India’s Pharmaceutical Exports in Transition — Risks, Diversification, and the Road to 2030

 Analytical Conversations: From Trendlines to Thought Lines

India’s Pharmaceutical Exports in Transition — Risks, Diversification, and the Road to 2030

Executive Summary

Indian pharmaceutical firms are among the world’s lowest-cost, high-scale manufacturers of generics, APIs, and vaccines. Historically, the U.S. has been the largest single destination for Indian pharma exports, but growing policy volatility (notably the 2025 tariff threats) and the risk from over-reliance on one market compel a strategic rebalancing. This paper: (a) describes why Indian firms target the U.S. and China today; (b) maps structural risks and tariff exposures; (c) surveys five-year historical trends (2019–2024) and builds 2030 projection scenarios; (d) proposes testable hypotheses for firms and policymakers; (e) offers tactical recommendations; and (f) identifies key early-warning indicators to monitor.

Key insights in brief:

• India’s pharma export structure is currently skewed: ~30–35 % goes to the U.S., exposing exporters to policy tail risk.
• In FY24, India exported ~$8.73 billion to the U.S., ~US$718 million to South Africa, ~US$784 million to the UK, among others (total pharma exports ~US$27 billion). In 2025, U.S. proposals of 100 % tariffs on branded drugs have triggered alarm across the industry. India sources over 60 % of its API/raw material needs from China, creating supply chain exposure. A base-case (8 % CAGR) scenario yields ~US$46 billion pharma exports by 2030; optimistic (9.2 % CAGR) yields ~US$52–55 billion.
• Firms that move up value chains (complex generics, biosimilars) can see outperformance relative to commodity generics.
• Diversification toward African, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, and South Asian markets is urgent to reduce concentration risk.

This version adds more quantitative grounding, sharper analysis, and a clearer structure of hypotheses, risks, and strategic pathways.

 

1. Why the U.S. & China matter today (data and structure)

1.1. U.S. as a core destination: scale, margin, regulation

• In FY24, India’s pharma exports to the U.S. were ~US$8.73 billion, making up ~32.76 % of India’s total pharma exports. Historically, Indian firms have taken advantage of cost leadership (lower manufacturing, labor, regulatory costs) alongside U.S. FDA–compliant plants and DMF/ANDAs to penetrate the U.S. generics market. As of April 2023, Indian firms held 6,316 U.S. market authorizations—highest among non-U.S. producers—and filed 410 Type II DMFs in H1 2023 vs. 350 in H1 2022 (a 17 % jump). The U.S. market offers higher margins for generics and specialty generics, especially in stable, high-volume therapeutic classes (e.g. cardiovascular, CNS).

1.2. China as an input partner and potential downstream market

• India currently depends on China for more than 60 % of its raw materials and APIs.
• The logic of “China + 1” motivates India to expand exports of finished formulations and vaccines to China, thereby reducing trade imbalance and capturing a complementary growth lever.
• However, access barriers (registration, pricing, local equivalence) remain significant and rotational.

1.3. Reputation, regulatory credentialing, and halo effect

• Success in U.S./EU-regulated markets builds “good manufacturing practice” (GMP) credentials, which unlock easier access to semi-regulated and unregulated markets (Africa, Latin America).
• Many Indian firms treat U.S. export success as proof-of-quality, which helps in tenders in Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.
• Because regulatory standards in many developing markets are lower or reference WHO prequalification, prestige from U.S. approvals yields a multiplier in credibility.

 

2. Concentration risk: “the 60 % myth” vs factual baseline

2.1. Reassessing the dominant-market claim

• Some narratives assert India depends on the U.S. for 60 % of its pharma exports. In practice, data suggests a ~30–35 % share.
• In FY24, the U.S. share was ~32.76 %. India’s exports of pharmaceutical products in FY24 totaled ~US$27 billion.
• This means dependence is material but not extreme; still, a ~30 % share over many exporters is nontrivial exposure.

2.2. Other meaningful markets

• South Africa: ~US$718.54 million in FY24.
• UK: ~US$784.32 million.
• Netherlands, France also figure among top export destinations.
• Over 70 % of India’s pharma exports go to “highly regulated” markets (U.S., EU).
• The concentration on the U.S. is large enough that a policy shock in that market could significantly disrupt many Indian exporters.

