation, building resilience in supply chains, attracting global investments and positioning itself as a leader in the global electronics and manufacturing landscape. By building on its current strengths in chip design and fostering growth in the domestic semiconductor sector, India aims to not only fulfil domestic demand but position itself as a significant player in the global semiconductor market.

As the five-year tenure of the Delhi government ends on February 23, 2025, the Election Commission has confirmed that the assembly elections will be held in the state before that. While announcing his resignation as chief minister, Kejriwal had called for Delhi assembly elections to be held in November. However, Kejriwal had recommended the resignation of the chief minister and the dissolution of the assembly. However, only the Chief Minister has changed in the state, as before, ‘AP’ is in power. Therefore, the BJP leaders have responded that it depends on the Election Commission when to hold the election before February 23, 2025. If there is no early election, Atishi’s term as Chief Minister will be only five months. It is futile to expect that much will change in Delhi politics in these five months. Because, Atishi will sit in the seat of the Chief Minister Sina, the Delhi government will be run by the ‘remote’ of the outgoing Chief Minister Kejriwal. There is no snake-rope relationship between the central government and the ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ government of the state. After the establishment of BJP rule at the Center in 2014, the BJP did not miss any opportunity to twist the ‘app’ government led by Kejriwal. The Lieutenant Governors or LGs appointed by the central government in Delhi have always tried to prop up Kejriwal and his government. The Supreme Court has consistently given assurance to the Kejriwal government, but the central government has usurped the power of the state government in various ways and asserted its dominance. A recent example is that the Supreme Court clarified through a judgment what should be the powers of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the scope of the powers of the elected government of the state, but the central government enacted a law through the Parliament and handed over all the powers in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor. The culmination of the years-long tussle between the central and state governments is the CBI probe into the Delhi corruption scandal and the arrest and jailing of the state’s chief minister, deputy chief minister and senior leaders by the CBI and ED. Manish Sisodia, the state’s Deputy Chief Minister and Abkari Minister, was first jailed for corruption. After him, ‘AP’ Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh and finally Chief Minister Arvind Kerjiwal. While the Aam Aadmi Party is complaining that the Delhi Abkari corruption case is only a conspiracy of the Central Government and the Aam Aadmi Party has been hatched through Delhi Deputy Governor Vinit Saxena, the BJP has been accusing Kejriwal’s government of being a ‘corrupt government’. It has been more than two years that the CBI, ED Delhi have been investigating the Abkari corruption case, but the trial of the case has been delayed due to the fact that they could not present concrete facts and evidence in the court. The Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused citing the violation of the constitutional right to liberty of the accused by keeping them in jail indefinitely pending investigation as it is uncertain when the trial will start and end. AAP leader Manish Sisodia, MP Sanjay Singh and outgoing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal are out on Supreme Court bail. Kejriwal resigned from the post of Chief Minister last Sunday, a day after his release from Tihar Jail announced. With his close associate Manish Sisodia also out on bail from the Supreme Court in the same case, the two will go to the Janata Durbar together and will be restored to power only if the people of Delhi vote for them and certify that they are not dishonest, after AAP chief Kejriwal announced on Sunday that Sisodia will replace him as Chief Minister. Hope was lost. Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are now busy with Kejriwal in Haryana elections. Voting for Haryana Assembly will be held on October 05. After it became clear that Atishi will be the Chief Minister of Delhi, he has come in front of the media and has appealed to the people of Delhi to re-elect Arvind Kejriwal as the Chief Minister in the elections to be held in February next year. Atishi expressed his gratitude to the ‘AP’ chief Arvind Kejriwal and the party (AAP) for giving him such importance as the post of chief minister. However, Atishi clarified in the media that ‘Arvind Kejriwal is the only Chief Minister of Delhi’. While Atishi seems happy with the new charge, he has not hesitated to express his loyalty to Kejriwal, so it is clear that the government will be run by Kejriwal and Atishi will remain only a rubber stamp. BJP and Congress leaders in Delhi said that this is a new drama of ‘app’. It is true that Kejriwal has got bail from the Supreme Court, but the conditions on which the court has granted bail have forced Kejriwal to step down as Chief Minister. Therefore, while the opposition is alleging that he has started a new drama in the hope of getting the sympathy of the people of Delhi, the leadership of the ‘AP’ is claiming that if there are immediate elections in Delhi, the ‘AP’ will surely come back to power. In such a situation, Atishi will have to run the government for five months. Even if the chief minister changes, there is no doubt that the tension between the center and the state will continue. So, everyone will be watching what happens next.

Our times are the product of a particular set of historical processes that have unfolded over the last four centuries, which have witnessed the rise and worldwide spread of Western civilization. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to argue that what gave this period of human history its unique character was the articulation and implementation of what may be called the Baconian program, whose main architect was the philosopher Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of the British Crown. Whereas the specific methodological and scientific contributions of Bacon have been the subject of debate, he was, during the early 17th century, the first to put forward a coherent view of how the power of modern science could be used to improve the human condition (Sagasti 1997b).

