 This morning, you've been discussing ideas for India, what the next 25 years mean for India, and India's place in the world. We will now listen to another viewpoint, broadly on the same subjects, from a leader of an organization, which has arguably been one of the greatest political movements in modern history. An organization that has existed for 136 years, spearheaded an epic freedom struggle, laid the foundations of an emancipated India, introduced the most far-reaching economic reforms in post-independent India, and gave the country its highest ever GDP growth. But an organization which today is facing severe headwinds. So can the Indian National Congress reinvent itself? Can the Congress of Gandhi, Nehru, Bose, of Azad, Patel, and Rajagopalachari overcome the forces that have gripped India for the past eight years? We will soon know. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome Rahul Gandhi. Rahul, I live in a country 5,000 miles away from home, and we get sketchy pictures of what's going on. So my first point to you would be, what's the big picture, what's really going on in India at the moment? Sometime back, I gave a speech in parliament where I described India as a union of states. And this is how India is described in our constitution. India is not described as a nation. In our constitution, the line is India, that is Bharat, is a union of states. And the design that was developed by Mahatma Gandhi, I would say that emerged out of the freedom movement was a negotiation between these states and identities, religions. And so India didn't develop top-down. It almost emerged bottom-up. And all these states, UP, Maharashtra, Assam, Tamil Nadu, they all got together and created a negotiated peace, let us say. From this union of states, which required a conversation, emerged the instruments of that conversation. The constitution, the idea that one man will have one vote, the election system, the democratic system, the election commission, the IITs, the IIMs, all these institutions emerged from the union that provided the constitution. And from the constitution, these institutions that allow this conversation to take place, because it is a negotiation, a dynamic negotiation, emerged modern India. Now what is happening is there is a systematic attack on the institutions that allow the conversation to take place. There is a crushing effect on all these institutions. There is an attack on the constitution, there is an attack on the election system, there is an attack on the broad institutional framework of the country. And the result is that India is no longer, the states of India are no longer able to negotiate, they are no longer able to talk. And that space, that used to be the space of conversation, that used to be the space of negotiation is being occupied by the deep state. By the institutions of the state that control the state internally, the CBI, the ED, that's what's happening. And our job is the Congress who actually helped build that structure, helped build that negotiation framework. Our job and not just our job, the job of the opposition is to defend that conversation, to make sure that the structures of that conversation, the constitution, the institutions are not captured by the RSS by one idea, but they are accessible to all the states. That's really the battle. And if you want to take it to the crux, we believe India is a negotiation between its people, we believe India is its people. The BJP and the RSS believe that it is a geography, that it is a Sone Kicharia whose benefits should be distributed according to the karma of its people. We believe that the benefits of the negotiation should be distributed equally to everybody regardless of what their karma is. If you're a Dalit, if you're an upper caste, if you're a Sikh, if you're a Hindu, if you're a Muslim, we believe that you should all have equal access. They believe that the access should not be equal, certain groups of people should get more benefit from the Sone Kicharia and other people should get less and less and less benefits from the Sone Kicharia and the poorest Dalit should not get nothing. That's the real conflict that's taking place. So what you described is extremely troubling and I'll come back to it in a moment. I've just been asked to slip to say that this conversation is under Chatham House rules if you get what that means. And so no video cameras, please. That's it. Now, how do you tackle what you describe as a very troubling situation? In other words, you've just had a major party conference three days at Udaipur when your party had an opportunity to thrash out matters. So which big ideas emerge from that and how to combat what you described as a major hurdle? The first thing to understand and, you know, my friends from the opposition here, the first thing to understand is we are not just fighting the BJP. This is no longer just a pure political fight. Anybody who thinks that this is a fight between one political organization and a set of other political organizations hasn't understood what's going on. We are now fighting the institutional structure of the Indian state which has been captured by an organization, right? Which means the only way for us, we will get no respite from the institutional framework of our country. The only way for us is to go to the large mass of the Indian people. And that's not just the Congress. That's all opposition parties. And so what the Congress basically is structuring as far as Udaipur is concerned is that transition. How does the Congress party now go back to its roots and start moving into mass action, right? So that is what was discussed. The central elements of that, BJP has a 100% control of media, control of communication, control of those structures. They have broad control of the institutional framework of the country. So we have to think about communication. We will not be able to match the funds they have, but we have to think of communication in