2.3. Variability and volatility

• Export shares shift annually, depending on regulatory warnings (FDA 483s, bans), API supply disruptions, and demand shocks (e.g. pandemic).
• A sudden tariff shock in the U.S. could force order cancellations, price renegotiations, or exclusion from tenders—meaning the elasticity effect might exceed the nominal tariff rate (see Hypothesis H1 later).

 

3. Tariff shocks & non-tariff risk: policy tail exposures

3.1. The 2025 U.S. tariff developments

• In September 2025, President Trump announced that starting Oct 1, 2025, the U.S. would impose a 100 % tariff on imported branded or patented pharmaceuticals (unless companies are building pharmaceutical plants in the U.S
• This is a sharp departure from historical practice: historically many HS-30 pharmaceutical lines had low or zero MFN tariff rates under U.S. HTS.
• The exception for U.S. investment signals that exporters who commit to U.S.-based manufacturing may gain exemptions.
• Some analysts argue that near-term impact may be muted because India’s exposure in branded patents is smaller; but the uncertainty is severe.
• 3.2. Chinese tariff / regulatory environment

• China’s MFN tariffs, though moderate, are accompanied by non-tariff barriers: local GMP equivalence, registration delays, pricing ceilings, and tendering practices.
• Tariff levels can also shift during bilateral tensions.

3.3. Risks beyond tariffs

• Non-tariff barriers: product registration, local clinical equivalence, dossier acceptance delay, government procurement tenders with restrictive criteria.
• Anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
• Country-of-origin rules: if raw materials are traced to China, product may lose preferential treatment in free trade zones or be taxed higher.
• Sudden export bans or quotas in source countries (e.g. China).
• Regulatory actions (FDA warnings, plant bans) can abruptly cut exports to U.S.

 

4. Five-year historical trends (2019–2024): data, patterns, lessons

4.1. Export growth trajectory

Year	Approx. India Pharma Exports (US$ bn)	Observed Growth / Notes
2019	~19–20	Baseline (industry studies)
2020	(dip due to COVID disruptions)	—
2021–22	~24–25	Surge in demand for generics and vaccines during pandemic
2023–24	~27–28	Consolidation around this level

• Bain and industry projections suggest an 8 %–9 % CAGR across 2019–2024.
• From ~US$19 bn in 2019 baseline to ~US$27 bn in 2023 represents ~8.5 % CAGR.
• The share of formulations in exports is ~70 %, and bulk drugs/APIs ~20 % (remaining in vaccines, others).

4.2. Destination-share evolution

• The U.S. has maintained ~30–35 % share; in 2024 it was ~32.76
• Africa, especially South Africa, has gained share, given rising procurement in public health programs.
• The UK, Netherlands, France remain important EU gateways.
• The Indian government and pharma exporters have increasingly pushed for diversification to ASEAN, LATAM, Middle East, and South Asia.

4.3. Structural shifts within product mix

• Rising interest and modest shifts toward biosimilars, specialty generics, and vaccine exports. Increased
•  filings of DMFs, ANDAs, and regulatory investments by Indian firms.
• Greater vertical integration in API and intermediate steps attempted by major firms to reduce dependency on external imports.
• Indian firms, especially large players, have made acquisitions or equity stakes abroad to improve supply security and local footprint.

4.4. Supply chain concentration and vulnerability

• Over 60 % of raw material/API dependence from China.
• U.S. dependency on Chinese APIs is complex: estimates vary (8 % to 47 %) depending on drug category and via intermediates.
• India’s own domestic API capacity is improving but still lags behind the scale of its imports.
• The pattern in API supply chains is that Chinese firms dominate the more hazardous or capital-intensive synthesis steps (fluorination, intermediates).
• 4.5. Key disruption lessons

• Regulatory actions (e.g. FDA plant bans, warning letters) have in past years occasionally disrupted supply chains. Sudden policy shifts (e.g., tariff hints) cause stock market reactions and reorder risk (e.g. Indian pharma equities fell on tariff news).
• Volatility in commodity chemicals, currency fluctuation, and freight disruption (e.g., during COVID) introduced cost and timeline stress.

