 vote. In 70 years ago, if you had gone to India, you would have seen a rigid caste hierarchy where there was no mobility. People couldn't aspire. And that is really what India has been fighting, and that is what India has been successful at doing. Not completely, but in a decent measure. Our transformation has been nonviolent, peaceful, and it's had a couple of assumptions. One assumption was that the benefits of this transformation will go to all Indians, all communities. Nobody would be left out. Another basic principle was that this transformation is traumatic, it's difficult, and it's more or less difficult for different people. Different communities, different groups, farmers, others who are weaker. So pretty much all governments, till 2014, believed in supporting people who are struggling slightly more in this transformation. And there are examples, there is recent examples of farm loan waivers, the guaranteed work program, the right to food program, the right to information. These are all structures designed to help people and ease people through the pain of this transformation. The final thing is that there is a similar transformation taking place in China. The idea is the same. The methodology, the way of doing it, the cultural ethos is different. Our transformation is decentralized, anybody can do what they want, anybody can travel where they want. It's organic, it's chaotic. The Chinese transformation, which is basically doing the same thing, is centralized, organized by the Communist Party, People Liberation Army, and there has been more violence in the early periods of the Chinese transformation. I think going forward, India has to have a relationship with the West, India has to have a relationship with the United States, it has a strategic relationship with the United States, but it also has to have a view and a relationship with China. We are going into a world which is changing, China is rising, there are consequences to the entire world of that rise, and I think India can play a balancing role, India has some of the design elements, some of the ideas that can bring people together and build a bridge that makes the world a safer place. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Gandhi for those remarks. Let me start the discussion session by asking you two related questions. The first is in your view, what is the greatest foreign policy challenge that India faces in the next few years? And similarly, what is India's greatest foreign policy opportunity in terms of regional and global peace and security? I think the biggest challenge is we are clearly in a transition. As I said, China is emerging, it's emerging very fast, and China is a neighbor. And the United States, we have a close relationship with them, we have a strategic relationship with them. So to me, the central challenge is the balancing, where India positions itself between the Chinese, the West and Africa. The opportunity is, there is an Indian way of doing things, which is completely different than the American way, the Chinese way, and we have our own ideas which are old, which have been tested. Ideas like non-violence, ideas like compassion, ideas like listening, ideas like viewing the situation from the perspective of the other. This is what we specialize in, and I think that's a very powerful framework for any global conversation. We specialize in reducing confrontation. So I think there are actually a number of competing visions, and I think India has a space there. How will India react? Of course, India is going to react in its self-interest. I mean, that's number one. But I think the central principle for India is, as I said, as someone once said, when asked whether India leans left or India leans right, India stands straight. So that would be how India would think about it, which was your grandmother, the late Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, who said that. But it's been said in many different ways before and after. It's an instinct in India, and of course it was articulated by Mr. Indira Gandhi, but it's been articulated by people before and after. So just in terms of the balancing role that you see India play, the US and China, I mean, do you think that this is an equal influence that India has with both countries, particularly at a time when China is seeking to be more assertive in India's neighborhood in the South Asian region and in the Indian Ocean? There are different relationships. We share certain ideas with the United States. We share certain ideas with Europe. Democracy, freedom of expression, the sort of more open conversations that we are used to and we like. So there is a bond that we have with Europe and the United States, and that's, I think, a very strong bond and has been developing over time. But we can't ignore the fact that China is unable and that we have to deal with China. So there is a, I don't think you can compare relationships and say, is it equal? I think there are multiple factors that go in both. But from a philosophical perspective, from a societal design perspective, I think we have more in common with Europe and the United States. We have a traditional history with the Chinese. So we have traded with them. We have had a close relationship with them. But I think currently the way the democratic structures, we are more comfortable. So how do you see Europe? You mentioned Europe a few times and I think you've said elsewhere that you see India and Europe working together as a balancing mechanism between the U.S. and China. But how do you see the role of Europe and particularly the relationship with the U.K., post-Brexit and after India's external elections? And you're in the U.K. at the heart of it? I think I was in Cambridge and before Cambridge I was in the United States and I was