a completely new way. We have to think of funding in a completely new way. And we have to think about an organizational system that is much closer to the large mass of people. And we also have to think of large scale mass movements on issues like unemployment, on issues like prices, on regional issues. And we have to coordinate with our friends in the opposition. So I don't view the Congress as the big daddy. It is a group effort with the opposition, but it is a fight to regain India. So you are talking about cementing collaboration with other parties in order to take the movement forward. Yes. And the point I made in Udaipur, which was misconstrued, is that this is an ideological battle now, right? And it is a national ideological battle, which means that of course we respect, for example, the DMK as a Tamil political organization. But the Congress is the party that has the ideology at the national level. So the Congress will have to think about itself as a structure that is enabling the opposition, right? In no way is the Congress superior to the other opposition party. We are all fighting the same battle. They have their space. We have our space. But the ideological battle that is taking place is between the national vision of the RSS and the national vision of the Congress. So Nehru said in that famous midnight speech, he spoke about the soul of India having been suppressed under British rule and the soul finding utterance. Do you see a similarity between the pre-1947 situation in India and today where the soul of India has been suppressed? Yes. And I would say that from the soul of India comes the voice of India, right? And a soul without a voice means nothing. And what has happened is that India's voice has been crushed. It has been crushed by an ideology. It is crushed by the way technology has moved. It has been crushed by the institutional framework of our country itself, which has become parasitical, right? So the deep state, the CVI, the ED, the stuff that is hidden is now chewing the Indian state. It is eating the Indian state. Much like what happened in Pakistan. Yes. And I see a lot of political leaders, in fact, distinguished friends, Salman Kurshid, former external affairs minister of India, and Sita Ram Yachuri, general secretary of the CPIM and several others familiar faces. I may not be knowing them personally. But this audience also has a number of people from the business sector. And therefore I'd like to turn to economic affairs. What would Congress's economic policy be? Because it seems to me that certainly in the last four years the Indian economy has been on decline and certainly on a sharp decline in the last two years. And given this state of affairs, what can you offer to the corporate sector by way of the Congress's vision, your vision of an economic policy in the event Congress returns to power at the center? Look, if you want to understand the economic policy in India, you have to take a step back and you have to see what's going on in the rest of the world. And broadly what you see is that the Chinese dominate production on the planet. What America used to dominate 78 years ago, America used to be the production center of the world, today that has shifted to China. Without building a production system, you can call it manufacturing system, but without building a production system, India is not going to be able to give its people jobs. It's that simple. And we can beat about the bush by saying we are service center of the world and all that. But it is going to lead to social problems because the vast majority of our people need what can only be given to them from manufacturing. So that's one thing. Moving from an idea of growth is enough to an idea where growth is important, but production and manufacturing are key. And I think there is a huge opportunity for us if we think about it properly in that area because the world wants an alternative. Second thing is jobs in India are created in the small and medium business area. And that has been systematically attacked and destroyed by the BJP, demonetization, GST and later the farm laws, they are attacks on the informal sector on the small and medium businesses. So a vision for the small and medium and a vision where you start to put money into those structures and then for the larger businesses, an equitable playing field. I mean, sorry, but what is going on in India, there are practically two businesses in India. There's not a third and that's not good for anybody. So that would be the broad framework. As far as the private sector versus the public sector, I'm of the view that the public sector should be in key strategic industries and should not be doing things that are not strategic and key. And I think that it is the private sector that is actually going to drive the economic process in India. So that has to be freed from the bureaucratic, you know, from the attack that is taking place from the deep state on the businesses. You can ask any businessman in India, I will tell you the ED, the CBI, these structures, they're extorting. So stopping that, putting an end to it and making it a fair and broad playing field. I don't think you will see a huge shift away from the basic ideas, foundational ideas of Mr. Manmohan Singh. I think we also have to galvanize India into saying, okay, we now need to become the second production sector of the world. And enough is enough. Let us now get to work. I think if you think about manufacturing and if you see what China has done in manufacturing, it is essentially they have taken their traditional networks and they have financed and supported them. And I think that's a huge opportunity for us. We have clusters across the country. In every state, we have clusters, leather clusters, brass clusters, agricultural clusters. We have to connect our financial system to these clusters. I mean, just if you just look at Uttar Pradesh, pretty much every district has a product. There is a