 

5. Projection to 2030: scenarios & sensitivities

5.1. Projection methodology & assumptions

• Base year: FY24 exports ~US$27 billion (rounded consensus).
• Two scenario CAGRs:
   • Scenario A (Conservative): 8 %
   • Scenario B (Optimistic): 9.2 % (assuming successful value-move, regulatory expansions)
• Compounded to 2030 (6 years):

Scenario	CAGR	2024 → 2030 Projection (US$ bn)
A (8 %)	8 %	~46.3 billion
B (9.2 %)	9.2 %	~52–55 billion

• The upside depends critically on: success in biosimilars, scaling vaccine exports, deeper entry into semi-regulated countries, and reduced dependency on U.S. volume.

5.2. Sensitivity & downside risks

• If major tariff actions reduce U.S. exports by 25 – 50 %, the realized growth would fall short of baseline.
• API disruptions (e.g. China export bans or price hikes) could raise input costs ~10–20 %.
• Competition from other low-cost producers (e.g., in Latin America, Southeast Asia) might constrain margins.
• Regulatory noncompliance or quality scandals could trigger rejections, bans, or delisting.
• Currency depreciation or logistic inflation could erode margins.

5.3. Implied structural targets

• To hit the optimistic scenario, exports to non-U.S. markets will have to grow at 10–12 % CAGR to offset any U.S. downside.
• By 2030, the U.S. share should ideally shrink to <25 %, with diversified sources each contributing 5–15 %.
• The value mix should shift: higher shares of biosimilars, specialty generics, vaccines (targeting ~20–30 % of total export value) and lower reliance on low-value commodity generics.

 

6. Hypotheses for firms, trade bodies & researchers

These hypotheses can guide empirical work, policy experiments, and corporate strategy.

H1 – Tariff Shock Elasticity Hypothesis
A 25–100 % tariff on drugs imported into the U.S. will depress Indian pharma export revenue to the U.S. by more than the tariff percentage (due to order cancellations, loss of tender access, renegotiation).
Test: regress monthly/quarterly exports to the U.S. on tariff announcement dummies, controlling for global demand cycles.

H2 – Diversification Return Hypothesis
Redirecting 10–15 % of export volume from the U.S. to semi- or unregulated markets (Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America) will reduce revenue volatility (standard deviation) more than it reduces mean revenue — i.e. diversification improves resilience.
Test: portfolio variance models and counterfactual simulations comparing pre- and post-diversification periods.

H3 – Value-Move Hypothesis
Firms investing in moving from commodity generics to biosimilars and specialty generics will achieve 12 %+ CAGR to 2030, outperforming firms that stay in basic generics (6–8 % CAGR).
Test: panel regressions on firm-level capex, R&D intensity, product mix vs. growth rates.

H4 – API-Sourcing Vulnerability Hypothesis

60 % dependence on Chinese API increases the probability of supply disruptions; diversifying to alternate sources or domestic API capacity (≥30 %) reduces stockout days materially during shocks.
Test: supply chain simulations, correlating historical disruptions with import concentration.

H5 – Hub-Logistics Advantage Hypothesis
Using trade and logistics hubs (Dubai/UAE, Singapore) as transshipment points or regional distribution nodes reduces lead times/customs friction and increases the share of exports to the Middle East/Africa by ~20 % within three years in regions with free trade or CEPA agreements.
Test: geo-logistics modeling, comparing trade growth before/after using hubs.

 

7. Tariff & duty landscape: mapping exposures

7.1. United States

• Historically, HTS Chapter 30 lines (pharmaceuticals) had negligible or zero MFN tariffs.
• The 2025 proposal to levy 100 % tariffs on branded/patented drugs constitutes a sharp break.However, the carve-out for companies building U.S. plants may create strategic arbitrage.
• Exporters must track HS classification (6-digit codes), origin rules, and any reciprocal duty exemptions.

7.2. China

• MFN tariffs on pharmaceuticals are moderate, but shadow costs from registration, bioequivalence testing, local GMP equivalence, and government tendering carry high implicit “taxes.”
• Tariff volatility may rise during geopolitical tension episodes.

7.3. Africa / SADC / Sub-Saharan

• Tariffs vary by country and customs union. Many pharma imports benefit from preferential access or low duties, especially for essential medicines under donor programmes.
• Most procurement is tender-based; thus, non-tariff qualifications (WHO prequalification, supply reliability, packaging, shelf life) dominate.

7.4. UAE / Dubai / Singapore

• These are transit and re-export hubs with generally low import duties and favorable port/warehouse regimes.
• CEPA or free trade agreements (e.g. India-UAE) reduce or eliminate duties for specific product lines.
• They serve as staging grounds to “hub-and-spoke” serve the Middle East, North Africa, and Africa corridors.