The Baconian program has been defined in the following terms: “to aim knowledge at power over nature, and to utilize power over nature for the improvement of the human lot” (Jonas 1984, p. 140). Three key features distinguish this program from other views of the production and use of knowledge current in Bacon’s time: an awareness of the importance of appropriate research methods (scientific methodology), a clear vision of the purpose of the scientific enterprise (improving the human condition), and a practical understanding of the arrangements needed to put the program into practice (scientific institutions and state support). In later times, and particularly during the Enlightenment, the idea of indefinite, linear, and cumulative human progress would become the driving force of the Baconian program and give it a powerful and unique character that would allow it to withstand the test of time and endure until our days. Through the application of this idea, the human condition has improved in ways that Bacon and his contemporaries could hardly have imagined.

The main engine that made the Baconian program run was a belief in the unending, linear, and steady advance of humanity — the idea of progress — which mobilized human energies during the 18th and 19th centuries. Beginning with the Hellenistic and Roman notions that knowledge can be acquired step by step through experience and through trial and error, the idea of progress has evolved over the whole history of Western civilization. Cyclic conceptions of the universe in which events repeat themselves over the course of a “great year” had to be overcome before embracing a belief in the open-ended and cumulative character of advances in human history (Bury 1960; Jaki 1974; Nisbet 1980). Faith in a divine design for the cosmos played a major role in the evolution of the idea of progress during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance added a revaluation of the individual and of human actions as a means to improve the human condition while the scientific and geographical discoveries of the 16th and 17th centuries laid the ground for a belief in the inevitability of progress through the accumulation of knowledge (Heller 1981).

With the emergence and subsequent triumph of rationalism during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the idea of progress gradually lost its religious underpinnings. During the Enlightenment, it became a thoroughly secular idea, in which divine providence played a marginal role, if any. Progress acquired a distinctively social character and was seen as the almost inevitable result of human actions. Through the early 20th century, the general idea of progress would remain ingrained in Western minds as a positive driving force for improvements in the human condition, as the engine that made the Baconian program run.

However, the events that took place during the first 40 years of what Eric Hobsbawm has called the “Short Twentieth Century” challenged our beliefs in any notion of continuous and indefinite human progress. “The decades from the outbreak of the First World War to the aftermath of the Second, was an Age of Catastrophe for [Western] society. For forty years it stumbled from one calamity to another.” This period stands in stark contrast to Hobsbawm’s “Long Nineteenth Century” (from the 1780s to 1914), “which seemed, and actually was, a period of almost unbroken material, intellectual and moral progress.” (Hobsbawm 1994, pp. 7, 13, his emphasis).

The decades that saw the carnage of World War I, the emergence of communism, the rise of fascism, the Great Depression, the Holocaust, World War II, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could hardly be considered conducive to harbouring and nurturing the idea of progress. With the waning belief in the inevitability of progress, the achievements of the Baconian age also began to be seen as suspect.

Yet, the end of World War II changed the mood of gloom and despair of the “Age of Catastrophe.” The triumph of the Allied forces over the Axis brought to the victors a new sense of optimism, satisfaction, and euphoria. The belief that purposeful interventions could improve the human condition was thus reinstated, but with considerable help from the availability of new techniques for managing the economy, planning investments and production, and organizing large-scale enterprises. Wartime advances in science and technology also found many civilian uses and spilled over into the private sector. The Age of Catastrophe was left behind, and a renewed faith in human progress took hold.

The development-cooperation experiment

One key expression of the renewed belief in progress was the emergence of the concept of development, which can be considered the latest incarnation of the idea of progress within the framework of the Baconian program. The notion of development implicit in the various definitions offered at that time could be summarized in the following terms: to achieve in the span of one generation the material standards of living that the industrialized West achieved in three generations or more, but without incurring in the heavy social costs the West had to pay or inflict on others. Development was also supposed to guarantee a minimum level of material comfort to all human beings.

Faith in the possibility of development was sustained and reinforced by the economic successes of the postwar decades. During the period from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the world economy grew practically everywhere at an unprecedented pace. Jump-started by the financial resources, capital, consumer goods, and technical assistance offered under the Marshall Plan, European economies recovered and grew at nearly 5% a year. Led by Japan, the economies of Asia registered an average annual growth rate of 6%, and Eastern Europe grew at 4.7% a year; Latin America, at 5.3%; and even Africa, at 4.4%. As Angus Maddison put it,

The years 1950 to 1973 were a golden age of unparalleled prosperity. World per capita GDP [gross domestic product] grew by 2.9 percent a year — more than three times as fast as in 1913–1950. World GDP rose 4.9 percent a year, and world exports 7 percent. The dynamism could be observed in all regions. In all of them, GDP per capita grew faster than in any other [period]. The acceleration was greatest in Europe and Asia.