world-leading product, but they have no finance, they have no marketing support, they have no incentive structure. So, thinking about our past economic system, the past networks and repurposing them, linking them to the global economy and financing them properly. I think that's a huge opportunity for Indian business. But, sorry, one last thing. I think it's very dangerous for one company to control all the airports, all the ports, all the infrastructure. You're talking about a private sector monopoly, which used to exist a long time ago, but the liberalization of 1991 should have ended that. But it has never existed in this form. It has never existed with such massive concentration of power and capital. And this is another aspect that is throttling the conversation because there is control of the media through this concentration of capital. But there's a reality. And the reality is that unemployment is at a record level. Whole sale inflation, I'm told, has now reached 15%. And yet the BJP is winning elections and the Congress is not. Why is this happening? Polarization and total dominance of media. If you look at, if you look at, if you spend four or five hours looking at Indian television, you'll find you only see Mr. Narendra Modi. You certainly won't see my friend Yachuri Ji on television. In fact, I don't think you've ever been on television. Not to be mean. I'd love to see you on television, but I don't think they would like to give that perspective. But turning to, also there's another thing which one has to accept, which is that the RSS has built a structure that is, has penetrated into the large mass. And the opposition parties and the Congress need to build such a structure. And we need to, we need to go much more aggressively to the large mass of people, the 60, 70% of people who don't vote for the BJP. And we need to do it together. So how will you do that? Because that's obviously a major challenge. It hasn't happened for eight years. Through the idea, one of the ideas that we stated in Udaipur, which is the idea of mass participation. Look, we are sitting on a powder cake. We are sitting on a India that is primed. We have massive level of polarization. We have huge unemployment. We have, as I said, the backbone of employment broken. And we have massive concentration of wealth. We are going to have social problems. They're coming without any doubt. There is going to be a mass upsurge. Now the question is, can the opposition make that upsurge peaceful, effective in changing the politics? You could also have a situation where you have an uncontrolled upsurge, which is what we are seeing in Sri Lanka. India is not in a good place. The BJP has spread kerosene all over the country. You need one spark and we'll be in big trouble. And so I think that's also the responsibility of the opposition, the Congress, that bring people together. Bring the communities together, bring the states together, bring the religions together. And say listen, we need to cool this temperature down because if this temperature doesn't cool down, things can go wrong. You mentioned polarization. You must have noticed that the US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, publicly at a press conference with the Indian External Affairs Minister and Defense Minister present, spoke about human rights violations in India. That, I think, coming from the government in the United States, a government which is otherwise quite friendly towards India, is certainly something which raised alarms. What is the Congress doing about these alleged human rights violations? I mean, first of all, I mean, I'm glad the United States has woken up to this idea. I mean, we've been, you know, we don't need the United States to tell us that there's polarization in India. In fact, it's taken them quite a long time to sense it. We're, of course, fighting the polarization, right? We're, of course, holding a position that brings people together and we're doing that. The Congress is doing that, the opposition is doing that. But I think what the gentleman reflects is that a destabilized India, a India which spirals out of control, is a problem for the globe. It's not just a problem for us. India, democracy in India, is a global public good. It is a central anchor, right, for the planet. Because we are the only people who have managed democracy at the scale that we have. Nobody else has been able to do it. We are three times the size of Europe and we have managed it for the last, you know, many decades. If that cracks, it is going to cause a problem for the planet. And that's what I think the United States is realizing. On the international scene, during the Cold War, it was the United States and the Soviet Union, two major powers. And then it became a unipolar world with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But now with the rise of China, we once again have two competing powers with India in the middle. How do we manage these two relationships? Very carefully. Very, very carefully. And I don't say that lightly. There are two competing visions now. For the last 100 years, there was one broad vision on the planet. And that was a maritime vision, a sea-based vision. Prior to that, there used to be a land-based vision. For the first time in the history of the planet, you are now going to get two visions. One is a Chinese terrestrial vision and the other is a United States maritime vision. Essentially what the Belt and Road is, is an attempt to revive the Silk Road. It is an attempt to turn the planet into a terrestrial trading system. And the Chinese production system is financing that transition. And anybody who says that they are unlikely to succeed, needs to look carefully at what they are doing. I'll give you a small sense. I think it was 2000 or 2013 or 2014. In that year, the Chinese put down more cement in one year than the Americans put down in a century. Please understand the scale of what is going on. Hi, Keshav. How