7.5. India-EFTA TEPA (Trade & Economic Partnership Agreement)

• Effective October 1, 2025, India’s trade pact with EFTA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland) eliminates or reduces tariffs on ~99.6 % of export value to those countries.
• While EFTA is modest in pharma demand scale, this gives India better footing for European access.

 8. Strategic & policy recommendations: an operational playbook

8.1. Firm-level / exporter strategies

Short term (0–12 months):

• Conduct U.S. tariff-stress simulations (25 %, 50 %, 100 %) to assess exposure, renegotiate contracts, and include tariff-escape clauses.
• Reallocate sales and marketing focus to medium-potential semi-regulated markets (South Africa, Philippines, Indonesia, Latin America).
• Use Dubai or Singapore as warehousing or redistribution hubs to reduce lead times.
• File more WHO-prequalified product dossiers to qualify for donor-funded tenders in Africa.

Medium term (1–3 years):

• Ramp capital investments into complex generics, biosimilars, specialty drug lines and pipeline expansion.
• Strengthen domestic API capacity, or secure multiple alternative API sources (India + non-China).
• Pursue mergers, acquisitions, or strategic stakes in overseas production (esp. in target markets).
• Build regulatory, clinical, and dossier capacity (e.g. expand bioequivalence, regulatory affairs teams).

Commercial & marketing:

• Tailor packaging, dose sizes, and price structures for local purchasing power (e.g. small packs for South Asia, tender formats for Africa).
• Invest in local registrations early in target markets to reduce entry lag.
• Form consortiums or partnerships with regional distributors or governments.
• Active market intelligence and recontracting flexibility to respond fast to policy shifts.

8.2. Government / trade authority interventions

• Prioritize FTAs / CEPA deals with African economic blocs, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, and Middle Eastern blocs.
• Use Production Linked Incentives (PLI) to incentivize high-value pharma export lines and API onshoring.
• Set up an export intelligence and crisis-mapping cell within Pharmexcil to monitor export orders, tariff threats, and diversion opportunities.
• Support regulatory harmonization (e.g., with Africa’s regulatory bodies) and mutual recognition agreements to ease Indian exporters’ access.
• Offer soft financing, tax breaks or grants to firms building API or biosimilar capacity domestically.
• Engage in trade diplomacy proactively—advocate for tariff carve-outs or relief in bilateral trade dialogs.

 

9. What to monitor (key indicators, early warning)

• Monthly export flows (COMTRADE / customs) for top 10 countries; watch share reallocation.
• Tariff / HTS changes in the U.S., China, EU — track announcements, public notices, Congressional bills.
• API import concentration metrics — especially shares from China by chemical classes.
• Winning tender volumes in Africa / South Asia by Indian firms (number, value, success rate).
• Regulatory incidents/warning letters from FDA, EMA, other agencies—monitor frequency and severity.
• Firm-level metrics: capital expenditure in API, pipeline expansion in biosimilars, new facility investments abroad.
• Trade policy signals: free-trade agreement negotiations, reciprocal tariff proposals, exceptions for pharma.
• Logistics indicators: freight rates, port dwell times, warehousing costs in hubs (Dubai, Singapore).

 

10. From trendlines to thought lines: strategic framing and narrative

• The U.S. and China should remain anchor markets — not the only markets. India must treat its export concentration as a strategic vulnerability, not a success badge.
• The 2025 tariff episode is a wake-up call: geopolitical and policy tail-risks can crystallize rapidly.
• India has a time window to pivot its strategy: build supply-chain resilience now, diversify export destinations, and upgrade the export product mix.
• The twin levers of resilience: (i) moving up the value chain toward specialty, biosimilars, vaccines; (ii) diversifying both markets and supply sources (especially API).
• In effect, India must turn from a “generic-volume exporter” to a “global pharma platform,” enabling modular supply, risk hedges, and geographic reach.

India’s export composition: formulations, biologics, APIs

• In FY24, formulations and biologics made up ~78.94 % of India’s pharmaceutical exports; drug intermediates and bulk drugs (APIs) comprised ~16.21 %.
•  India supplies ~20 % of global generic medicine exports by volume, and over 50–60 % of global vaccine supply (by volume).
• India has ~664 USFDA-approved manufacturing sites (highest outside the U.SAs of 2019, India had filed ~4,500 DMFs (for APIs) and ~5,029 ANDA authorizations (for formulations).