walking down the streets of Cambridge and I felt as if I was in India. So I think out of all the European countries and frankly also the United States, because of our history the English have a deeper understanding of India and the cultures are closely interlinked. So I think that's a very important factor. Of course there are trade structures and stuff but I think at a deeper level English people understand India. They understand it at a government level and they understand it at the individual level. So I think that's a powerful thing to build on. There's a lot of work that we can do in education. I think there's certain hiccups there but I think that can be developed. There's a lot of room and health policy you're speaking. I mean I've got more questions frankly on Brexit than answers. Well, in fact you're a good opportunity. I'm not the guy to ask that question but that's a good opportunity to ask some of the participants who will be interested. I was in a taxi some months back in London and I asked the taxi driver if you think about Brexit and he said you know I want to leave Europe. So I said why do you want to leave Europe? He said because well I don't like foreigners. So I said I'm a foreigner. So he said no but you're not a foreigner. There's a very interesting difference. He says you're not a foreigner. I said well I've come from India. He's like no you're not taking away my job. So his definition of foreigner was something different than what I imagined a foreigner to be. His definition of foreigner was not somebody who had come from India and was paying for his taxi. He considered me English actually. His definition of foreigner was somebody who would threaten his livelihood. And I think that's a very interesting contradiction. Words are changing in the 21st century. Something means something to somebody means something completely different to somebody else. Before I open up for the discussion let me ask you a question related to the second part in terms of opportunities. I think from what I understand you've said you talked about India you know maybe in the region having a policy that is sort of is hearing more in that sense. Listening more to some of the neighbors in the region of South Asia. Do you think that there could be a qualitative difference in the nature of the relationship that India has with its region with South Asia in terms of issues such as terrorism that India faces and concerns over China's economic and strategic role in terms of Pakistan and the region. Sure there are issues. But I think what's important is that India is that you develop a strategy based on your foundational strengths. And one of my main complaints about the current government is that I don't see a coherent strategy based on India's strengths. I see tactical responses. I see knee-jerk reactions. But I don't see a strategic vision that says okay this is how India is going to chart its course through the 21st century. I don't see the consistency. That's my real problem. I see a visit to Nepal and then I see a complete film. I see what's going on in the Maldives. I see what's going on in Sri Lanka. I see what's going on with CPAC. But I don't see a clear strategic response. I've also been trapped in the hug politics. But I don't think you can do. You can run foreign policy based on hugs. It doesn't work. I think that's really the thing. We have tremendous structures in our country. Institutional structures that understand these things. One has to use those structures to develop strategy. I suppose one thing this government has been trying to do the current government is to instead of being a balancing power to seek to be a leading power to seek to punch above its weight as opposed to punching below its weight. And there are key challenges to this government. If you understand deeply the design of your country, you will punch below its weight. At your weight. You can't punch above your weight. Geopolitically you can't punch. You can't have more power than you have. But you can maximize the power you have. And today I don't see India maximizing the power it has. And I'll give you a couple of examples. I spoke about the transition. I spoke about India 1.3 billion people changing the way they view the world. You create divisions between those people. You're reducing India's power. You carry all those people together. You're going to punch at your maximum weight. So I think the discussion often in India, today especially, is very polarized. I don't think that allows India to punch above its weight. I mean if all four of us are speaking in one voice, we're punching with our entire weight. If I'm fighting with you, we're not punching in our weight. So I think internal issues are very, very important. I'll give you another example. What was done with demonetization against the informal sector? Basically an attack on the small and medium businesses. That's India's power. India's power is millions of small and medium businesses. Those are the guys who are going to create the jobs. You bypass the entire Indian institutional structure. You do, you demonetize the economy. The world is stunned. People just are like, what happened? And I mean the shock is so extreme, people can't comment on it. Economists can't comment on it. It takes them a week to figure out actually what has been done. And then you realize, the RBI was not spoken to. The finance minister didn't know. The cabinet was locked up. And the idea came from the RSS directly into the mind of the prime minister. That's not maximizing India's power. India's power is its institutions. India's power is its democracy. And that's what projects our power into the world. Similarly, China's power is the ability of the communist party to organize China. That's what projects their power. So to me, you