(Maddison 1995, p. 73)

This “Golden Age” of world economic growth was also a period of considerable international generosity. Added to a variety of other motivations, linked to economic and political interests, this generosity helped to expand international cooperation. Following the success of the Marshall Plan to support the postwar economic recovery of Europe, the United States launched the Point IV Program to expand bilateral aid to developing countries in 1949 and created the Technical Cooperation Administration to implement the Point IV Program (CCSTG 1992; Foreign Affairs 1997). The development-cooperation experiment was launched, and for the next two and one-half decades resources to assist poor countries increased continuously, which led to the creation of a large array of bilateral and multilateral institutions to channel and administer these resources.

However, right from the beginning, the onset of the Cold War hijacked the concept of development and the development-cooperation experiment, making them hostage to East-West rivalries. Two alternative ways of achieving development were put forward: one based on market economies and liberal democracy and the other based on central planning and a single-party system. In the decades that followed, each trumpeted its successes and sought to enlist the poor countries, many of which were emerging from decades or centuries of colonial rule in their camp. Developing countries became contested ground for trying one or another set of recipes to promote economic growth and improve living standards. Moreover, the East-West struggle became the lens through which practically all political, economic, and social events would be filtered and seen.

The Golden Age came to an end in the early 1970s, and the world entered into what Hobsbawm called the “Crisis Decades,” which extended (although not uniformly) into the early 1990s: “The history of the twenty years after 1973 is that of a world which lost its bearings and slid into instability and crisis. And yet, until the 1980s it was not clear how irretrievably the foundations of the Golden Age had crumbled” (Hobsbawm 1994, p. 403). The sharp reductions in economic growth of the early and mid-1970s led to average rates of growth during the period of 1973–92 that, with the exception of the average growth rate in Asia, were substantively below those of the Golden Age. The slowdown was most noticeable in Eastern Europe and Africa, where the average rate of growth of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was negative (−0.1% in each), and in Latin America, where the rate of economic growth barely exceeded that of population increases. The world average growth rate of GDP per capita during this period was 1.2%, in comparison with 2.9% for 1950–73.

During the early 1980s, the debt crisis in a large number of developing countries threatened the international financial system, and in advanced economies, both unemployment and social discontent increased significantly. The reversal of the socioeconomic gains of the previous 25 years made the 1980s a “Lost Decade” for most developing regions, with the notable exception of Southeast Asia. The major upheavals experienced by the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s led to precipitous declines in living standards in these countries, and in Western Europe the economic recovery of the late 1980s and early 1990s did not manage to reduce unemployment rates. Following a prolonged period of economic stagnation in the early 1990s, Japan was seriously affected by the collapse of East Asian currencies and stock markets in 1997. Income inequalities worsened everywhere (with the exception of some East Asian countries), and for the first time since the Great Depression, poor and homeless people became highly visible in several cities in advanced industrial nations. The concept of “social exclusion” emerged, first in France and later in the European Union, to account for the reemergence of social problems that were thought to have been solved decades earlier (Rodgers et al. 1995).

The Crisis Decades that ended the Short Twentieth Century witnessed profound changes in all realms of human activity. We have seen the end of the Cold War, the spread of ethnic and religious violence, and the emergence of new international security concerns; the globalization of production and finance, the restructuring of international trade, and the transformation of productive and service activities; the disappearance of centrally planned economies and the worldwide expansion of capitalism (in many cases into areas that lack the supporting institutions for a functioning capitalist economy); and a host of social transformations, which include the demographic changes experienced by both rich and poor countries, the explosion of social demands in the developing regions, and the emergence of serious unemployment problems in both rich and poor nations.

To these transformations, it is necessary to add the extraordinary advances in scientific research and the accelerating pace of technological innovation; the renewed interest in ethical and spiritual matters; the growing role played by religious concerns, ethnic allegiances, and cultural identity in domestic and international politics; the prominence acquired by concerns for the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources; and the challenges posed by the need to renew governance structures at all levels, from the local to the global.

Such a bewildering and turbulent combination of changes and transformations, crystallizing in the emerging “fractured global order” (Sagasti 1989 a, b), has created deep unease and uncertainty, which Hobsbawm described:

The Short Twentieth Century ended in problems, for which nobody had, or even claimed to have, solutions. As citizens of the fin-de-siècle tapped their way through the global fog that surrounded them, into the third millennium, all they knew for certain was that an era of history had ended. They knew very little else.

… The century ended in a global disorder whose nature was unclear, and without an obvious mechanism for either ending it or keeping it under control.

The reasons for this impotence lay not only in the genuine profundity and complexity of the world’s crisis, but also in the apparent failure of all programmes, old and new, for managing or improving the affairs of the human race.

(Hobsbawm, 1994, pp., 558-559, 562, 563)

The turbulence we are experiencing in the transition to a new century and a new millennium signals more than just the end of a Golden Age, of the Cold War, or of the Short Twentieth Century. It is an indication of the exhaustion of the Baconian program that organized and mobilized human endeavours for nearly four centuries and of the need to reassess the idea of progress that became its driving force. In this light, the concept of development can be seen as the latest, and possibly the last, attempt to reinterpret the idea of progress within the framework of the Baconian program. We are now beginning a transition to the post-Baconian age, whose main features cannot as yet be discerned.

