 Now, this is the last panel of the day and we are sort of heading steadily towards the finance minister who will come in after this and address you and take questions. But it is the first panel with a major weakness, all males, very sad. Rick Rosso done a great job on this conference goofed up here. You know, right through the day we have been focusing on the four big ideas of prime minister Modi. Started with what the finance secretary talked about, the new empowerment of states. Jay, you were not here, but he talked about fiscal federalism and the whole, you know, new direction of more resources to states, more money, more independence to take decisions and chart their own growth path. Then we got into skills, which has become a very big mission in the country led by the PM. And then we have just finished smart cities, another big idea of his. And the fourth, which we are into now, is make in India. And I really congratulate Rick Rosso wherever he is for, you know, kind of building this conference around these four themes, which the prime minister has driven amongst many other initiatives, which he has done. So, an amazing three words now make in India, crafted by him, galvanizing in activities for investment, investment, growth, manufacturing and really calling for a new industrial policy paradigm for India and a very FDI friendly paradigm. Now, thousands of words have been spoken and written on make in India, lots of different interpretations. And we have a panel of four here, three American corporates, all with presence in India. I should probably disclose that I used to be on the advisory board of Oracle. So, I will be tough on you. And we have one opposition member of parliament, not from the BJP, but from the state of Orissa and not part of the national democratic alliance led by the BJP, that is Mr. BJ Panda. So, I am going to start with Mr. Panda. How does he see make in India? Good, bad, indifferent, where do you come from before I go to the corporates in alphabetical order? Jay Panda. Let us put this in context. India has, India's workforce is approximately 450 million people and over the next 15 years, we will be needing to create a million jobs every month to absorb this workforce, to make sure that they are gainfully employed and not go into crime or something else. If you look at our economy, it is lopsided about the number of jobs and 16% of our economy is in manufacturing of some kind. You compare that with China at just under 50%. Even when you compare that with our peer countries, the so called BRICS, Brazil or Malaysia, Korea, they are all way above 20%. This lopsidedness hasn't happened overnight. It has taken decades of poor policies to build up, decades of an environment that has been hostile to business and investment. We sometimes look at the past few years where the shine wore off on the India story of a dozen years ago and we forget that this was not an isolation. India did briefly shine for a while from between the late 90s and the early mid 2000s when the effect of economic reform from the early 90s first started kicking in. If you look at the last 10 years, it is ironic that only last month after a period of almost 10 years did we manage to pass any significant economic legislation in parliament. For the past decade, there has been almost no significant economic legislation. We had a lot of social legislation. We had a lot of expenditure legislation, but we didn't have the kind of legislation that would grow the pie. What this means is that there is a lot of momentum that we have to overcome. Let me give you an example of how tough this is. The Prime Minister came in last year and started changing the narrative from the very fundamentals and going all over the world to sell the India story all over again. By all accounts, he's been doing a great job in selling India. But if you take one measure, for instance, the World Bank has a measure called ease of doing business. Last year, India ranked 140 out of 185 countries. You'd imagine with all the effort that has gone in in the past one year, not just the announcement of the make in India, but for example, FII investment has gone up 40% year on year. For example, the economic package, the three major bills that were passed that I just referred to. Guess what? In a year's time, instead of improving, we have slid a further two points. 2015, India is not 140, but 142 out of 185 countries to do business in. Ease of doing business. The reason is the world isn't standing still. Everybody else is getting better. We have to run faster to just stay in the same place. And we need to make a lot of changes. If I'm sounding pessimistic, I'm not. I'm just laying out the landscape as I see it and the reasons why we are where we are today. The reality is I'm actually quite an optimist in terms of what is finally happening. One of the main problems, of course, has been the politics and that was referred to in other panels. I was here for the just previous panel, whether it is about cities or about manufacturing. Politics often creates gridlock and I know in this country you aren't unfamiliar with that. The good news in India is that since the government came in last May, in the three parliament sessions that we've had, the monsoon session, the winter session and the first half of the budget session, two of them have been the most productive in the last 10 years. In terms of number of days work, number of hours work, number of bills passed, and as I said fortunately now, also economic bills, not just social bills. These are all great signs that we are turning the ship around, but it is a big oil tank, it's not a little sports car. So it is going to take a while to turn around. I'm actually quite confident that even at the rate at which we are progressing, we should reverse the trend in terms of the ease of doing business index number even by the coming year. So our big shortcomings are infrastructure because we under-invested in infrastructure for many decades. Regulatory hurdles of course. And among the regulatory hurdles, I would rank the single biggest hurdle of all as labor laws. We have, I think, the world's most complex, most difficult to operate in terms of labor laws. But there are many ways to tackle this problem. Just to take a little aside, I don't have the time to explain it here, but take my word for it. To get these three bills passed in parliament took six months of trench warfare in parliament out of sight of many observers and the media. A lot of people just thought that the government was spinning its wheels, but it wasn't. It was actually reaching out across the aisle. It was building consensus. Labor laws passed ordinances which are executive orders, temporary in nature, to signal that they were serious, and then followed up by patching together the numbers in both houses of parliament to get these bills passed. These are all good signs. Labor law is a bigger hurdle than some of the laws, economic laws we have passed just recently. So the approach they seem to be taking is we don't have to do it nationally all at one go. So the party in government is sending out signals