can't divorce what is going on inside India and say, well, I'm dividing my society. I'm wiping out the job creation engine and I'm punching above my weight. You need your legs on the ground. You can't lift one leg up and say, now I'm trying to punch above my weight. I mean, it sounds nice and the media will pick it up. But that's what was happening. If you look at the central challenge, how does India punch above its weight, really? India punches above its weight by solving its job problem. Today, India has a job crisis. The government figures, we always talk about growth. We love talking about growth. It's important. Government figures in India. China produces 50,000 jobs, formal jobs every 24 hours. Do you know how many India produces? Can anyone guess that? Anyone? Indian government figures, formal jobs in 24 hours, 450. Not my figures. The government of India's figures. How can you tell me that's punching above my weight? When you ignore fundamentals, you say that, listen, we're not going to do job creation in India. We're going to attack the institution, the only institutions that can actually create jobs, which are the small and medium businesses. You do not support your agriculture sector. Then you go abroad and you say, I'm punching above my weight. Sounds nice. This is a good opportunity. I think we've been focusing on the domestic aspects of foreign policy, but I think it's a good opportunity to open up the discussion for others. Can I just interrupt you? I just want to say one thing. If you look at India's successes and you look historically over the, not only 70 years, you look thousands of years. India's successes have come when India has decentralized power. The best rulers in India, the most effective rulers in India have decentralized power. If you look over the last 70 years, the real successes are all about decentralization of power and the breaking of monopolies. You can view the green revolution through that lens. You view the white revolution through that lens. You can view the telecom revolution. Sam Petroda will tell you through the lens of the breaking of the government monopoly on telecoms. You can view liberalization through that lens. You open up in India. You open the door in India and India's power surges. You close the door in India. India's power retracts. And what has been going on over the last four years is a massive, massive centralization of power. In the chief minister on one hand and the prime minister on the other. So the reason we got attacked the way we did in 2014 was because we were attacking some of these monopolies. And those monopolies hit us back. So that, I'll end there. Thank you. Let's open up the discussion. I'd be grateful if we could identify ourselves and also be as crisp and brief as Mr. Rahul Gandhi. Yes, David. The mic will come up. David Loin from King's College. Thank you very much for agreeing to this meeting. You talk about the need for a coherent strategic response. Could you talk more specifically about regional relations, Pakistan, Afghanistan? Is the Modi government making enough of the potential with the Imran Khan election in Pakistan to resolve issues there? How do you improve relations in Afghanistan without upsetting Pakistan? I mean, what would a coherent strategic response in the Congress government look like in regional terms? I mean, the question, the question of Pakistan is who do you talk to in Pakistan? Pakistan from our perspective is a number of institutions. So the difficulty from an Indian perspective is which institution do you talk to? Some of those institutions are hostile to India. Some of those institutions are attacking India. So we're not going to talk to them. But the real question is you sign something with the Prime Minister of England, the United Kingdom. When you sign that paper, what you're saying is all the institutions that make up the United Kingdom accept the Prime Minister's supremacy. That's not the case in Pakistan. So it's very difficult for us to work with that type of a situation. We also are faced with the fact that they promote terrorism in our country. And we have to fight that and we will fight that. So you keep a conversation going. You wait till the time that Pakistan is able to resolve some of these issues. You wait till the time that Pakistan is able to have a coherent structure you can talk to. But it's very difficult to sign something if you don't know what's going to happen the next day. It is a huge commitment, a commitment of political will. And if you sign something and the next day, like happened for example with Mr. Vajpayee. That is a classic example. Mr. Vajpayee went with good intentions and then he found that the institutional cohesiveness wasn't there and suddenly he was saying something to the Prime Minister and something else was being done by the army. So that's the real problem. Of course Pakistan spends a lot of time trying to make Afghanistan unstable. That's another problem. But I don't think you can pull a solution out before the solution is ready. And I don't think that solution is ready. So for us then it becomes making sure that they can't do damage. Making sure that they can't disturb us. Let me turn, let's have two questions. One after another, Walter Landwig and Shashank Joshi. Shruti Kapila. Oh sorry Walter was, sorry Walter's there sorry. But again, again, on the movie government I would say that even with Pakistan they lack a coherent strategy. It's episodic. The Prime Minister flies there for a wedding. There is no deeply thought out strategy and there can be one. Yes Walter, thank you. Walter Ladwick from Kings College. So for going on a decade now observers have been pointing out that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has roughly the same number of diplomats as small countries