Because of the lags involved in reflecting on our experience and in transmitting what we learn to the next generation of leaders and policymakers, we run the risk of confronting the problems of the 21st century with the outmoded mindsets of the Short Twentieth Century. Most political authorities, business leaders, and policymakers acquired their knowledge and experience during the Cold War, some of them during the Golden Age of prosperity, and still others during the Crisis Decades. The Cold War disappeared with surprising swiftness; the Golden Age is long past; the Crisis Decades still bewilder us; and we are beginning a long and uncertain journey into the post-Baconian age. If we are to enter the 21st century with a minimum of surety and aplomb, we must assimilate the lessons of experience while unlearning the habits of thought that constrain our perceptions and limit our capacity to apprehend the new realities.

Against this background, it can be seen that the development-cooperation experiment of the past 50 years took place at a very special time in history. It was also designed, organized, and carried out in ways that suited the spirit of those times, which are now gone. The Cold War provided a stark ideological backdrop to the experiment and helped justify allocating resources to it. An unprecedented period of world-trade growth and economic expansion made it easier to accommodate the development-assistance needs of the poor nations. The dominance of the economic and technological position of the United States, amply demonstrated through the success of the Marshall Plan, made the spread of the “American Way of Life” one of the implicit objectives of Western development assistance in its first decades. A sense of moral certitude, optimism, and generosity ensured ample public support for aid, first in the United States, and later in Europe and Japan.

The Soviet Union and its allies also expanded development assistance, focusing on those developing countries closely aligned with their ideological point of view. Soviet aid was seen as another weapon in the fight against Western capitalism and took the form primarily of subsidized exports of oil and machinery, as well as purchases of primary commodities above world-market prices. In addition, massive fellowship programs were established in practically all academic fields for developing-country nationals within their sphere of influence. All of this was in addition to the extensive provision of military assistance, a practice also common in the West.

A changed context for development finance and international
cooperation

Over time, the institutions, ideas, and practices of development cooperation evolved and experienced many transformations. However, as the 20th century draws to a close, a multiplicity of signals indicate that the development-cooperation experiment, as we knew it, is coming to an end. Western official development assistance (ODA) flows to developing countries, which are usually channeled through bilateral and multilateral development-assistance agencies, have lost ground in relation to direct foreign investment, portfolio flows to emerging stock markets, and commercial bank lending, even though these private flows concentrate mostly on a few countries. Private firms that rate the risks of investments in countries and corporations (Moody, Standard & Poor, Duff and Phelps) have acquired enormous influence in the economic affairs of developing countries, as their views steer the flow of private funds in one or another direction. With the end of the Cold War, development-assistance flows from the former Soviet Union and East European countries were abruptly cut, and developing countries that relied on Soviet aid found themselves in a very difficult situation. The problem was particularly acute for countries such as Cuba, which depended on the Soviet Union for subsidized oil to its supply energy needs.

Development-assistance budgets have been cut in practically all donor countries at the same time as new tasks demand a growing share of a diminishing pool of public funds for international cooperation. Postconflict reconstruction, humanitarian relief, and assistance to refugees now compete with the support of democratic institutions, improvement of governance structures, assistance to transition economies, and efforts to fight drug traffic and crime. This has been squeezing out resources allocated to fields that once were the main focus of development assistance: health and population, food and nutrition, education and training, small and medium-size enterprises, technical assistance, and balance-of-payments support. Moreover, the poorest countries of Africa and Asia, which have relied primarily on concessional flows, have been most affected by reductions in foreign assistance budgets.

By the mid-1990s, the United States had abdicated its traditional leading role in the field of development assistance. The US Congress refused to honour contribution pledges made by the Administration to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and to the International Development Association (IDA) and also refused to pay its assessed contributions to the United Nations central and peacekeeping budgets. This made France, Japan, and other European countries the main contributors to development cooperation. However, after years of steady increases, at a time when other rich countries were slashing their cooperation budgets, Japan reduced its foreign aid by 10% in 1996. Even what were once called the “like-minded” countries, owing to their unwavering support for development assistance (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) have reduced the budgets they allocate for this purpose and have increased the conditions on access to these funds.

Despite the setbacks experienced during the last decade by traditional bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for development cooperation, new possibilities are opening up for rich and poor countries to collaborate in some specific fields, such as environmental sustainability, the prevention of weapons proliferation, and the fight against drug traffic and international crime. At the same time, private sources of funds are becoming more important in a few aspects of development cooperation, such as building policy-research capabilities in transition economies, helping to fight diseases in the developing world, and removing antipersonnel mines. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have acquired greater prominence and are providing international leadership in some specific fields, particularly in environmental conservation, social conditions, and human rights.