to its state units wherever they are in government to start taking action, and you are beginning to see in the state of Rajasthan and a few other states early action at liberalizing labor laws to be in line with what is needed. It still doesn't go far enough. It's just a foot in the door kind of approach, but it is beginning to show results. I'm aware of at least one big multinational company that's in manufacturing heavy equipment that has doubled down its presence in one of these states which is pioneering labor law reform. And in my interactions with them they've told me that that is one of the crucial reasons why they're doing it. The infrastructure angle is likely to get sorted out over the next few years as some of these projects get going. Many of these projects have been held up because of the government's left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, different ministries and departments opposing each other. That part seems to be gradually getting sorted out because there is a decisiveness back in the government. Everybody knows where the buck stops, whereas for many years for the past decade it was a sort of a free for all. For the past decade the buck did not stop at the Prime Minister's desk and it was kind of a coalition government with all the horrors that you would imagine that it could be, whereas today you have a much more decisive government. It's not a cinch. You still need to pass bills in both houses. The government does not have a majority in the upper house but they have shown resolve and they've shown the ability to get some bills passed in the upper house and the good news is not everything requires legislation. There's a lot of things that are under executive action of the government that they need to take. And I'm hopeful that although not everybody is pleased at the pace at which they're bringing in these changes, particularly the direction is in the right direction and I'm hopeful that this will start paying off. Also new sectors have been opened up. FDI in defense for instance, FDI in insurance. I think one of the big turning points is going to be when FDI starts rising rather than financial institutional investment. Institutional investment can come in easy, go out easy but we need the investment on the ground. We need the investment in factories. We need the investment in infrastructure projects, which is FDI. We also need to do the same thing for domestic investment. A lot of us believe that the interest rates are too high, particularly since we've had a year of low inflation. The gods have been kind to us. Oil prices have been low but for whatever reason. But we do have an independent regulator. Our central bank is the Reserve Bank of India and headed by a very credible person who's introduced data-driven decision making on the bank's policies. And that has not led to lowering of rates as quickly as industry would like but there has been some lowering of rates. I'm actually hopeful that rates will continue to lower but I'm not the person to decide that. We're just keeping our fingers crossed. I'll sum up by saying this. What do I think of make in India? Two words. Vastly overdue. I'll sum up by saying this. You know, even when the India story had the shine go off, we were still growing at four and a half, five percent, which is not all that bad although it's bad for the developing economy. But even when we were growing at nine percent and briefly one quarter we touched ten percent, the problem was that we got caught up in hubris. All of India are politicians, our editors, our business people. We got caught up in the hubris that it was our manifest destiny to be the next economic superpower and we didn't have to do anything to make it happen. That was because it had been a decade or 14 years since the reforms of the early 90s when this kicked in. So the cause and effect didn't stay in people's mind. This time around things are different. I think we realize that although this vast opportunity exists for us, particularly with China sort of plateauing, not slowing down, but plateauing, we have great opportunities but they'll be not automatic. We have to go out and make it happen. And one of the biggest things that's going to make it happen, apart from everything I've said, is what Tarun mentioned a bit earlier, is about finally, finally after 67 years, Delhi realizing that it cannot micromanage 29 states, a full subcontinent, each and every village and coming in with these new principles of fiscal devolution, which this year alone gives an additional 29 billion dollars to the states and leaves it to the states to manage their own destinies, which as I said, I give you an example of Rajasthan, which is one state which is taking the lead in labor law reform. Doesn't go far enough by a long shot, but it's already beginning to see some results in terms of attracting investment. So I think in terms of making India, we have no option but to make sure our economy is balanced, not so heavily dependent on services and agriculture, where the sons and daughters of farmers no longer want to be in farming. We have to shift the load quite a lot on to manufacturing and not the kind of manufacturing which dominates India, which are quote unquote firms with less than 10 employees, which is all in the unregulated small sector. We need to attract scale and all that I have said, I think indicates that we are perhaps turning the ship around in the right direction, but we need to do a lot more and we need to do it quickly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jay. I'm going to go to Rustam Desai now. He is the managing director of Corning India. Corning does not need an introduction anywhere in the world. It's certainly not in the US. It's an outstanding company and Rustam is the chief executive of that company. Rustam, how do you see make in India? How is life in India? Is it treating you a little better or is it all the same? What needs to be done? Share your thoughts with us. Sotaran, I actually have a few slides if you don't mind. The short answer is that it continues to be an adventure. Can somebody pull my slides up? There we go. What I thought I'd share with the audience today and with the panelists is Corning's story around make in India. It's a look back at how we got to where we are today and hopefully that will shed some light in terms of what's working, what isn't, where the opportunities for change exist, so on and so forth. I want to start off by trying to help people understand why we actually chose to manufacture in India. The plant that we invested in makes optical fiber. Optical fiber is the backbone of essentially any data voice network anywhere in the world. There are two data points that drove us to think really hard about India. One was that the subscriber base of mobile users in India was enormous and that compared with the relative scale of infrastructure that supported those subscribers was abysmal and that created an opportunity for doing business. So clearly there was a business need for the products that we made. We also quickly realized that at least half of the market, half of our