 So the point is how to produce this housing stock, and in this process, we have some terrible experiences as speaking from the experience of the slum dwellers and the housing struggles in the city. A, we are slumming our city. We are legitimizing the depletion of public assets. We are deliberately marginalizing large sections of the population, frighteningly legitimizing through policies, plans and programs. And this is what is terrible. If you look at the SRA policy, I consider nothing but a displacement policy. Believe me, it undermines democracy and democratic institutions. In the 70s, we used to take protests of slum dwellers to the secretariat, to the government offices, because they are elected governments through democratic means. Today, you know what we are fighting, and with whom are we fighting in our slums? And communities are waging struggles against private builders, against private corporate companies. That's not democracy. These are the agents. We've completely de-linked our communication relations between the government and the people. And this is frightening to me. And this is perpetuating social violence. This is perpetuating social unrest in the slums. We, instead of grappling with housing solutions, we are grappling with negotiations and peace in the slums. That's how productive time is utilized by housing activists and movements. So in short, coming back to the last point I'm making, just the last point about what is the solution. We firmly believe, A, that the state government has to intervene, has to play an active role in promoting. A, B, that the state government has to forge partnership with communities. Not partnership with private companies, but with communities, with societies. And in turn, the government and the communities may choose an investor, and the investor could have their benefits through investment into that project as contractors, etc. There are many other ways of how capital investments into the housing sector can be benefited through bonds or concessions or tax, etc. So I think this in a nutshell is the solution that we're looking at. We need to recognize the enormous human resources, potential that the slum dwellers possess, the skills in redeveloping their properties, and mind you, if you develop the lands on which slums exist, which is for your information, is just about 8% of the land mass of the city in which over 60% of our people live. You can actually rehabilitate, re-house in decent housing, planned housing, which we are all for, we're against slums, we're against slumming, that we can actually accommodate all the slum dwellers extremely well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please, Ricky Bardette. The two issues you end on are very important. I think one is some form of state intervention, second a form of partnership. You're an architect, you won the prize yesterday with a team. You don't mention space. Is it irrelevant? Yes, well, it's the detail. It's the detail. No, let me explain this. Well, one of the things, the weaknesses of the policy, I'm happy you brought this point up, you see the development policy of the state government does not consider social infrastructure provision, including open spaces. It only talks in terms of numbers of houses. And if you saw some of the examples in the morning, I think in your slide and presentation, Ricky, how housing at Mongkut is stacked together, just 10 feet apart, 10 feet, 10 storied buildings. Now, we have been trying to suggest to the government that where the program has to begin is social infrastructure, because development or underdevelopment is really assessed through social development, including open spaces. And open spaces and slums is a huge resource to community development work. I think that's important. Thank you, PK. Why don't we move on to Sir S. Sharma. Thank you. Oh, don't touch it, okay. It has been for me a very instructive experience, and I know in the five minutes that I have, I would not be able to do justice to the range and richness of what I had. May I therefore begin with some propositions stated as a paradox about the city, city as a human form, and inequality. If I may reverse the phrase of Saskia Sasin about the territorial movement, I was struck because the momentariness being associated with territory is a remarkable shift because territory is generally in human language the kind of final locus. But it does tell a certain story about the movement of in modern civilization and modern cognition. So I want to talk about the cognitive movement, the present cognitive movement in terms of from which we are looking at the housing for poor. And in that I wish to underscore one fact that I think possibly for the first time in the last 200, 300 years, the word change in the context of climate change is used with a degree of acute apprehension. And this is something remarkable because if one looks at utterances, if one looks at discourse in the last 200 years, change is a word valorized in almost all contexts. And the fact that now in the context of climate change it is used as a kind of a disturbance which has to be coped with, I think has significant implications. City, it was said by many participants, is an escape, is a movement towards freedom. But this movement towards freedom is increasingly happening in a situation where inequalities are mounting and this escalation of the proportion of inequality and the chairman quest to escape certain kind of control, certain kind of sensible thing in any western quarter. We were repeatedly told that to begin the project of modernization, hard, large, bold decisions needed to be taken and there were other examples who have not fallen out from the pages of history. I say this because I think the pathos which moved the national leadership in India to not only choose democracy but to keep to it under very difficult condition was not perhaps the recreation of a modern world. Not to say that they were anti-modern, but the moving pathos was not to be able to replicate no matter how modernity here at any cost. And this I think is important. This perhaps has something to do vitally by what Mr. Chairman who spoke of as this vivid organicity. And the capacity to retain the capacity to nurture this organicity which manifests for example in movements of breakdown when Bombay was flooded and the state was nowhere in evidence has something to do with the possibility of dignity, dignified inclusion. It may not be absolute equality. I'm not talking about absolute equality. Can I take two more? Thank you very much. It's very helpful, Therese. I thought I would say two more. Rahul, please. Can you give me one sentence? Just one sentence. Of course. One sentence. I'll yield to you for one more sentence. And the sentence is that I think one of our great feelings is that we often believe it is enough to say this is the right thing. And we have often failed to do the right thing even when we know what is the right thing to do. So the role of the state in India as a regulator, as a custodian of the law, as a force which can see that the different players including the corporate players do not transgress the law has to remain at the very center of things. Thank you very much.