In December 1997, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change approved the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to limit, and even reduce, the emission of gases that contribute to global warming. The Kyoto Protocol establishes a “clean-development mechanism,” which is designed to assist developing countries, and this mechanism could eventually lead to the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars a year from rich to poor countries. Although a lot of ground still needs to be covered to make this mechanism operational, there are early indications that developing countries can reap substantive benefits from the sale of unused emission rights if their forests can absorb greenhouse gases in amounts above their emission limits. On other fronts, concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War period have prompted some highly industrialized nuclear powers, particularly the United States, to offer financial and other incentives to developing countries to renounce the use and development of nuclear weapons. Financial and trade rewards have also been offered to drug-producing countries that collaborate with US and European efforts to curb the international drug trade.

Private financial flows to developing countries, which include direct foreign investment and portfolio investments in emerging markets, have experienced major increases during the 1990s. They are now five times larger than official flows provided by government agencies and international organizations, in contrast to the situation prevailing in the mid-1980s, when they represented about 50% of total financial flows to developing countries. However, private financing is concentrated in a fairly small number of emerging and transition economies, while the vast majority of developing countries still depend on official aid for external financing. Grants provided by private foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Pew, MacArthur, Carnegie Corporation, Tinker) remain a relatively small component of international development cooperation, but their impact is magnified because they focus on training, building local capabilities, and strengthening public and civil-society institutions.

During the last decade, a few wealthy individuals have joined the ranks of private philanthropy, once the province of well-established foundations and religious organizations that focused primarily on humanitarian relief. The three most visible examples of this new breed of philanthropist are George Soros, who has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to humanitarian organizations, human-rights activists, and policy-research centres in Eastern Europe; Ted Turner, who in late 1997 pledged $1 billion (US dollars throughout) to support the United Nations; and Bill Gates, who has recently established two foundations to donate hundreds of millions of dollars annually. They have also been joined by internationally known musicians and media personalities. A series of rock concerts broadcast on television in the early 1990s, linked to a phone-in campaign soliciting pledges from viewers, raised more funds to combat AIDS in Africa than did formal-pledging conferences organized under United Nations auspices. Toward the end of 1997, and in just a few weeks royalties from a compact disc issued in memory of Lady Diana generated more than $100 million in just a few weeks for campaigns to remove antipersonnel mines in war-torn countries.

Countries until recently heralded as major successes of the development-cooperation experiment, such as the four Southeast Asian Tigers, experienced severe financial difficulties during 1997, which are likely to impair their growth prospects for several years. For example, 1 year after joining the rich-countries club of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), South Korea’s currency and stock market plunged more than 40%. From being the 11th largest economy in the world, the country slipped to 20th place in just a few months. After about 8 weeks of preparation and in less than 1 hour of discussion in early December 1997, the World Bank approved up to $10 billion in emergency loans to South Korea, more than it had loaned to that country in the previous three decades and about half the total annual lending volume of this multilateral financial institution.

The economic and financial crises of 1997–99, which first hit several developing countries in East Asia, eventually affected economies in nearly all regions of the world, including the Russian Federation and Latin America. The overall crisis has had consequences that far transcend the world of financial markets; it has had a significant impact on the development efforts of countries such as Indonesia, where, in just a few weeks, the number of poor increased dramatically. Analysts initially explained the crisis on the basis of weaknesses in the financial systems and economic policies of individual developing countries like South Korea and Thailand, together with the close integration of global financial markets, as a result of which disturbances are rapidly transmitted beyond national borders. However, the serious global impact of the crisis has led a growing number of analysts to search beyond these factors for a systemic cause (Bezanson 1999). This in turn has shifted attention to the apparently inadequate role of multilateral institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in ensuring stability and promoting sustainable development (The South Letter 1998). Moreover, it has been observed that the East Asian crisis and its repercussions “have led to serious questioning of the relevance of the Washington Consensus as a standard development template and about whether a new development model or ‘paradigm’ is needed” (Bezanson 1999, p. 17).

All of these changes suggest that the international context, the channels, and the mechanisms for cooperation between rich and poor countries and the structure of financial flows to developing regions are changing fundamentally in the transition to a new century, and it cannot be expected that the institutional arrangements designed and put in place four or five decades ago will continue to be effective in this new situation. In this sense, the development-cooperation experiment — as we knew it — is coming to an end. Yet, both enduring motivations and new rationales will give rise to new forms of cooperation, policies, and institutions more in tune with the spirit of the times.

Today, as we observe World Humanitarian Day, we aim to remind the world about one of the biggest ongoing emergencies in the WHO European Region with a grim milestone – 1940 WHO-confirmed attacks on health care. This is the highest number WHO has ever recorded in any humanitarian emergency globally to date. In addition, we are noting new patterns in the progression of the attacks.

For over 2.5 years now, 86% of all such attacks have impacted health facilities, with a significant proportion of such attacks involving heavy weapons. Moreover, WHO-verified attacks on health facilities have intensified significantly since December 2023 – occurring on a near-daily basis.

Access to health care for communities residing close to the frontlines has been largely constrained with increased risk of illness and death for populations living there as well as elsewhere. Since February 2022, on average, 200 ambulances per year have been damaged or destroyed in shelling attacks.