end-use market was actually government-driven and for those of you that participate in India, I'm sure many of you do, you know that government procurement has certain PMA requirements around it and we thought it would be a good decision on our part to actually leverage that. So we decided to invest in building a facility in India. Once we decided, okay, we got to do India, the next question was, well, where the hell do we build this plant? It's 29 states, everyone has a different story. Some have water, others have electricity, some have roads, others have people. What combination of those things are absolutely necessary? Can you run a plant without people or can you run it without power? Let's think about that. So we went through a very extensive process. We started off with a short list of 10 states over 50 sites. We drove that down to three states and five sites. And finally, now that it's all behind us, we can talk about it. It came down to two sites in two states. One was in Gujarat and one was in Maharashtra. And we chose Maharashtra. And fundamentally, through this entire process, the four criteria that we established for ourselves in terms of how we would choose which state to go to was around the availability of infrastructure and how much it would cost us. The facilities available for employees and potential expats as we were building this facility, the talent availability and the full disclosure, the financial incentives that were being offered to us either by the states or at the federal level. So looking back, here's how it all came out. We made some assumptions about those four criteria. And then there was a set of sort of reality experiences that we had during the process, that in some cases was aligned with the assumptions in other cases not. We assumed infrastructure would be cheap and we expected that we would have teething problems with the infrastructure in India. That's what everybody told us. As it turns out, neither was the infrastructure cheap, nor was this a question of teething problems. The infrastructure in India is really expensive, especially if you go anywhere close to a large city. And the infrastructure issues continue to plague us. So not a great story on that particular variable. As far as facilities for employees and expats is concerned, I think we made a great choice. We're right outside of Pune. We had 200 plus US employees, China employees visiting this plant on and off over the 18 months that it was being built. The facilities and infrastructure that Pune offers relative to other options that we looked at, I think made it significantly improved the probability that our employees were safe and well taken care of and made it to and from the site. So that assumption and reality kind of proved out. Talent was the real surprise for me personally. I'm Indian. I grew up in India. My assumption was that it would be easy to find lots of people. It would not be easy to find lots of good people. And to me, that was the biggest personal learning for me. We found a lot of people. We have also found a lot of great people. The people that work in our plant deliver a world class product. They deliver it in many cases in a manner that is better than any of our other facilities around the world. Attrition is low. This is an awesome team. So I'd like to leave you guys with the with that one real positive from our experience. The other piece was just simple financial incentives. Some states gave more others gave less. We chose one of the states that gave us the best package. And so we're in Maharashtra. So in hindsight, we're sort of the learnings from this whole experience. Plan for infrastructure issues sort of to endure beyond just the startup of your facility. Find ways to have your processes adjust and adapt to the fact that you will continue to deal with those issues. It's not it's not a fatal flaw in India. It's just something that you got to plan for and be thoughtful of rather than think that it'll go away because it won't. The other piece, of course, is that those of you that haven't already done this, there's always the Indian government is actually really good and thoughtful about incentives in terms of manufacturing in terms of exporting products on and so forth. Be thoughtful about those things as you go into deciding where to build. And then finally, people plan people planning is critical. Build your processes and your people hiring processes in your training processes and your safety processes around building talent and retaining them because awesome, awesome talent available if you go about it in the right way. Okay. The next few slides are just some photographs to kind of bring all of this home for you guys. So that was the piece of land that we we finally landed up acquiring outside of Kune. Lovely patch of green. Not much else. You can see no electric cables. You can see no road. Certainly not a lot of people around there. Anyhow, it was a lovely patch of land. We took it. It took us nine months to acquire the piece of land, which I think for those for us, it was the first time that Corning invested in a wholly owned facility in India, including me. Everybody was shocked that it took so long, but it did. It took us nine months. That's the plant. It took us 373 days from the time we moved the first piece of dirt to the time we started to sell our first piece of product from that facility. That is a worldwide record for Corning. Okay, during that process, as we mentioned earlier, we invested very heavily in training. And as I also mentioned earlier, I am really proud to report that this plant produces world-class product. We export 50% of what we make there. It makes it back to the US. It makes it to Europe. It makes it to every geography in the world. World class product. But that's the road. Now we ship glass. Just so you guys understand, our raw material is glass. And now this is an old photograph. I'm happy to report that there is actually a road today. But this photograph was taken two years after the day we started selling product from the plant. We still didn't have a road connecting our facility to anything that looked like a road. And that is the challenge. So what did we have to do? We had to innovate around packaging materials, packaging processes, shipping. We had to put accelerometers into our trucks to figure out which were the biggest bumps. How do we prevent having 100% of our raw material show up broken? We figured it out. And the plant's doing great. And we have great people. And it's a great story. So just watch out for, you know, not having a road. And so bringing all of this back together, I always think about stuff like this and say, well, you know, what could we have? What can we learn from all this? And how can these various components of the manufacturing equation actually help make the future of India manufacturing better? And I sat down on my team and we did some thinking around, well, how does India stack up relative to other geographies that are potentially buying for similar manufacturing investment dollars? And the story we came out with is that as far as the market opportunity