are you? Nice to see you. Please understand the scale of what is happening here. It is at a huge scale. Now, there has to be a vision to counter this. And the disappointment that I have, I can see that the Chinese have a vision. The disappointment I have is that there is no counter vision. You mean in India? In America and in India. Look, what the Chinese are offering is prosperity. The Chinese are going to these countries and saying, look, we're going to give you infrastructure. We're going to give you the technological backbone and from that you're going to get prosperity. You'll get money in your pocket. Of course, they have a different motive behind it. And of course, you can see what is going on in Sri Lanka. But the basic offer is huge amount of money, solid infrastructure and the promise of prosperity. The West is not offering prosperity. The West is saying, stop China. Okay, I agree, stop China. But what's the alternative vision? How are you going to offer prosperity to the planet? And that's how India is to think about it. It's not good enough for us to say there is this vision and there is that vision. We are going to say, okay, how do we bring prosperity to our people? That's the key. And today, there is no prosperity. We are going down, diving down into the ground. So another way I like to say it is that from 1990 to around 2012, we had a successful vision for our country. It was working. And I remember once going to Prime Minister in 2012 and saying to Manmohan Singh Ji, and saying to Manmohan Singh Ji, what has happened? Because I could sense that something had gone, something was not working. And I remember him sitting on the chair there saying to me, Rahul, the levers that used to work are not working anymore. Something has happened. The levers that were working one year ago, two years ago, they're just not working anymore. And we've entered some sort of a new space. Problem is Narendra Modi Ji attempted to stretch that vision of India economically. And of course, he's got a different religious, different vision, a non-economic, different social vision, a different vision. But he tried to stretch that economic vision. It's a dead vision. It's not going to take us anywhere. And the single biggest reason for that is that essentially the United States had free reign in those years. So we were essentially partner of the superpower and that gave us a tremendous stalemate. The United States today has a competitor. The United States today does not have an open field in front of it. So that has completely changed. And we have to think about that change. So trying to force the same idea that we were running in 1990 or 2000, it's going to work. And that's where India is today. So the task for the opposition is really to give a new vision to the people of India. It's an economic vision. Of course part of it is that conversation. If we don't start that conversation, no vision is possible. India is not going to accept a vision that is forced down their throat. I mean I keep saying it. The Tamils, the Maharashtrians, even UP, Manipur, Navaland, they have their own vision. You have to incorporate those visions into the Indian vision. You can't tell them, sorry, this is what we think now you're going to be forced to do. They'll refuse. So a huge part of it is starting that conversation up again, making all the states believe that they are part of this discussion. And then coming up with a set of ideas that solve the production problem, that allow us to navigate the US-China conflict. So I think that's a conversation. You've spoken about prosperity being a way out. But the specific situation is that there's high tension with China on the border. And it's been there for more than two years. How do you tackle this rather dangerous situation? That's exactly the task of foreign policy. That's exactly what Mr. Jay Shankar should be doing. And we are, by the way, we are very skilled at it. We have a natural ability. Our mind can manage complexity. Please understand, the Indian mind, if it can do one thing, it can manage complexity beautifully. So we are faced with a complex situation. We need to manage that complexity. We can't think about it in a superficial, unsophisticated way. There are structures that we have used. The idea of panchil is there. The idea of neutrality is there. Some version. Of course we have a relationship with the United States. And we have a partnership with the United States. But we have to navigate this water. I think the way I think about it, I like what Indira Gandhi once said. Do you lean to the left or do you lean to the right? No, we stand up straight. And I think there's a place for India to stand up straight. Are you therefore recommending a return to multi-alignment as opposed to leaning towards the United States? No, I am saying, pragmatically navigate the waters you're in. Look at the situation and pragmatically taking into account your country, your requirements, your needs, the idea of prosperity, the idea of a conversation. Use those fundamentals to navigate a situation that you find in India. You might find multiple ways to do it. But don't forget about your past and about your capabilities. Don't just say, okay, now we will do this. And to hell with everything that, you know, to hell with our history, to hell with our understanding. We have huge capabilities. I know, I've seen them. We have huge capabilities in our foreign affairs, foreign services. We have huge capabilities in our growing. No one's listening to them. So in the midst of all this, we have the... When you stifle conversation at the national level, you also stifle conversation in the Prime Minister's office. Please understand that. You cannot have a country that is not allowed to speak. And then a Prime Minister's office that tells the Prime Minister the truth. You cannot have those two things. The Prime Minister has to have an attitude. I want to listen. And then from there, everything flows