“In 2024, we are observing a lot of double-tap attacks,” said Dr Jarno Habicht, WHO Representative in Ukraine. “Now we have more shelling of civilian infrastructure than before. We are losing colleagues – health-care workers, nurses, doctors, paramedics. This year, many more health-care workers have also been injured than before. According to WHO data, first responders and health transportation are 3 times more likely to suffer harm from attacks compared to other health-care personnel.” 

“We are witnessing a blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. The widespread attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure have made access to electricity, water and heating an urgent priority. This war is affecting every person across Ukraine – including health-care professionals and providers – in diverse and profound ways,” noted Dr Emanuele Bruni,World Health Emergencies lead at the Country Office.

The data clearly shows an increase in casualty rates. Last year, 24 deaths among health workers and patients were documented, but during the first 7.5 months of 2024, a total of 34 people have died from attacks on health care. Furthermore, the level of injuries this year has not only exceeded the numbers reported in 2023, but also those of 2022, already amounting to 229 people. In sum, every fourth attack on health care this year has resulted in injuries. 

Also according to WHO-collated data, 42% of all attacks since 2022 have impacted primary health-care services. In 2024 so far, the greatest burden of injury and mortality has affected secondary care, with every fifth attack resulting in injury. For emergency medical care, every second attack results in injury.

To meet continuous humanitarian needs, since the start of the full-scale war WHO has distributed about 3750 tonnes of medical supplies, including ambulances, medicines and generators, in various regions of the country.

“Since February 2022, we at WHO have reached 15 million people with health interventions nationwide. In 2024, we are focusing our primary efforts on the humanitarian needs of 3.4 million people. Along with the wider United Nations family and other partners, WHO complements efforts by the country’s authorities to maintain and develop health care where it is possible,” said Dr Habicht. “Further, while the war goes on, continuous funding is needed to address humanitarian needs. We are grateful to all donors who have been supporting WHO and our health partners all this while.”

The Ukrainian health-care system continues to prove its resilience and remains functional in areas under government control. Despite the relentless attacks health authorities continue to respond quickly to needs and challenges. Where there are health needs, such as in frontline areas, humanitarian organizations also contribute to filling the gaps and improving access to medical care. Gaps must still be addressed to ensure universal access to essential health-care services, especially in areas close to the frontline and among communities of internally displaced people.

“Ultimately, the health-care workforce of Ukraine are genuine heroes,” concluded Dr Habicht. “Despite ongoing attacks, despite all the challenges, they rise to the occasion time and again. On World Humanitarian Day and every day, we at WHO pay tribute to them – and vow to be their support, now and always.”

China and the Philippines have traded accusations over an incident involving their ships in the disputed South China Sea on Saturday (August 31).
According to Manila, a Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) vessel intentionally rammed the Philippine Coast Guard’s (PCG) ship, BRP Teresa Magbanua, three times on Saturday, at Escoda Shoal, also known as Sabina Shoal, located in the West Philippine Sea.

“The Philippine Coast Guard vessel did not provoke the Chinese vessel,” said Commodore Jay Tarriela, spokesperson for the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea, during a news briefing.He added that the collision caused damage to the Philippine ship. “It is important for us to take note that this ramming happened despite our unprovoked action and presence in Escoda Shoal,” Tarriela said.China denies allegations and counters with its own
On the other hand, China’s coastguard claimed that a Philippine ship, which they described as “illegally stranded” at Sabina Shoal, deliberately rammed into a Chinese vessel.

Liu Dejun, a spokesperson for China’s coastguard, asserted that Beijing would take necessary measures “to resolutely thwart all acts of provocation, nuisance and infringement and resolutely safeguard the country’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests.”

He reiterated that “China exercises indisputable sovereignty” over the area.

Also read: Helicopter with 22 onboard goes missing in Russia’s Far East

There were no injuries reported from the collisions.

Sabina Shoal, the site of the incident, lies 140km (87 miles) west of the Philippine island of Palawan and approximately 1,200km (746 miles) from Hainan Island, the nearest Chinese territory.

The shoal is within the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile (370 km) exclusive economic zone and serves as a key point for resupply missions to the Philippine garrison on the Second Thomas Shoal.

China lays claim to nearly the entire South China Sea, coinciding with the territorial claims of the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. This sea region is thought to contain valuable oil and natural gas reserves, along with rich fishing grounds, and is a vital trade route.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that China’s claims to the area had no legal standing, a decision that Beijing has refused to accept.

As I prepare to present the most important topic in recent times “Open Innovations: New Frontiers of Government’s Public Policy” at the historic VI International Economic Forum’s most aptly theme “OPEN INNOVATION: from the Creativity of the Individual to an Innovative Science-Based Economy” in Riga, Latvia organised by Institute of Economics of the Latvian Academy of Sciences I say with all humility that, one must Question the government of the day that do not allow open innovations of public policy mechanism.

Truth Cannot Be supressed By A Bloated Response That Ignores Every parameters of Open Innovations. We have to accept the fact that more open the government’s public policy mechanisms are, the more vibrant the democratic values will be. In the words of Maria Ressa, the American journalist “Without facts you cannot have the truth, without truth you cannot have trust and without any of these things you cannot have a functioning democracy”  

We live in a more complex, interrelated world—and we have entered an era of innovation by ecosystem. Catalyzing innovation in the era of ecosystems calls for new thinking to match the new reality. Government public policy mechanism & it’s open innovations in various key reforms are fundamentally important to accelerate important innovation ecosystems.