is concerned, as far as talent is concerned, and as far as sort of the investment incentives, if you like, is concerned, India's actually, in many cases, far better than the competition. But there's a section in the middle around the transparency of decision making, the what people, you know, often call the license Raj or the inspector Raj, where essentially, every bureaucrat looks at you like you've done something wrong, and then you got to prove that you haven't, which is an odd place to be. But anyhow, the efficiency around permitting and approval processes, I've got to I've got to tell you, there is a company that will not be named at this point, but that, you know, participates in a in a trade association with us. And they did the math around, if they had sequentially actually done all their permitting one after the other, rather than parallely, they would have been one or the other of their files would have been in an Indian government office for over 10 years, to have taken them over 10 years to get through the approval process. So what can we all do? I think if I if I were writing the script for the India government, I'd say, let's try and make this more about how we can attract manufacturing investment rather than allow it. The feeling you get as an investor is, you're grudgingly allowed to invest, not that you're actually being invited to invest. And that subtle difference, I think will go a long way in this cup in this country that has so much potential. And you know, you can read all the other bullet points at your leisure, but I think there's a role for the US government to play as well. Right. Our experience was actually the the US Embassy and the consular offices were tremendously helpful to us. They were tremendously helpful, opening doors, having conversations that other organizations were not comfortable having with government, so on and so forth. So please continue that work, you know, anyone here that's in government, the embassies and the consular offices did a fantastic job for us. There's an element around how the US government can help de-risk our investment choices, that I don't think that's going to be a secret to anybody here. Often other government, other companies from other jurisdictions show up with money from their companies, from their countries, and that model ought to be thought through a little bit in terms of how the US can do more around that. And then finally, finally the piece around what can we as corporations do to make all of this look, you know, make the future look better? I think celebrating the wins, you know, being more vocal about the fact that, yes, India does have its set of issues like many other countries do, but we invested in India. It's been a very successful adventure for us. It's an adventure, but it's been a successful one, and we'd probably do it again. And so it's really a story of, yeah, there's a few stumbling blocks, but delighted to be in India, delighted to be manufacturing there, and mostly delighted about the team that we've been able to create at our facility. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I not ask you, but I suppose you're making money. You may suppose. Good, can't disclose. Clifford Samuel, Vice President Gilead. You have a very different experience with India. Good to have you here. I do indeed have a different and bullish perspective on India. I think the theme making India is good. I would say that we are already making in India through our various partners, which you'll see. Let me see if I can advance this. I'll start with a little bit of Gilead, and then I quickly will move to what we're doing. This will be brief because I'm looking forward to some of the dialogue about Gilead, the mission, discover, develop, and deliver innovative medicines in areas upon medical need. 7,000 employees in the Bay area, San Francisco, California, beautiful place if you ever get to visit. We have a portfolio of pipeline and investigational medicines in the area of HIV AIDS, viral hepatitis liver disease, BNC, cancer inflammation, respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and 19 marketed products in addition to 400 ongoing or planned clinical trials. So very robust R&D occurring in highly on medical needs. Now, there's something that we need to be clear on what you see in the next couple of slides. We have one of our board members here, Carla Hills, but with individuals like Carla, our chairman, CEO John Martin, our president CEO, CEO John Milligan and my boss Greg Alton, we fundamentally believe that anyone who needs our medicines should have access to them regardless of where they live or their ability to pay. Their economic means or where they live should not impede someone to not have a cutting-edge medicine that's available in the U.S. and Europe. So how do we go about this and how do we tackle things like HIV where you have 35 million people living and in the world 90 percent of them are in poor developing world countries and in other areas such as Hep C. So we approach this in a two-prong fashion. On one side, we have what we call our organic infrastructure. These are our 20 distributors. They're also local individuals. Milan is our distributor for India and South Africa. And we characterize those distributors as Gilead on the front lines. They've gone through our business conduct and compliance training. They do on any given day the regulatory submissions for the dossiers to ensure that product can be supplied sustainably. They are conducting pharmacovigilance safety reporting and something that we really spend a lot of time on. You can get the medicines in the country and of course sometimes they're not being used because they don't have enough doctors. We spend a lot of time on public health, medical education and training and also health system strengthening. So that's what our distributors are doing on any given day. Now recognizing the magnitude of this pandemic and I'm responsible for 130 countries. The 130 countries span from Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, all of Africa, South Southeast Asia Pacific. So what we do, we recognize that this is not possible on our own. So we have engaged India's finest. India's finest are their manufacturers of medicines. India in my country and from the West Indies, India has always been the pharmaceutical engine for the poor. And what we've done starting in 2006 because I must tell you in 2003 we failed miserably. A bit of hubris as someone might have said here. I can get the best of you but we did learn that you can't do it alone and just making a price lower and saying everybody can come and get it. Doesn't mean anyone will come and get it. And that's what happened in 2003. In 2006 we decided that we should engage our generic manufacturers out of India. They're the best at it. It started with 94 countries and I can say then we had 30,000 patients on treatment. Fast forward we also joined the medicine spatter pool which is very similar to what we're doing with our Indian manufacturers but independent of a pharmaceutical company. In 2014 we have 19 generic manufacturers now. So it