 The important thing is to make sure that something after 2015 comes out substantive, comes out meaningful and will not be a repeat of business situation. That's the biggest fear we have because Rio, Rio plus 20 MDGs, all this thunder and lightning that we heard, with not a drop actually hitting the ground, we really need to avoid that. We have just too much time of very talented and capable people and too much resources thrown at these problems and not really solving it or not even, forget solving it, not even ameliorating it or shifting directions lightly towards sustainability. So things are not worse, conflicts are even worse around the world, development, the rich have got richer, the poor countries have got much poorer, you name it all. So if we are going to do anything different, if we are going to have anything meaningful and if we are going to instill a sense of hope in people that are getting either fatalized or radicalized, then we need to introduce some uncomfortable knowledge. It's uncomfortable because the powers that be have chosen to sort of ignore it. It's never reality staring you in the ground, just go and visit any village in one of these poor countries and you see how people are voting with their feet, how they are taking decisions and so on. Somehow I feel that, as I said, forget the international level which is twice removed, even at the national level, national governments are, I'm sure they must be aware because after all people who man the government come from these kind of villages. But there is an ignoring of these issues and then going along with the flow and thinking this is fine and let's go on. Very much, it's a given rise, even let's take, we'll forget Nepal's case, we went through a 10-year insurgency, part of which was related to the failure of development. Take a case like India, which is supposed to be what they call themselves the largest democracy in the world. Well, if half your districts are under some kind of Nuxalite insurgency, Maoist insurgency now in India, then it means that your development is not really all that growth rate of China and India and all that you talk about. That's not really reaching the people down there. It's making a couple of people in Bombay or, I don't know, Delhi obscenely rich. I mean, here is this Bombay businessman who has made a 27-story home for himself with a helicopter pad landing on top in the middle of areas surrounded by slums. Now, he's a successful businessman, but if that is where we measure success and fail to see the slums all around and the sense of frustration and hopelessness, then I think we're in deep trouble. I think we're really in deep trouble. So my hope is that, you know, the effort that, you know, with the IID that some of us all got together to put in to make sure that we influence the global agenda setting that's going on around post-2015, whatever we replace the MDGs is meaningful. And that's my hope. I mean, I'm not sure how much we'll succeed, but the point is to keep trying. I have a bit of a problem with this word, policymaker. Now, in the Western context, Northern European, American, Euro-American context, and policymaker is, you know, guys sitting in the government, I guess, you know, secretaries, undersecretaries, whatever they call them, we don't know that. And it's important in European context, but in our context, they are not the only policymaker. They are a factor among policymaking. I like to use this definition of power, policy, as formula for the use of power. And the moment you say that policy is a formula for use of power, it begs the question, whose power, how many types of power there are, who has how much of it, and how do they deploy it? And, you know, being what I call, what we call cultural theorists, we argue that the policy terrain is plural. Governments and government bureaucracies are important policymakers, but the policy tool they deploy, the formula for deployment of their power, is procedural coercive power. You know, you don't follow the law, we're going to send you to jail. Okay, that's how it is. With the business individualistic market community, it is persuasive, seductive power. You know, you buy a product and you'll be next to heaven. This brand or product of that, you know, so it's seductive, it's advertising, but they do find cheerful solutions and we give credit to the market that they do innovate and they do come out with solutions. We argue that they also are using them from the power. Now that's not enough. You also have a third kind of power, which is the ethical power, the moral power. I like to keep giving this example that Mahapagandhi did not have an army and he didn't have much money anyway, at least compared to the British Empire, but he didn't have ethical power and he stuck to it. So these activists, these genuine NGOs, I mean I distinguish between phantom and genuine NGOs, some of the genuine activist NGOs are based on that ethical power. That something is wrong in the world of this unfairness, you know, and therefore, you know, so the deployment of this critical power is also equally important. So when we talk of policy changes, you know, and policymakers are listening or not, whether governments, politicians, you know, government bureaucrats are listening or not is only a third of the problem. And generally, they do not listen to, you know, conferences and conference papers and things, they listen to it, but they, you've really got to put the heat on them. And the heat on them comes from the, both the market and the humanitarian activist community. And if the voice of those groups or those concerns can be brought onto the policy terrain, then the political policymakers will listen. And that's the trick, that's how we've got to go about it. I'm more confident now than I was, say, in the 1990s and early 2000. That's when, you know, they had this Washington consensus, end of history, market will do everything kind of nonsense. Now hopefully that's out of the window after this 2008 financial crisis when I think the Euro-Americans kind of woke up or at least the activist community in Europe and America woke up actually. They were in slumber. They had given up. They had given up the fight. They had, oh well, you know, governments markets will do it and all. And they were too beholden to their own, you know, governments pushing for these kind of governmental solutions that were not working. Now they've woken up and said, no, it's not enough to give leave governments and businesses to themselves. It can be extremely, you know, comfortable sort of bedfellows who will probably not, who will probably serve their own interests but will not serve the interests of the larger globe or the larger community. So the hopeful sign for me is that the activist community in Europe and America have woken up after about a decade, decade and a half of slumber. I think they were to sleep after the Berlin Wall collapsed. You know, there's nothing to fight to know if everything's over or not. It's not true. There's a need to fight even more.