In April 2023, we heard that $1.4 billion was invested in 11 large-scale research initiatives at postsecondary institutions via the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF). These 11 initiatives will encourage partnerships throughout Canada’s academic, private and not-for-profit sectors and beyond for research that provides crucial economic and social benefits for Canada’s inhabitants.

Whether it’s preventing and treating heart and brain disease, reducing carbon emissions in communities or making discoveries concerning AI, advanced computing and robotics, the Government Public policy mechanism must encourage the vital role of scientists and science, research and innovation in society.

Connected Participation

Government transformation is hard to pull off in a context of fiscal challenges, public mistrust, and workforce fatigue

Many public authorities have focused on building participative components into public consultation mechanisms. Participation through Consultation

A large number of governments around the world offer consultative mechanisms that allow citizens and organized interests to have input into new legislative proposals. Most also have some form of online petition process through which citizens can call on governments to take action in specific areas of policy. Such forms of consultation and petitioning have expanded dramatically but do not involve democratic deliberation as such. While they offer citizens the chance to connect to public authorities and to place or raise a certain issue on the policy agenda, they do not provide democratically representative participation and decision making in the same way as citizen assemblies and panels.

In South Korea, authorities have created online petition platforms that facilitate iterative discussion between citizens as well as between them and policymakers.

In Georgia, local authorities have created participative bodies that involve citizens and deliberation within formal municipal processes, including by selecting “civil advisors” and through citizen monitoring of officials’ performance.

In Nigeria, some authorities have pioneered a platform for citizens to monitor and give their opinions on local government projects as well as to engage in open debate on these with each other and representatives of local planning authorities.

In South Korea, a randomly selected assembly on nuclear policy led to a formal direct-democratic vote that connected the process to the wider policy cycle and determined a key change in policy directly against the government’s preference.

An innovation isn’t successful unless it’s implemented & successfully delivered to the public at large. we know that today’s science is tomorrow’s economy. Collaboration in science, technology and innovation, Research of today, the innovation of tomorrow should be the guiding principles of new frontiers of open innovations in governments.

Recent initiatives for fostering citizen participation in Europe, Australia, and Canada have attracted much attention, especially selection-based “mini-publics”—of which one form, citizens’ assemblies, has become increasingly popular.

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

To strengthen policymaking, the government has also launched initiatives to promote the use of open data. With citizens’ frustration with and alienation from political elites becoming more widespread and severe around the world, as manifest in a rising number of significant anti-government protests globally, the need for innovative channels of citizen participation has become more pressing. Despite the powerful global dynamics of democratic regression, many positive forms of such participation have taken shape in the last several years. Indeed, many analysts detect that a new ethos of citizen participation is defining efforts to push back against democratic decay.

Catalyzing modern innovation

Open innovation has become a buzzword in recent years, and it’s not hard to see why. This approach to innovation has proven to be highly effective, not just for businesses but also for governments. In this article, we’ll explore the benefits of open innovation for governments and why it’s a valuable strategy to consider. Business does not exist in a vacuum — government policy impacts the structure of the market from which competitive advantage derives. In turn, business plays a role in the formulation of government policy. This interdependence is particularly important in innovative industries, where new business models often conflict with existing regulatory frameworks and entrenched market and political power. Understanding the interplay of policy and innovation is essential for entrepreneurs, investors, and incumbent firms, both small and large, early stage or mature.

What is Open Innovation?

Open innovation is a collaborative approach to problem-solving. It involves sharing ideas and knowledge with individuals, organizations, and communities beyond an entity’s traditional boundaries. Open innovation can involve working with customers, suppliers, competitors, researchers, and other stakeholders.

Benefits of Open Innovation for Government’s Public Policy.

1. Improved Access to Expertise and Resources

Open innovation enables governments to tap into a wide range of expertise, ideas, and resources beyond their internal capabilities. By collaborating with external partners, governments can access the latest research, technology, and knowledge to solve complex problems.

• Increased Efficiency and Effectiveness

Open innovation can help governments to streamline their operations and make more effective decisions. By involving a broader range of stakeholders, governments can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issues they face, leading to more informed and effective solutions.

• Cost Savings

By tapping into external expertise and resources, governments can save research and development costs and avoid expensive mistakes. Open innovation can also help identify more efficient ways to deliver public services, resulting in cost savings for the government and taxpayers.

• Enhanced Public Engagement and Transparency

Open innovation can help to build trust and increase public engagement by involving citizens in decision-making processes. By sharing information and involving the public in policy-making, governments can demonstrate transparency and accountability, ultimately building stronger relationships with citizens.

5. Increased Innovation and Creativity

Open innovation fosters a culture of creativity and innovation by bringing together diverse perspectives and ideas. This approach can help governments to develop innovative solutions to complex problems and promote the development of new technologies and services.