like New Zealand or Singapore. It certainly lags behind China, US, UK in terms of the number of foreign ministry people they send out to the world. So I was wondering in the theme of institutions and transformation how can India build a modern MEA that matches the role you've laid out for the country's foreign policy in the future? By breaking the monopoly that is the MEA. Straight forward. I mean by making the MEA more accessible to other elements of society. By opening up the MEA so that other voices can come in. The reason the MEA is small is not because India doesn't have the resources to make it big. The reason it's small is because it's a monopoly captured by certain groups of people. That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's exactly what the telecom revolution was. It was a monopoly. I don't know if you know this but Sam will tell you in 1984 when he was working in India. If you wanted a telephone connection in India you had to get it from a member of parliament. Members of parliament decided who could have a telephone connection. That's essentially the telecom revolution, the breaking of that monopoly. So when you're looking at India and when you talk about liberalization that's what you're talking about. When you're talking about transforming agriculture that's what you're talking about. There is a monopoly there that is actually constraining growth. If you bring in new voices, if you bring in business, if you bring in other think tanks etc etc and give them actual power in the foreign ministry it'll scale immediately. I mean you notice one thing. Everybody says that it's a great thing that India's foreign minister spends a lot of time working on visas. Do you realize what that statement means? I mean in the Indian press they praise it and they love it but what's actually happening is that the foreign minister of India has nothing better to do than get people visas. So what has happened is not only is there a monopoly on the foreign ministry, now there's a monopoly of the PMO on the foreign ministry. So Sushma Sauraj really has nothing to do and she's actually quite a capable lady. So if you actually gave her the power to do something she could probably break that monopoly but a very important way to look at India historically and today if you're seeing something not scaling in India just look at the monopoly that's not allowing it to happen and break it. Shashank. Shashank Joshi, Royal United Services Institute, thanks for your remarks. Can I just ask you how you would have handled the Doklam crisis last summer differently to the present government? You've been very critical of the government but could you be as specific as possible and tell us what your responses look like? I don't have the details of Doklam. So I cannot answer how I would have handled it differently. What I can say to you is that Doklam is not an unrelated episode, it's not a one off, it is not a border issue, it is a strategic issue, it is part of a sequence of events and Doklam was a crisis that happened because the government is episodic because the government is views, the government and the prime minister views things very much from an event perspective. Doklam, I view Doklam as a process, at a point in a process. The prime minister views Doklam as an event. So I would look at the process and I would tackle the process and I'm pretty confident that Doklam wouldn't have happened because you could have stopped Doklam if you were carefully watching the process. And when Mark chapter, sorry, Mark chapter is again, sorry, let's go to the, sorry, yes. I mean the other thing is that, the other thing is sorry, the other thing is that the words used are very interesting. The Chinese have withdrawn from the point of contact. They have withdrawn from where the altercation happened. The truth is the Chinese are still in Doklam, today, yes. Sorry, Mark champion from Bloomberg. You rightly said that Indians influence ability to balance and do these things is going to be largely based on the strength of the economy. And you talked a little bit about agriculture. Could you say a bit more about how a Congress party economic policy would differ and just in more specifics and also whether you think there is anything now for India to learn from China about development policy or whether there isn't because of the structures you talked about? I think if you look at 2004 to 2014 and you use the framework not of events but of processes, the foreign, the economic policy of the Congress party would be similar in trajectory to Mr. Manmohan Singh's. There would be certain emphasis that would be different. I think we would focus on small and medium businesses. Today India has 12.5 lakh crores of NPS. How much is 12.5 lakh crores? Can we get that? So India has, the Indian banking system is basically jammed shut. And it's jammed shut because 12 lakh crores of NPS are non-performing assets basically belonging to 15, 20 industrialists. So the focus of the banking system, the focus of who the government supports. Because we have to support the large industrialists but the focus has to shift to developing small and medium businesses. Prime Minister speaks about making India. The idea is good, making India. But Prime Minister's making India is find the 15 top businesses in India and help them. You're not going to get the jobs from there. You're going to get jobs from small and medium businesses. You're going to get jobs from transformation of agriculture. You're going to get jobs from construction. You're going to get jobs from building housing. That's where you're going to get the jobs from. So a focus on agriculture, supporting agriculture, pushing technology into agriculture, building a food chain, connecting the farm to the fork, supporting small and medium