down. Our Prime Minister doesn't listen. And because our Prime Minister doesn't listen, no bureaucrat thinks he needs to listen. I had some... I was talking to some bureaucrats from Europe and they were saying that the Indian Foreign Service completely changed. They don't listen to anything. They're arrogant. Now they're just telling us what orders they're getting. There's no conversation. You can't do that. But good or bad, India presumably has to live with Narendra Modi for the next two years. And in that scenario, how does the world tackle the Ukraine situation and what contribution can India make towards the solution? Look, what is Ukraine? Right? If you look at it, Ukraine is the Russians. Same to the Ukrainians, that we refuse to accept your territorial integrity. We refuse to accept that these two districts belong to you. And we are going to attack you in these two districts to make sure that you break an alliance with Narendra. To make sure that you break an alliance with the United States. That's what Putin is doing. Putin is saying, I'm not ready for you to have an alliance with America. And so I'm going to question your territorial integrity and I'm going to attack you. Please recognize the parallels between what is going on in Ukraine and what is going on in Ladakh and in Doklam. Please realize that the same idea is at play. There are Chinese forces sitting in Ladakh, there are Chinese forces sitting in Doklam. The Doklam forces are designed for Arunachal Pradesh, the forces in Ladakh are designed for Ladakh. And the same principle is there. What the Chinese are saying, we do not accept your territoriality. And please, we do not accept the relationship you have with the United States. So we have to realize that there is a problem on the border. And we have to, whether we like it or not, we have to prepare for that problem. Because we don't even get caught off guard. My problem with the government is that they don't allow a discussion. Chinese troops are sitting inside India today. They've just built a huge bridge over the Pangong Lake. Why are they doing that? They are setting up the infrastructure. They are obviously preparing for something. But the government doesn't want to talk about it. Government wants to stifle the conversation. That's bad for India. I mean they can keep saying that I raised the China issue. Yes, I raised the China issue because I'm worried about it. I'm worried that Chinese troops are sitting inside India. And I can see exactly what is happening in Ukraine. I said this to the foreign minister. In one of our conversations, he says, you know what? You have a point. That's an interesting way to look at it. Please realize there are parallels to what is going on. And so I will come to questions from the audience. Because it's only democratic that I do so. No question of... There will be very few because I'm being signaled that we are running out of time. But before I let Rahul go, let me just ask him. In politics... And I've never been in politics. I'm only an observer. You're in politics. Every Indian is in politics. No. My grandfather was in politics. My great uncle was in politics. But I have never joined any political parties. So I can't say that I'm in politics. Neither in Britain nor in India. Having said that, the way I look at it, is that there are three roles primarily a politician can play in public life. One is an organizational role. The second is a parliamentary role. And the third, for want of a better description, a Gandhian role. That is being at the head of a mass resistance. Which do you think you are best suited to? See, I don't buy the idea, the politician. I think of it in terms of leadership and understanding. I think of it as there is a situation, first understand what is going on. And I hope you got the sense that I do think about these things from the last half an hour, 45 minutes. And then understand where and how you can help. There is a place for parliamentary speeches. There is a place for organization. There is a place for mass action. If I had said to you, you know what? Let's do mass action in 2007. You would say you are crazy. I would have thought to myself, if I had gone and said, let's do mass action in 2002. You didn't. Because you had a government that was not attacking and destroying the institutional framework the way this one is. So roles change, roles change and you adapt. I see myself as somebody who defends that idea of India described to you. When I see our country's voice being crushed, it upsets me. And I think about what I should do and what I can do to help. And I like my friends here do. It's a challenging situation. But I think there's a huge opportunity inside this thing. I feel that from the struggle that is coming, we will get a India that is actually much better than the one we have right now and the one we had even before. I think there's something beautiful that can come out of this. I'm not one of those people who says, you know, now it's all over and stuff like that. I fundamentally believe in the spirit of our country. Thank you very much. And so a few quick questions. I'll come to this side. Yes, the gentleman here, please. Yes. Rahul Ji, you beautifully put forward a view wherein you said China is trying to sell a vision. Doesn't matter good or bad for the country. But West is saying, just stop China. Don't you feel in India? I'm also from a party which is with Congress. In India, BJP is trying to put forward an agenda and, you know, it is going full-fledged with it. And we, Congress and its alliance partners are saying, stop BJP. Should we have a combined strategy and a vision for 2024 which people will accept and people want that to be the vision for our great nation? I don't think the opposition is simply saying stop the BJP. They are of course saying stop the BJP because the BJP is taking away the architecture through which we converse. So for us to have an equal playing field with them, we need those