Concluding Observations.

Open innovation offers many benefits for governments, from improved access to expertise and resources to increased efficiency, cost savings, and enhanced public engagement. By embracing open innovation, governments can better address complex challenges, deliver more effective public services, and build stronger relationships with citizens.

About Dr Satya Brahma

Dr Satya Brahma is India’s most respected & distinguished journalist & Chairman & Editor-In-Chief of Network 7 Media Group. Known for championing the cause of Citizen’s rights & free speech Mr Brahma has been at the forefront of United Nation’s Peace programs. Mr. Satya Brahma is also the author of Vision India – Truth VS Hype. Satya is an industry expert & one of India’s top journalists. Satya holds a Master’s degree in Political science with First Class First Gold Medallist from Berhampur University & Master’s degree in Journalism & Mass Communications. Dr Satya Brahma is a PHD from the reputed Dr Abdul Kallam Research Institute in India in Journalism & Mass Communication. Dr Satya Brahma founded India’s flagship annual event, India Leadership Conclave, an open innovation forum where corporate world meet with policy makers, rebel leaders, social entrepreneurs & politicians to debate & discuss the contemporary issues.

Satya Brahma believes that only strong opinions with definitive actions can influence the policy makers of the society & hence is committed to bring & expose the hidden stories that need global audience.

Pride Group of Hotels awarded for for its outstanding performance in delivering best-in-class & Luxury experience.

Pride Group of Hotels, headquartered in the commercial capital of Mumbai in india received a significant brand reputation reaffirmation by winning the prestigious “India’s Best Managed & Most Admired Luxury Hotel Chains 2024” at the 13^th annual india leadership conclave & Indian Affairs Power Brand Awards, asia’s most coveted & credible leadership awards.  With this new achievement, Pride Group of Hotels has once again proven its capability to exceed its guest’s expectations, gain international recognition for its exceptional services and facilities as well as cement its status as the best of the best in the hospitality arena in India and around the world.

More than 250 business leaders, Policy Makers, Social Entrepreneurs, Movie Stars made their presence felt at the Nation’s Most Iconic Leadership award. The grand award ceremony was power-packed with the attendance of star studded influential leaders of the country. The Award Trophy, Certificate of Excellence & Gift Hampers was received by Moumita Mukherjee, Head of sales, Director of Sales Snehdip Singh Virdi & Sumonica D’Souza of the  Pride Group of Hotels. The award trophy & certificate of excellence was presented by Dr Sudhakar Shinde, Additional Municipal Commissioner (Western Suburbs) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Dr Satya Brahma, Founder & Chairman of Network 7 Media Group.

Speaking on this Mr Satyen Jain, Promoter & Director of Pride Hotel Group said “We are humbled & thrilled to receive this prestigious recognition which has the stamp of approval from the people of india in a nation-wide voting followed by Juries. This global competition aims to identify the most outstanding working hotels and hospitality design in each region for a range of general and specialist categories. I am confident that these prestigious honours will further enhance our hotels’ reputations, leading to further business and strong bookings in the future.” Our Luxury & Lifestyle properties made a big impact & we are looking to expand & add more properties in the key regions of the country”.

Envisioned by Mr. S. P. Jain in 1987, Pride Group of Hotels focuses on extending warm hospitality with an Indian touch. With a humble beginning in 1987, starting with a single hotel in Pune, Pride Hotel Group has emerged as one of the fastest growing Business Hotel Chain in India. The Pride Hotels has 30 operational properties & 44 upcoming hotels, having more than 3213+ rooms, 102 restaurant concepts, 3.25 Lakh sq. ft. of event & banquet spaces to meet the needs of both business and leisure travellers.

Pride Hotels resonate true Indian hospitality. It celebrates the true spirit of India and believes in bringing the culture of India to life. Being a truly Indian brand, Pride Hotels guests have taken pride in associating with frequent patronages. Personalised services with an Indian touch has helped us build a place in the hearts of Pride Hotels guests.

Pride Hotels are currently present across 30 cities in India.All hotels are conveniently located and offer modern amenities and facilities for making each stay memorable. Each hotel is equipped with expansive banquet halls and convention facilities, top-of-the-line food & beverage outlets, health clubs & business centres, making them a preferred destination for business & leisure travellers.

Instituted in the year 2009, India Leadership Conclave & Indian Affairs Power Brand Awards has emerged in india as one of south east asia’s most respected, credible & prestigious brand honouring & recognizing the leaders, companies who have demonstrated exceptional leadership skills & out of box ideas, staying creative & innovative in difficult & trying times. ILC Power Brand Awards over the last thirteen glorious editions, stood out distinctively as a torch-bearer of innovations as the very embodiment of the highest standards of business excellence driven by ethics, integrity & passion.

Rated by Experts & widely acclaimed by the thought leaders, India Leadership Conclave & ILC Power Brand Awards has been rated in India as the most credible & coveted Awards developed by Network 7 Media Group consisting of eminent jury members of the different verticals of the society.