 

• Import dependence & API vulnerabilities

• India is critically dependent on imports of many APIs, intermediates, and key starting materials (KSMs), especially for complex or hazardous chemistries.
• Some studies estimate that India imported ~85 % of its requirements for certain antibiotic, vitamin, steroid APIs from China circa 2019. In the Government of India’s PLI (Production Linked Incentive) scheme for APIs / KSMs / intermediates, 41 products across fermentation, niche, chemical-synthesis KSM/DI categories are targeted, with incentives offered from FY 2020–21 through FY 2029–30. As of FY 2022-23, 249 applications for PLI API / KSM projects were received; 51 were approved.

 

 

•  Export growth & recent performance

According to Pharmexcil, in April–May FY26, India’s pharma exports reached ~US$4.96 billion (≈7.38 % YoY growth). The Trading Economics data series shows India’s pharmaceutical exports averaged ~US$5,846.97 million (i.e. ~5.85 billion) between 1996 and 2023, peaking at ~$19,861.73 million (i.e. ~$19.86 billion) in 2022.

In FY24, India’s pharma exports were ~$27.82 billion. The India–EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Free Trade Agreement (TEPA), effective Oct 1, 2025, will liberalize ~99.6 % of export value to EFTA states, giving India improved preferential access into Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

• Gujarat is a major pharma-export hub: it accounts for ~33 % of drug manufacturing and ~28 % of drug exports in India. The state has ~130 USFDA-certified manufacturing facilities. Regulatory, quality & compliance pressures

• In India, more than 36 % of inspected domestic drug-manufacturing units were ordered shuttered due to non-compliance (quality or regulatory lapses). Some Indian MSME-level pharma units are requesting extensions for compliance with “Revised Schedule-M norms” (which impose more stringent manufacturing / bio-equivalence standards). Incidents of substandard or adulterated drugs (e.g. cough syrups linked to toxic compounds) have triggered reputational risk and heightened scrutiny internationally.
• Many Indian MSMEs are under pressure from regulatory burdens (e.g. mandatory bio-equivalence studies costing ₹20–40 lakh per formulation) that threaten Market size and future ambition

• India’s domestic pharmaceutical market (i.e. internal consumption) is estimated at ~US$50 billion (FY 2023–24) and projected to grow to ~US$130 billion by 2030
• According to Bain, India’s pharma exports could rise 10– to 15-fold by 2047, reaching nearly US$350 billion, by shifting toward higher-value lines (biosimilars, CDMO, specialty) and strengthening supply chains.

 Here are some thematic lenses and strategic pivots you can weave into your paper to deepen the analysis:

Segment-level growth and margins

• CDMO / contract services: India’s CDMO / CRO export growth is a key strategic frontier. According to Bain, Indian CDMO + CRO exports (from $18 billion in 2023) could grow to $44 billion by 2030. Upgrading generics to complex generics / biosimilars: The margin uplift and differentiation potential is higher, albeit with increased investment and regulatory hurdles.
• Vaccine exports: India already contributes heavily to global vaccine supply; scaling into high-income markets (with complex regulatory demands) is a strategic premium move.
• Specialty / differentiated APIs (e.g. high-potency, biologic intermediates) can help mitigate commoditization and price erosion.

Competitive dynamics & global share

• India currently accounts for ~3 % of global pharma exports by value (2020).
• Globally, China remains dominant in many API and intermediate segments; India’s opportunity is in substituting and capturing “China+1” risks.
• On the margins, low-cost producers in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe may compete in semi-regulated markets; keeping quality and regulatory edge is essential.

Policy, institutional & ecosystem levers

• The PLI scheme for APIs / KSMs is an institutional lever to reduce import dependence; its success depends on effective implementation, clustering, backward integration, and technology support.
• Regulatory harmonization with African, ASEAN, MENA drug regulatory agencies could shorten time-to-market for Indian exporters.
• Trade diplomacy (e.g. India-UAE CEPA, India-EFTA TEPA) is a critical lever to lock preferential access.
• Export intelligence and risk-mitigation frameworks (tariff alert systems, contract flexibility, scenario planning) are needed at firm and trade-body levels.