industries. And then a couple of strategic plays similar to what was done in the 90s and the 80s. Certain areas that you look at and say, okay, that's an interesting area where India can have a strategic advantage. Looking at the mobility in India. How do you transform air travel in India? How do you open up the airspace? That's something India can learn from China. The other thing India can learn from China is decentralization. In China, local governments run the system. In India, the Prime Minister's office runs the system. Prime Minister's office, let me tell you, the Prime Minister's office or the Chief Minister's office has a veto all the way down. The Prime Minister's office or the Chief Minister's office can veto a road, a small half-pacca road in any village in UP. They have no business having that power. That power should be in the local government. Manoj Ladwa. Hi, Manoj Ladwa. I publish in the Global Business Magazine. I wanted to come back to the region and two very simple questions you've engaged on the issue of the surgical strikes that the Indian Army said that they conducted recently. And there's been some debate about that. So I'd like you to perhaps clarify your position on whether or not you believe that the Indian Army did conduct those surgical strikes. And secondly, most recently, you've engaged in Indian government on the issue of illegal migrants in Assam. And whether or not you believe that those illegal immigrants should be returned. The surgical strikes were carried out by the Army and we support the surgical strikes 100%. On the NRC, we started it. It was our idea. But there's serious issues with the implementation. There are large numbers of people who are Indians from all communities who are in that list. We are the guys who put the NRC in place. So we would have to agree with it. One of the things about the shift in the foreign policy that we've seen in the last four years is India's closeness to Israel. And I was wondering how you then respond to, as it were, I wouldn't say breaking down of relations, but certainly cooling of relations between India and Russia on the one side and other older friends like Iran. So what about the mid-tier power relations that have undergone through a significant change in the last four years, thanks to India's massive, as it were, warmth towards Israel. And what you as your position and given the legacy of the Nairu-Ira and Al-Styl and all of that. I think we have a relationship with Israel. And I think the Congress party have developed that relationship. I don't see a contradiction between having a relationship with the Russians and with Israel. I think India has traditional relationships and those are important to us. And it has developed some new ones and those are important to us. India is not either or place. Our philosophical design is we can talk to everybody. And I think that's what we should do. I don't, we don't see the world in black and white. We don't say, oh, you know, this is the black and this is white. We only talk to white or we only talk to black. We see the world as a complex place. We see the world as a place where we might have to talk to you about something today and to you about something tomorrow. We might have to deal with you about something today. We are, we are flexible in our approach. I don't see a contradiction. Zack, yes. Zack Harkin, writer from the U.S. Embassy. If Congress is going to compete with the BJP in 2019, it strikes me that one factor will be the gap in campaign financing. And how will your party address that gap given some of the ideological proclivities of Indian business? Well, you'd be surprised. You'd be surprised. Good question. But, but you'll be surprised at the mood of the business community in India. You'll shock you. The business community expected a tremendous amount from Mr. Modi. And pretty much all of them are coming to us and telling us that he failed. And a lot of them are telling us that they're going to support us. They're also saying that they're terrified to say it publicly and for God's sake, don't tell anybody. So there is a, there is a, there is a immense amount of pressure from the CBI, from the ED, from other institutions on these businesses. But these businesses understand the value of an open system. They understand the value of conversation. They understand the value of harmony and they're feeling the pain that is being caused. The election, if you look at the media, the media has already said like they did in 2004 that India is shining and the BJP is going to come to power. Look at the math. And the math's pretty simple. If there is an alliance in UP and Bihar, the BJP cannot win the election. It's straightforward. There's 80 seats in UP. An alliance in Uttar Pradesh between the BSP, the Congress and the SP will mean the BJP cannot win five seats. We are 60% of the vote. Similar in Bihar. That's 40 seats. That's 120 seats gone. So, often the conversation doesn't go into the details. And the reason is that the BJP has tremendous power and ability to hurt these businesses and hurt people. You're not hearing the real voice of India right now. You're not hearing the voice of the small businesses. You're not hearing the voice of the farmers. You're going to hear it in 2019. I guarantee you. We have time just for the last three questions. People are already on my list. Richard, yes. Thank you. Richie Crosby from the Foreign Office. I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about the relationship with Russia. India has a special and privileged strategic relationship with Russia at a time when we're increasingly concerned about some of Russia's behaviors and its role in the world today. How would you see India's relationship developing and what should it be under a Congress government? I