went from 11 to 19. It's constantly evolving program. And now our Indian partners of this 7.3 million patients that are on our medicines in these 130 countries 6 million of them are being supplied by our Indian generic partners. And that's phenomenal. That's across Africa, Asia, Pacific, Latin America. This is India making it. So making India is good but there are sectors that are already making it and these factories have hundreds of people. You go to SIPLA and Goa or Biocon, Zidas. They have hundreds of people, different shifts 24-7. So very viable industry. India, we just launch our drug for hepatitis C which in combination with two other medicines is a cure. A cure for hepatitis C. India is the first country in the Asian region in four months approved Suvaldi for hepatitis C. And following the similar but different format of the generics arrangements for HIV we have now 11 partners gearing up. Some of them have already launched their version of Suvaldi in India. So you couldn't ask for a better story on what is being done and what can be done in the future. When we look at global reach you could see that on the HIV side it's 112 countries. On the hepatitis C side it's 91 countries. The HIV side represents about 30 million of the 35 million. That's what Indian manufacturers are providing medicines for. On the hepatitis C side it will be up to 100 million people that could be reached. We've calculated that $2 billion have been made since 2007 via our generic partners. Now one thing to mention what we do is we take our medicines for example this Havoni which was just approved for the cure of hep C. And we take that and do a technology transfer to our Indian manufacturers. Now this is in spite of not having our patent issued in India. Because as I mentioned from our board and our chairman CEO we fundamentally believe that IP issues intellectual property issues are separate from saving lives. Now I must say that it would be ideal if we had a patent issued because it would cement this model of doing a technology transfer of our know-how to generic Indian generic partners. They are free to set their own price to make any combination of medicines they like to make. They are free to sell the active pharmaceutical ingredient to each other. This is all their business. It's a hands-off relationship. What we do help with is if they run into any issues making the product as quickly as possible we're there to assist. Because we really do want the medicines to get to the poorest of the poor. But clearly Indian manufacturers are the best at high volume, large scale-up manufacturing and it's proven. It's proven in our model. So you can ask for a better slide if you're looking at geographically dispersed regions. You have manufacturers in every part of the major cities. And I say there are opportunities here to broaden this as we go along. And numbers always speak for themselves. The proofs are in the numbers. Nine-year relationship, 19 partners on the HIV side, eight Gilead products. We're also looking at oncology. I mentioned inflammation oncology respiratory. These medicines will transcend into this model as well. One of the key aspects of quality is gaining approval, tentative FDA approval by the USFDA and WHO pre-qualification. We have 39 of them. I mentioned the 6 million and the opportunity for 100 million on the HCP side. But clearly we have seen an 80% reduction in price. This is exactly what we wanted to see. Price going down, volumes going up, lives being saved. I think this is phenomenal, which is why I'm bullish. I'll close with this slide. Last September, our drug Suvaldi, which was approved in 2013, I think December. Brand new product FDA approved. You have 20 years of patent exclusivity. We launched a making India licensing agreements with 11 of our partners in India. They're moving. They're getting it done. I will close in saying that this is wonderful and there's in a good spot. Two things I think needs to occur. The recognition of intellectual property because it can flow both ways. Our partners are improving what we have even made. They're coming up with novel ways of improvements. You want to patent those. You want to make those available in China and Brazil and other places. The respectful IP would cement what we're trying to accomplish here. It's a model that says on either side of the aisle, multinationals say you can't do business in India. India is saying your products aren't getting to the poor. This starts the dialogue and actually show by doing. So the respect for IP or the issuance of intellectual property and investment in healthcare of its citizens. It doesn't matter what you try to do or what you try to make. You're going to have to have healthy citizens to execute, to get that road done or to do anything. You do need investments in the healthcare systems. So thank you very much. I hope I didn't go too far. Thank you. Thank you very much. That was terrific. Thank you. A very, very different, very unique model of operating around the world and in India. Joe, take it away. Thank you. I'll sit here. I'll sit here because I don't actually have slides. So we certainly welcome make in India and we think we shouldn't forget what I consider to be its companion, which is digital India, because both of them together make an exceedingly compelling argument. And it's also useful because both of them together create a strategic vision across sectors. And that's tremendously important because that creates that cohesion across the government that is necessary when you start looking at these solutions because many of the issues the government has to deal with, especially if you deal with perceptions from the outside, are macro issues. And this kind of strategic whole of the government vision becomes very important to selling the desirability of the destination for investment. So one, we strongly welcome the combination of make in India and digital India. We also think it's important because it started to shift the vision of ICT as merely a destination to attract investment to also consider ICT information communication technologies as an enabler across all sectors. And that is in fact the real role of ICT is enablement across sectors, not just a sector in which you want to have investment in production. As articulated and as set forth so far, the make in India program is an incentive driven as you pointed out, FDI friendly and I would call it a race to the top. I mean the information communication technology, business processing, outsourcing industry in India is the example of what happens when you have an incentive driven race to the top. It went from an industry that had small scale to an industry that became large scale to an industry that had export to an industry that's a world class leader. And that is the potential you have but you grow step wise as you need to and the incentives are logical in the relation of the context of where the industry is. We had previously seen some experience with the fallacy of what a top down imposed set of manufacturing requirements would look like. And the history of that wherever it is done is that what you