Scenario & stress sensitivity enrichments

• Introduce downside stress cases beyond tariffs: e.g. API price shock (+30 %), regulatory plant ban on major exporter, currency depreciation scenario.
• Consider diversification thresholds: e.g. what if U.S. share falls to 20 % — how fast must “rest-of-world” grow to sustain projected CAGR?
• Model and compare portfolio variance of export earnings under multiple destination-weight matrices (e.g. heavy-U.S., balanced, heavily diversified).
• Build a supply chain redundancy metric that tracks percentage of APIs from ≥ 2 independent sources (China, domestic, alternate countries) to measure supply resilience over time.

Empirical & data-driven tests

• Use monthly COMTRADE or UN trade data to regress export growth in target countries against global demand proxies (e.g. GDP growth, healthcare spend) and policy shocks (tariff events).
• Cross-sectional firm-level panel regressions: relate firms’ export growth to R&D intensity, API backward integration, regulatory approvals, and geographic diversification.
• Use network-analysis to map which Indian firms supply which country clusters — detect concentration / overlap risk.
• Use machine learning clustering to identify “clusters of opportunity” (regions + therapeutic classes) that are under-penetrated by Indian firms but structurally promising.

Risk framing & narrative hedging

• Emphasize tail-risk mindset: policy and regulatory shocks, though rare, can cause outsized disruption; treat concentration as a latent fragility, not a badge of success.
• Highlight path dependency risk: if Indian firms delay diversification or upgrading, they risk being locked into commoditized generics with shrinking margins.
• Use “option value framing”: diversification builds optionality; even if U.S. stays favorable, having alternate markets and supply chains is a form of strategic insurance.

Closing Remarks

India’s pharmaceutical industry stands at a decisive crossroads. For decades, its strength has been built on the ability to produce high-quality generics, vaccines, and APIs at globally competitive costs, supported by the trust of regulators like the USFDA and WHO. Yet this very success has also created structural fragility: over-reliance on the United States as the anchor market for exports, and on China as the dominant supplier of bulk drug inputs.

The coming years will test India’s resilience. Tariff shocks in the U.S., tightening regulatory standards, rising scrutiny on drug quality, and volatility in API supply chains have already highlighted the urgency of change. At the same time, new opportunities are opening up: Africa’s growing demand for affordable generics, Southeast Asia’s shift toward regional healthcare hubs, the Middle East’s role as a re-export gateway, and the rising demand for biosimilars and specialty APIs in advanced economies.

The path forward requires a dual strategy:

1.      Diversification of markets and supply sources — expanding aggressively into Africa, South Asia, ASEAN, and the Middle East, while simultaneously reducing API dependence on China through domestic production and alternative sourcing.

2.      Upgrading the value chain — moving from simple generics to complex generics, biosimilars, CDMO services, and high-potency APIs where India can capture higher margins and global market share.

Policy, diplomacy, and industry must work hand in hand. Production-Linked Incentive schemes, Free Trade Agreements, and investments in R&D are necessary but insufficient unless coupled with regulatory credibility, supply-chain resilience, and a forward-looking risk-management framework.

If pursued with clarity and conviction, these measures can transform India from being “the pharmacy of the world” in volume terms to becoming the global innovation-partner in affordable, reliable, and diversified pharmaceutical supply. By 2030, India’s pharmaceutical exports need not just grow in size — they must evolve in structure, resilience, and global strategic importance.

The lesson is clear: concentration breeds vulnerability, diversification builds sustainability. India’s pharmaceutical industry has the scale, talent, and opportunity to lead — provided it treats today’s risks as tomorrow’s pivot points.

 

References

·         India Brand Equity Foundation / IBEF, “Pharmaceutical Exports from India, FY24” India Brand Equity Foundation

·         Bain, “A Roadmap for Making India a Global Pharma Exports Hub”

·         UNESCO / Wikipedia, “Pharmaceutical industry in India” data on size and exports

·         U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), “India’s Forward Momentum in Pharmaceuticals”

·         Brookings/Wosińska & Shi, “US drug supply chain exposure to China”

·         Reuters, “India looking beyond US for pharma exports amid tariff tensions”

·         Al Jazeera, “Trump’s 100 percent tariff on pharmaceuticals” analysis

·         Reuters / Financial press on new U.S. tariff proposal and Indian pharma stock reaction

·         Economic Times, “Trump slaps 100 % tariff on branded drugs” coverage The Economic Time

·         The Pharma Letter / GlobalData, warnings about export diversification The Pharma Letter

·         Wikipedia / India–EFTA TEPA, trade agreement data