Made in India, but what’s next? Pharma stalwarts debate the future

An unusually warm Sunday evening in suburban Mumbai set the stage for a rare coming together of India’s pharmaceutical elite. In the ballroom of a five-star hotel, more than 1,500 industry leaders, policymakers, academics and entrepreneurs gathered to celebrate a book launch, but it soon turned into more than a moment to reflect on the past—it triggered debate about the future of one of India’s most consequential industries.

The occasion was the launch of Made in India, a biography of Lupin’s late founder Desh Bandhu Gupta, chronicling his life and, through it, the rise of the Indian pharmaceutical industry itself. Co-authored by TeamLease Services co-founder Manish Sabharwal and Mint columnist Sundeep Khanna over a three-year period, the book went through an astonishing 28 iterations before reaching its final form—mirroring, in some ways, the persistence and reinvention that defined Gupta’s own journey.

The evening’s centrepiece was a power-packed panel discussion featuring some of the most influential figures in Indian pharma: Sun Pharma founder Dilip Shanghvi, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories co-chairman G.V. Prasad, Cipla patriarch Yusuf Hamied, Lupin’s chief executive officer (CEO) Vinita Gupta, and Professor M.M. Sharma, former director of the Institute of Chemical Technology (formerly UDCT), Mumbai. Moderated by Sabharwal—also Gupta’s son-in-law—the discussion moved seamlessly between nostalgia and hard-nosed realism about what lies ahead.

The evening was deftly compered by Gupta’s grandchildren—Kavita and Manish Sabharwal’s daughter Noor Sabharwal, and Vinita’s son Krish Sharma, which in many ways reflected the theme of the evening: what it means to be a good ancestor, and the path one forges for the next generation. Kavita is the younger sister of Vinita Gupta.

The book itself traces three intertwined stories: the extraordinary life of Desh Bandhu Gupta, the birth and evolution of Lupin, and the emergence of India as the “pharmacy of the world.” Together, they chart how a country once wholly dependent on imported medicines built companies that now supply affordable drugs across the globe. But as several speakers noted, the industry’s old playbook may no longer be enough.

“What makes the book realistic is the candid details about Gupta’s missteps beyond pharma. It brings to light the battles he fought apart from those building his business,” Khanna, the co-author, said.

Beyond generics

A broad consensus emerged on stage: India’s dominance in small-molecule generics, while remarkable, has reached its limits. The next phase of growth will demand a shift up the value chain—towards biologics, biosimilars, and eventually genuine innovation.

“If we don’t move up that curve, honing our skills in biologics, biosimilars, peptides, fermentation byproducts, and more efficient ways to synthesize, we can’t compete,” G.V. Prasad said. “That, I think, is important for us…then you have innovation, which is a different game.”

Government intent appears to be moving in the same direction. Recent Union budget announcements, aimed at strengthening India’s biopharmaceutical ecosystem, were welcomed by the industry, long vocal about the need for policy support beyond generic manufacturing.

Hamied placed the challenge in a longer historical context.

“In the year 1934, there was a proposal for India to start the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)…today you have CSIR, you have ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research). I think if you want to do research and have newer products, it should be in partnership with the Government of India, with the research laboratories, academic institutions in India, and that could be a joint project,” he said.

Yet, Hamied was candid about the limits of going it alone.

“Alone, an Indian company will not succeed in developing a new drug, although there will be exceptions. Even with an international partner you could succeed,” he added. He also highlighted a persistent problem of “acceptability”—the reluctance of even domestic markets to trust Indian-made novel drugs unless validated by a global brand.

The innovation gap

Several panelists acknowledged uncomfortable truths about India’s innovation record. Professor M.M. Sharma was particularly unsparing, questioning both the scale and seriousness of Indian research and development (R&D) efforts, and arguing that the country had squandered its early advantage in chemicals—ceding ground to China in the process.

Sharma suggested that formulation engineering, a relatively lower-risk and cost-effective research area, could offer a more realistic path forward.

“I think we have the possibility of really doing novel formulations, which is not as risky as the new chemical entity,” Vinita Gupta echoed. “We can double down on that.”

She also argued for a fundamental rebalancing of priorities.

“What could we do differently? Instead of spending 70% of our research dollars on generics, we can try to shift that slowly to 70% innovation,” she said.

Shanghvi, whose Sun Pharma has selectively licensed in innovative products, was blunt about why innovation has been hard to crack.

“Our innovative products are licensed-in,” he said. “That, we thought, was the best way to understand the business of innovation. Part of the handicap is also that there are not many entrepreneurs or CEOs in India who have managed innovation.”

He also reflected on talent choices made over the past two decades, suggesting that Indian firms may have underestimated the importance of specialized skills—often opting to train broadly-qualified hires, rather than recruiting people with deep, market-ready expertise, particularly from advanced global markets.

Risk, talent and collaboration

The panel was unanimous in its view that biopharmaceuticals represent both the biggest opportunity and the biggest risk. Unlike small-molecule generics, biologics demand longer timelines, higher capital, and a tolerance for failure that Indian companies have historically avoided. Not every large firm, Shanghvi cautioned, will—or should—make that leap.

For Hamied, the answer lies in collective thinking.

“At the root of it, the industry needs to come together to discuss how to make the leap towards innovation,” he said. “My company consumes 140 tonnes of azithromycin every year. Should I make that? Or should I buy that? Or should I develop new products? I think we in the industry should sit down together and decide what course of action we should take.”

Talent, too, was a recurring theme. Shanghvi emphasized that future success would depend on hiring highly specialized skills and being willing to look beyond India’s borders. Sabharwal summed it up succinctly.

“I think they all have to globalize. They have already globalized their customers. They sell into other countries. I think they have to globalize their supply chains, their R&D chains. That is the future. Globalize means do more in India, but also go to where talent is,” he told Mint.

An industry at a crossroads

The guest list underscored the significance of the moment. Industry veterans like D.S. Brar mingled with technology leaders such as Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani, reinforcing the sense that Indian pharma’s next chapter will intersect with policy, technology and global capital in new ways.

As the evening wound down, Made in India stood not just as a tribute to Desh Bandhu Gupta, but as a mirror held up to an industry he helped build—one now at a crossroads. The journey from reverse engineering to true innovation, the panel emphasized, will be longer, riskier and more uncertain. But if the conversation in that Mumbai ballroom was any indication, the reckoning has well and truly begun.