end up having is a manufacturing industry that will only ever manufacture something that is good enough for the domestic market. Something that will not create an export market and something that will lead to the mediocrity of the product as opposed to the world class product. So we are very happy to see that that is not the path that was chosen in this exercise and we strongly, strongly commend that that not be something that falls back. That path would not be a path to a productive and bright future. A number of people have pointed out there's an infrastructure reality and that is the truth. I sometimes call it the money on the table issue. There's a huge unmet market demand in India. There's a growing set of incentives and in my experience the Indian businessmen I have met are among the most entrepreneurial in the world. And if you tell me there's a table full of money and a whole met bunch of unmet demand and those tremendously entrepreneurial people have no desire to pick up that money then you have some infrastructure problems that you need to address first. There are some basic issues that are preventing someone from picking up money from that pile. And some of it may be the questions of do you have the electricity, the people, the facilities, everything in the right place. So you know especially when you're talking about the highest tech manufacturing, the fault tolerance is very slim, the need to have very constant supplies of electricity, good supplies of water, skills, illegal certainty as was highlighted previously and then an understanding of your competitive global dynamic. When the BPO industry started in India, India was kind of the game in town. If you look globally there wasn't a whole lot of a competitive environment there. Today both in manufacturing and in services there's a huge competitive environment of lots of peer countries trying to create incentives to drive people to come to them. Choose me, choose me. Let me show you the package I'm going to give you. Let me show you how nice my welcome mat is. Not allow attract as the statement was made. I'm going to steal that from you on occasion if you don't mind. So we also have to think when I understand the million people that have to join the job market on a monthly basis and the desire for manufacturing. But let's also not forget that everything has a multiplier effect that also leads to manufacturing. The multiplier effect in services is thought to be about four to one. Four jobs are created for every job in the services sector. While those job include construction, those job include people who make consumer electronic, those jobs include a lot of things where people are producing to go into that value chain. So let us not misunderstand that those tales of production are also very important. So even if you're involved in services services creates a manufacturing tale of its own. And that has to be considered as part of making India as well. The next thing I wanted to highlight was kind of going to the macro issue and a couple of the speakers before me have gotten to elements of them. But there was a very organized way of looking at those elements that came out of a document that was created in APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, which is essentially all the Pacific Rim countries. And it was signed by leaders. So this is a document endorsed at the highest level APEC has to endorse that. And it was called the digital prosperity checklist. And the digital prosperity checklist said, what is it that an economy has to do today to attract someone to say I want to put my next facility or I want to put my investment dollars in that? And the answer is it's not one element, it's multiple elements. And they operate in a matrix, which means they're codependent to each other. And the elements were infrastructure. What is your physical infrastructure? What is your regulatory infrastructure? For example, the labor laws. What are your infrastructure opportunities? Investment. Do you have fluid capital markets? Do you enable foreign direct investment? Do you have micro financing if that's the nature of the investment that's appropriate for your market? Intellectual capital, what is the preparedness of your population in terms of entrepreneurial skills, linguistic skills, technological skills? Information flows. If information is the currency or the oil of the digital economy, how can you use and manage information across your economy? Innovation. How does your economy support innovation and finally integration? And that's the one where we cheated because we were coming up, we thought alliteration was very good and we wanted six eyes. And we couldn't come up with a reasonable life for trade. So we called it integration, but that really means trade behind the border, at the border and across the border. And it is that economic and policy orientation towards all six of these eyes and the way they work in integration that actually makes the economy attractive for investment. So while you may have companies that can bring either that can leverage existing world-class manufacture as was done by Gilead or who bring their technology in as was done by Corning, you have lots of folks who are looking for where are the component manufacturers I can have? And the question is, how do we make those become best of breed in India? Because you cannot incorporate into a globally acclimated supply chain a less than a globally qualified manufacturer. So we have a chicken and egg problem with making India, which is we have to also raise the level and the competence of some of those people who manufacture a piece of the solution and want to become part of your supply chain. And I think part of that is education. Part of that is the fact that the Indian economy is developing those on its own. Part of that is finding the strengths. So India's strength in the drug manufacture was they had mastered many of the productions for making quality drugs at a lower price. Sometimes it's because they have manufactured they have mastered the concept of I can come up with a more simplified solution to a problem that may be able to address a mass market requirement. And the problem is right away when you see making India and you see tech companies involved, someone wants to know where's the next chip fab. And chip fabrication is a very delicate, high strung, requiring lots of tolerances. Let's figure out how we walk before we run. Maybe the component manufacturers are the place to start. Maybe that's part of the concept. Maybe understanding where India's skills are best suited. It's not that chip fabrication shouldn't be part of the strategy along the path, but it's maybe not the first step you go to. So we actually think making India and Digital India combined are a powerful incentive. We think the smart cities will be consumers of some of what gets manufactured in this. So we think this whole of government approach related to the strategic direction is a very positive development in India puts truth to the concept of why there is so much optimism. The one caution I would perhaps have is the work ethic at the