 My whole place. I'll just listen to Professor Suresh Sharma. It was a pleasure. I've read some very extremely, I would say, subtle and insightful books, which he's written. And I'm going to actually refer to a very interesting episode in one of his stories on a tribal identity in India. This sounds completely out of context over here, but it may not be so. He talks about a particular community in central India which were traditional iron smiths. And with the coming of the railways in the late 19th century, these traditional tribal communities which worked with iron simply loved the idea of the railways. It responded very positively. They could understand the idea of modernity very well, translated through the idiom of iron. And of course, the colonial government dismissed this entire experience altogether. And in fact, their own traditional occupation was banned. Now, this is, I think, a very, very interesting anecdote. And it's very sort of something which I just thought of right now because I heard Professor Sharma and it reminds me of what's happening in Dharavi right now, that there is an entire wealth of experience as far as building is concerned, which is already embodied in Dharavi. The residents themselves for the last 40 to 50 years have sharpened the skill. And right now, we are just replaying the colonial gaze by simply saying it's not important at all. And it's very easy to use a language of modernity right now and simply evacuate the space much in the way we have done in the last 200 years. And I think it's very, very important to sort of maybe we could, that's why I was asking Professor Sharma could really speak for a longer time. Because I think that a very important, I would say, myths hidden in what is happening right now in Bombay. And for me, there's nothing more to say besides what we already said in the presentation which Mathias made about the idea of form, the idea of the city, the idea of planning. I just wanted to respond to Shirish, just by saying one more thing that while it is true that the language of planning is something which has been completely taken away from planners, it's also important to know that there's a whole history of the way in which planners have taken away the act of planning from the people themselves. And if there is a certain negotiation which has to be done, it has to be done both ways. The planners have to come in between, the people who are also planners, and then of course negotiate the state, that's all. Thank you. I guess coming from the other big democracy, from the other side of the world, I would say that I'm, this conversation to me feels so relevant and so typical. And what I mean by that is, there is this undercurrent of what we call colloquially in America, hemming and hawing and wringing our hands about government. And that is to say, government is just not doing what it's supposed to do. Real estate developers are bad evil people and they come and just take horrible, horrible pursuit of poor people. Is it that simple? Have we degraded government so much in our two big democracies? Has privatization become the buzz word, the deregure approach? And have we in the process found ourselves in a situation where democracy itself has lost control? That the normative idea behind both, I think of the democracy of the United States and India was this notion that government was owned by the people. And that through the brilliance of participatory democracy, we would perfect this notion that more people would be included, that opportunity would be broader and more equitable. And today I think both of our democracies found ourselves challenged by that aspiration. And I think some of the conversation today manifests that challenge. So I don't think it's as simple as saying that government is incompetent and inept and that private developers are simply trying to exploit the poor. I think it's more complicated and far more nuanced than that. But I could be wrong. What?