Russia-Ukraine war: Indian pharma firm caught in crossfire, lobby seeks PM Modi's help
The Federation of
Pharma Entrepreneurs
(
FOPE
), which represents small and medium pharma companies, has written to the Prime Minister Office seeking a policy to protect assets of Indian companies abroad, particularly in war zones, days after a warehouse of
Kusum Healthcare
in Ukraine caught fire reportedly after a missile struck it.
The fire has resulted in damages worth ₹150 crore, the federation said in its letter dated April 17.
The FOPE requested the government "to come out with a policy to protect assets of Indian companies abroad" in a way the lives of Indian nationals are protected.
The company supplies life-saving and critical medicines in the conflict zone, the federation said, and sought immediate payment of compensation to Kusum to help it maintain operations.
The warehouse was situated in the eastern part of Kyiv.
Russia dismissed accusations that its military attacked the warehouse. The Russian embassy in India suggested that a misfired Ukrainian air defence missile could have caused the damage, blaming Ukraine's "ineptly operated electronic warfare systems" for the incident. It said the Russian forces have "never targeted civilian facilities".
A company executive said Kusum Healthcare is the biggest Indian company in Ukraine and is doing its best to arrange stocks of medicines for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's as well as other critical diseases.
"The Government of India should intervene and take up the issue," he said on the condition of anonymity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
17 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
New GST regime will be consumer-centric, says Centre
The new GST regime previewed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his Independence Day address would be consumer-centric, with particular emphasis on the poor, the MSMEs, the middle class and the farmers, senior government sources said on Sunday (August 17, 2025). The new two-tier Goods and Services Tax (GST) structure of 18% and 5% rates will have the twin objective of making rates and processes simpler and more rational, as it was originally intended to be, the sources said. 'More equitable taxation' 'This has been in the making for a while. Our learning from the last eight years is going into this, and this will be a fundamental change in the template of taxation,' one senior functionary said. 'The new GST regime will make our taxation more equitable, and will see reduced taxes on what these four categories consume. The template will be more from the consumers point of view, and it will be put to and explained to the States from the consumers point of view.' The Centre expects any reduction in revenues that this may cause to be soon offset by a new buoyancy in the economy expected from rate rationalisation and process simplification. 'Reduced rates will not lead to reduced revenues, and we expect compliance and collection going higher,' an official said, adding that the forthcoming tax regime will be 'fiscally sustainable'. Most of the items in the 28% rate of GST will move to 18% and 'a few' will go to 40%, which will apply to exceptional items, termed 'sin goods', sources said. 'Revenues may fall in the very short run but we expect change in consumption and ease of compliance to make up for it. Thus, it will be a fairly fiscally sustainable exercise,' said a source. Deepavali deadline The Centre expects the States to be on board with the proposals in time for the Deepavali — October 20 — deadline it has set for itself to set them in motion. In a press release following the PM's speech, the Ministry of Finance said the Centre would be engaging with the State governments in the subsequent weeks, in the run-up to the next GST Council meeting. Two Groups of Ministers (comprising representatives of the State governments) — one on rate rationalisation and another on compensation cess — will have to approve the details before they go to the GST Council for approval. GST has been an ongoing topic of conflict between Opposition-ruled States and the Centre, but the latter does not expect resistance to its revamp proposals. 'The concerns regarding any potential revenue losses are not theirs (Opposition-ruled States) alone to tackle. The Centre and the States should all work together to expand the revenues, using this opportunity. I do not think anyone will or can oppose the proposed reduction in rates,' the functionary said. They also added that, since the Centre does not have any representative in the GoM on rate rationalisation, if the GoMs decide against the Centre's proposal, it would look like the States are deciding against lowering taxes for the common man. Both GoMs, followed by the GST Council, are expected to meet in the coming weeks. One source said the compensation cess will soon cease, before its legal end-date of March 31, 2026. While it was originally set to cease in 2022, its duration was extended thereafter to repay the loan taken to compensate States as the cess collections themselves had been hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. That loan will be repaid before time. However, this also creates a problem for the Centre as the cess also applies on sin goods like tobacco. 'If the cess ends, then this would substantially lower the effective rate of tax on tobacco, gutka, and other sin goods,' the source explained. 'And this is something the Centre cannot be doing. So, this was yet another reason why the GST revamp needed to be done soon.' That the GST reforms are happening amid global uncertainties and tariff threats by the United States is mere coincidence, according to the sources.
The Hindu
17 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lahar Singh petitions ECI on audio clip in which a Congress MLA allegedly speaks on cash distribution to voters
BJP Rajya Sabha member Lahar Singh Siroya has urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to investigate an audio clip allegedly featuring Congress MLA for Arsikere K.M. Shivalinge Gowda discussing cash distribution for voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Citing his earlier complaint on former Union Minister C.M. Ibrahim's admission of buying 3,000 votes to ensure Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory in the 2018 Assembly elections from Badami, Mr. Lahar Singh said: 'These repeated revelations expose the Congress' deep-rooted vote chori culture, even as its leader Rahul Gandhi accuses others of electoral malpractice.' 'Now, there is another audio making news in my State (I have not independently verified the authenticity of the audio). In this clip, Mr. Shivalinge Gowda is heard speaking, apparently to a Congress Rajya Sabha MP, on how much money should be distributed per voter in the Hassan Lok Sabha seat to ensure their candidate's victory. This was in connection with the 2024 Lok Sabha polls,' he said. Taking a dig at Mr. Rahul Gandhi, he said: 'The irony is that Mr. Rahul Gandhi is shouting vote chori unaware that his own partymen are masters in the game. The fact that Mr. Rahul Gandhi makes wild allegations without worrying about what his party and partymen are all about is proof that he is desperately trying to remain relevant in the Indian political landscape.' Mr. Lahar Singh appealed to the ECI to probe the audio clip along with his earlier complaint related to purchase of 3,000 votes.