very top of Indian leadership is a difficult one for anyone else in the government to match. The concepts we've heard of getting the 9 or 10 or 11 PM phone call about the presentation you're going to make to me the next day are somewhat legendary. And the concern is there is such a desire to please and meet the schedule that there is a concern of over promising in some cases. And the over promising leads to a failure that doesn't exist because if you don't meet an objective that was never a realistic objective then it shouldn't be considered a failure. And from a public perception and an external perception it is not useful for India to have such an expectation that it cannot meet. So the only thing I would say is to temper some of the realistic objectives and realistic time frames because I think there has been an over ambition which doesn't necessarily help India which has every opportunity to make the milestones it needs to make but the milestones have to be realistic to achieve. Thank you. Thank you very much. You've had one great overview and three terrific presentations by the three US corporates. We have 10 minutes for questions. Name, brevity and question, not speech. Tessie, Tessie Schaefer. Mike coming to you. Tessie Schaefer from McClarty Associates and Brookings. Wonderful presentations. I had occasion to call on a joint secretary in one of the ministries in India who handed me his business card with Make in India actually on the top side and his name on the bottom and gave me a stirring presentation of how the Make in India initiative was all about infrastructure which he defined both in the way Mr. Desai and Jay defined it but also to include things like training. My question is for those of you who have run enterprises in India that actually make something, are you seeing government initiatives either in physical infrastructure or in people infrastructure? And if you could write your own ticket, what kind of government initiatives would you look at or would you look at incentives for companies to do more of that themselves? Any of you want to take this? Yeah, I'd be happy to. You know, it really comes down to I can only speak for Corning but we're not good at making roads, right? It's just not good what we do. And so an environment that has the physical infrastructure in some state that looks like ready before that infrastructure gets offered to corporations to show up, I think will have a, there'll be a line of companies waiting to invest in properties like that. It will be a no-brainer for US corporations because all the other elements are already in place. There's a market, there's talent, there's all the other things that are required, you know, the six eyes to make this jurisdiction be exciting from an investment standpoint are already there. You fix the one problem and I would offer that we'll create a gravy train of potential investors just to make sure there's electricity, water and roads. Really, it's that simple. If the government can take care of that piece, I think the investment dollars will not stop. It turns out that the government isn't very good either at making roads and building electricity. But, but I'll tell you where let me tell you what the answer is. The answer is not for government to do everything but government to be responsible for it and facilitate it. There are other companies that are very good at building roads and there are other companies that are very good at building electricity plants. The last time around that this happened, it all got sucked into crony capitalism and scandals. So all the SEZs that were put up were scandal ridden. These are places that you would have happily walked into and all these problems been taken care of you. Were they not so scandal ridden? This time around, I'm a bit more hopeful because in changing the narrative, the government has been actually talking about being pro-business, pro-markets, but no, not pro-specific cronies who get to get all the deals. And I think if that is implemented properly, it should be a win-win situation because leaving it to the government is going to be worse than leaving it to you than building the roads. Tessy, I think there is a lot of pressure now to make up the backlog on infrastructure projects but it will take time. Infrastructure by its nature is not something built overnight. Most of our highways now, the new highways and all have been built by foreign companies. Roughly 30% by Malaysian companies and the quality is world-class. You can see that. But that needs to extend beyond the highways, essentially. I think as well, I mentioned it already that the IP laws should be looked at. I think there's a lot of companies that would love to take advantage of the scientific minds and know how in India but they are worried. It's not all stance. We have life-saving medicines. We're going to continue. But perhaps the model will help bring some of that dialogue to the table. Yes, Sadan. Mike there, please. Thank you very much. I'm Sadan Dhumir from the American Enterprise Institute and I have a very quick clarification and a question. The clarification is that in terms of ease of doing business even though that 2015 number in India declined from 140 to 142, the period measured is the summer of 2013 to 2014. So what we're going to see in terms of whether this government has delivered or not will come out in the 2016 number. My question is also for Mr. Panda. You have this sort of advantage of looking at India, not only from Delhi but also being an MP who's very involved with your state and your constituency. So when you look at making India putting on your state hat, where do you see opportunities for the state government or for Orissa to make reforms or to move to attract investment in a way that it could not have say before the election of this government in the center? Well, if you look at Orissa, it may not be typical for all of India although there are some common threads. But Orissa is a good example because it has turned around from being a basket case for many decades to being one of the fastest growing economies inside of India for the past decade. The common thread, the problem that we all face is land acquisition. And this is a challenge that we are now dealing with. There is an ordinance out on it but we have not been able to thrash through legislation. I expect the legislation will take close to a year to happen because of various technical requirements for land acquisition. Now, I mentioned land acquisition because Orissa being mineral rich has had these gigantic process industry plants that have got stuck because of land acquisition. The Korean Pohang Steel Company, the Vedanta Aluminium Plant, the good news is that there's lots of other stuff that's happening. There's infrastructure that's happening, the tourism sector is booming. This is one of the things that the Prime Minister has actually personally led in terms of making visa-free arrival to India or visa-on arrival in India to 40 countries now going up to 150 countries just to remove that hurdle of hassle of visiting India is making a big difference. So we are beginning