institutions. We need a judiciary. We need election commission. We need a free press. We need a system where we can finance ourselves the same way they do. So obviously we're going to say, you know, please, if you're attacking the institutional structure, we just stop. We have to do that. Right? But I don't think the opposition is saying that, it's purely saying stop the BJP. What we are saying is have in India where diverse views, different views have space and can negotiate. I disagree with my friend Yaturi on many things. He agrees with me on probably more things than I disagree with him on. Right? But we talk, right? We have a conversation and we talk and I say, you know, Yaturi, I don't agree with this. And he says, well, you know what, I don't agree with that. So that conversation is what the opposition is trying to have. From the conversation will come great things. The lady in the middle there, yes. I'm going to be, is it's for those of us who share your vision and share this idea of India, what has often been frustrating on not just the part of the congress party, but the opposition as well of which we have leading representatives today, is not the lack of ideological vision that's persuasive, but of organizational strategy and of a strategic vision, if you like, for capturing power because with the best will and the best intentions in the world without power, there is no translating that vision into a reality as we would like to do. So what in the congress conclave and the opposition conclaves, what is the alternative organizational strategy to mobilize, to get to either the mass movements or the other things that you mentioned, that there can be. And a quick point on the foreign service, I mean, one thing, again... I think we'll restrict it to that one person. But there's a huge personnel deficit. There's just not enough personnel on the ground. The personnel deficit is not because we can't have personnel. It's because the ministry wants to concentrate power. The system wants to concentrate power. So I simply do not believe that India cannot recruit 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 50,000 exceptional people to be in the foreign ministry. It's just that they don't want to do it because that would require a decentralization of power. It would require a completely different transmission of power. So I'm not one who believes that there are not enough brilliant youngsters in India who could be in the foreign services. And I've seen this internally, I've seen this structure and it's not just foreign ministries everywhere. India loves to concentrate power. The second question is, people tell us that we should have a carder like the BJP. And I tell them, the day we have a carder like the BJP, we will be the BJP. We are a mass party. We're a party that listens to the expression of the Indian people. We have an organizational structure. But it is nowhere near the organizational structure of the BJP and it should never ever be. Because please realize, what the BJP does is shout and stifle voices. What we do is listen. There are two different things, there are two different designs. A carder is designed to stifle the voice. A carder is told, you will say this and you will say nothing else. And Yajuriji is looking at me in a strange way. But it's designed to push a particular set of ideas down people's throats. Whether in his system it's the communist idea or in the RSS system, it's true. We're not designed like that. We're designed to listen to the people of India and pull out their voice and place it on the table. And we have an opportunity now that we haven't had for many years to completely redesign the Congress through mass action. So that is, and so do a lot of the opposition people. One last question from this side of the room. That's the last and we'll then have to move on to refreshments. Sir, I'll quote you from 2016. In one of your speeches in Nagpur, you were probably the first leader ever after Ambedkar to openly speak against Manu Smithi. And over the past few months I've been realizing that you've been speaking to save the institutions which safeguard our constitution. So there are two parts now. One is of the Manu Smithi and one is of the Constitution. Will the Congress openly come up against the caste system and will they clear their stance on this issue, sir? It's a bit unfair to say I'm the only leader who's done that. Let's look at Mahatma Gandhi. The single biggest attack on Manu Smithi in Indian history is the Constitution of India. There's no bigger attack on Manu Smithi than the Constitution of India. How does saying one man should get one vote equate with Manu Smithi? Doesn't, right? And let's look at Mr. Manmohan Singh. How does Mandrega equate with Manu Smithi? Mandrega says anybody who's ready to work can work. Mandrega doesn't say if you're an upper caste guy you will get this much money. If you're a lower caste guy you'll get this much money. How does RTI equate with Manu Smithi? It doesn't. So the Congress, through its actions, has been attacking the social system of the country. And it's done it throughout, right? Is the idea of liberalization aligned with Manu Smithi? No, it's not. Because according to Manu Smithi only two, three people should have everything. They should be sitting on top, right? So the basic design of the Congress and everything the Congress does and all our workers, that's what they do. That's why the BJP says Congress book Bharat, right? We fundamentally believe that India and every single human being in India should be given the same rights, the same opportunities. We believe that one because it's fair and two because we know that India can only survive if you do that. If you stop doing that, India will fragment. Ladies and gentlemen, a big hand for Rahul Gandhi. Thank you. Thank you. I've been asked to make a request which is to ask the following to please come on stage for group photograph. Salman Kurshid, Sita Ram.