think the frame is India acts in its self-interest and India's self-interest is dynamic. So, some of those choices are dynamic choices. However, we have had a traditional relationship with the Russians. We've had a close relationship with them and we value that relationship. Annette Prandtzi of the Royal Commonwealth Society. The Commonwealth network is a network of 53 countries that form an integral part of the rules-based international order. But to date, India has not really been perceived as being an active member of that network. And given it represents half the population of the Commonwealth, do you think that's going to change? Yes, we'll try. I don't know. Those are traditional ties and I think they're important. But I think emphasis is in other areas these days. The mind space that the Commonwealth occupied, and I'm being blunt, the mind space that the Commonwealth occupied in India, it doesn't occupy today. And I think it's something that one should work towards and I think those are relationships that are very important and we value them. And I think that's something that we should work on. But when you talk to India, we respond to how the public feels. And when you talk to the public in India, the public in India is the United States, Europe, China, Africa. They see it in that frame. They don't see it in the frame of the Commonwealth. John Elliott and then Virat Solanki, we'll end. John Elliott, journalist from Delhi. Very well. Thank you. How are you? Simple question. No question is simple. Short question. What have you learned from the defeat in 2014? That you have to listen. That leadership is about listening. And that leadership is about listening. Leadership is about empathy to the person who's speaking regardless of whether you agree with them or not. That's at a personal level. At a party level, I think there was a certain degree of arrogance that had crept into the Congress party after 10 years of power. So never forgetting that the party is actually the people. And that's a lesson for everybody in the Congress party. My colleague, Virat Solanki. I think the last thing, there is a design issue as well, which is that we are fighting an organization called the RSS that is trying to change the nature of India. See, there is no other organization in India that wants to capture India's institution. When the Congress party comes to power or the Samajwadi comes to power or the BSP comes to power or the DMK comes to power, they don't try to attack and capture India's institution. What we're dealing with is a completely new idea. It's an old idea being reborn. And it's similar to the idea that exists in the Arab world with the Muslim Brotherhood. And I would compare it. And the idea is that one ideology should run through every single institution. One idea should crush all other ideas. And so you see the response of four Supreme Court judges who come out and say, we're not being allowed to do our work. You see Mr. Raghuram Rajan and the shock of demonetization. You can see India's institutions being torn down one by one. And the realization that we are fighting now, something that is trying to destroy the modern idea of India. And that requires a response that is more inclusive. That the response has to include everybody who values what India has achieved. Everybody who values the institutions of our country. And so a more open Congress that is more open to conversations. That is more open to embracing other parties and trying to build a bridge between them. One doesn't hear what is actually happening in India. And it's important that you know. When you said something like, you know, India punches above its weight to be blunt. The West didn't believe in India in 1947. The West and all the writings that are read said that India cannot succeed as a democracy. And India proved the West wrong. India said no, we can actually succeed as a democracy and we will do it our way. And we did it. And the thing that allowed us to do it was thousands and thousands of people who worked in India's institutional framework. Whether they are businesses or their courts or their political parties. Thousands and thousands of these people. Each one doing his own little revolution. And that is what is under attack. What is under attack is the idea that there can be millions of different voices in our country. And that's what we are defending. And then realize that a lot of the benefit that the West can get out of India. A lot of the success that we can work on together is dependent on those institutions. When you look at demonetization and ignore what really happened. Which is basically a bypass of every single Indian institution. When you look at the four Chief Justice of the Supreme Court coming out and saying, we are not being allowed to do our work. Realize that if that process takes its course, forget punching over its weight, India won't be able to punch. Thank you. On that note, we have to end this discussion. But what I'd like to do is really thank to... Raj had a question. I think we've got time issue, right? You've got time issue. I'd like to really thank two people on the podium for helping organize this event. Manish Tiwari, former UNIM Minister, who is a distinguished member of the IISI. And as a minister came and spoke at our conference in Oman. And Mr. Sam Pitroda, the President of the Indian Overseas Congress in the U.S. Most importantly, I'd like to thank Mr. Rahul Gandhi for giving us very precise and incisive perspectives on both the economic and the domestic aspects of India's foreign policy and whether it punches above or below its weight. But I think it's very important for us to hear these views from a leader like Mr. Rahul Gandhi. If India was punching above its weight, dhokla wouldn't happen. Join me in thanking Mr. Gandhi.