to see lots of increase in flights. Fortunately, our new airport came in a few years ago so we are lucky but we need dozens of more airports all around the country and these seem to be easier hurdles to overcome than some of the other big infrastructure projects, I mean airports. Ports, in Orissa we have a 500-kilometer coastline. We used to have one port, we did have three operational ports. So these are some of the opportunities. There's lots of private educational institutions that are coming up. In the past, these used to be not up to the mark. Recent examples are getting to be better. So I think an IT, for instance, nobody thinks of Orissa as an IT center. Seventh largest employer of information technology professionals in the country. So there's lots happening under the radar. When people think of IT, they think of Bangalore or Hyderabad or Pune. They don't think of the tier three cities that are beginning to employ thousands of IT professionals all across the country. So that's what I see at the glass half full. Ray? Mr. Samuel, I have a question. I'm Ray Vickery from Albright Stonebridge. Evidently one of the factors in Gilead's success in India where others have failed has been your two-tier pricing system which allows for a lower price in India than in other markets. And it seems to me that that might have some implications for other companies which are heavily intellectual property based. I'm wondering if you might elaborate a little bit more on how that pricing structure works. Sure. It's evolved over the years. Initially we took the 130 countries for HIV and actually looked at world bank classifications and GNI per capita and then disease prevalence. So GNI per capita, disease prevalence, and you came up with two categories, low income or low middle income. And then we set a price based on those two tiers. So that was in 2006. Now we've evolved because you'll find even with a low income or low middle income country you still have that economic pyramid of the have less than have not. So we're looking at three different types of models now. One is differential pricing based on those criteria where you set a private market price, a low income price to the Ministry of Health where you can actually negotiate volumes agreements. And then maybe in some countries you have a military or some other entity that has its own budget and purchasing. In many ways I've spent years in the US it's no different from the VA, etna signa and Medicaid Medicare. So it's really just utilizing what's been around and having a conversation with the Ministry to see what they're ready to participate in. Last question. Young man at the back, his hand went up first. Thank you Tharun. My name is Sanjeev Joshipura, I run SJ Consulting which is a US India focused public policy and business consulting firm. My question is for Mr. Panda. In your opening remarks Mr. Panda you mentioned executive orders and without getting into the arcane details of parliamentary procedure or anything like that I want to ask you a question around those executive orders as it pertains to policy certainty for investors. In the United States as well we've had a problem with executive orders and a controversy around that with what Mr. Obama has done on immigration and so forth. And in India I'm wondering whether there are any sunset clauses applicable to executive orders that parliament can rescind unless a formal bill is passed on those specific issues. Thank you. Parliament can do anything. Parliament can make retrospective laws which I think are a very bad idea. But I don't think it's highly likely that parliament will actually consider retrospective laws with perhaps one exception. The contentious issue is the land acquisition issue. Now I've written extensively on both ordinances and on land acquisition. You might want to just look up my articles, I've addressed some of this so because I have to be brief here I'd like to say that in fact investors or corporates who would take advantage of those ordinances to make investments are being cautious but I don't think they will continue to be cautious across the board. They will probably be cautious on lands being acquired by ordinance and in any case most of the lands being acquired for ordinance are for purely, truly public purpose rather than for industrial states or anything like that. Technically, let's be very clear, parliament does have the authority to make retrospective laws but in all likelihood I would be pretty willing to bet that if you go ahead and make investment decisions based on ordinances which have been passed, you're okay. Some quick takeaways before we conclude because Rick Rosser wants us to finish by 345. Just taking Rustam's first comment. He said India is an adventure. I think the challenge for us is to not make it an adventure just to respond to that. I think that was a very important point that you made, you made it lightheartedly but I think there's a very major message there. Second, very positive point and I think that's coming out everywhere, people, quality of people, talent, low attrition. This is a great place to find good people. I think this is the experience of many companies including I think the companies on the panel. Third, I think right across infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. I think this has come through from everyone. Different kinds of infrastructure, not just physical infrastructure but different kinds of infrastructure that is going to make a huge difference to make an India, investments, growth and all of that. So there is as I said a lot of attention to it but we've got to get it done now. It has to go beyond talking about it. Attract, not allow. I think this is a huge issue, huge issue because I think many, many corporates including all Indian corporates actually face this problem of the bureaucracy taking an attitude of allow. We're doing your favor by meeting you. We are allowing you to set up industry. So for me it seems that Prime Minister has to go through a blood transfusion. He has to bring in people with domain knowledge with self-confidence, with integrity and competence who will get the job done for him. He's done a little bit of that blood transfusion. It's making a difference in some areas but he hasn't done it yet in some of the domestic areas. It's actually made a huge difference in the international relations area by making significant changes there. So a very important point from you, Rustam. One hears it too much everywhere and everybody feels this pain of dealing with the administration. I think these are some of the quick takeaways. I think it's been a great session. Prime Minister obviously has a great vision. I think we need to get the architecture right and the implementation right. These two are still work in progress. Before we conclude and I thank this panel, I just want to recognize one great man who's been sitting through our session. Quietly, Professor Jagdish Bhagwati there. Jagdish, will you raise your hand? One of our leading global thinkers. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here and for speaking. Thank you. Thank you, sir.