 Indian-to-Indian solutions to transform India is what we are going to discuss with a very eminent panel here, Mr. Kamal Nath, Mr. Rahul Bajat, Mrs. Sudarshan and of course Chavira Jawa. Thanks each one of you for being here. Let me first begin by talking about the solutions to transform India is a very, very diverse country. It has diverse ideas about growth, about development and very diverse interests as well. Is a common vision possible across political parties, across business and industry, across business and civil society? I think a common vision is definitely possible. One of the most important things which we are seeing in Hintal and India is, which I was just discussing with Chavi, is capacity building. Now we are talking of capacity building at the panchayat level, at the block level and at the district level. Here there can be partnership with the private sector in training them. Government itself can play a role but I think a bigger role can be played by the private sector training the block level. You may have a very good surpunch as we have with Chavi. She understands that she's got a vision, she's got all her ten fingers inside but she is to operate at a block level and unless you are going to have a block level which does the sanctioning, which does that, the district level is there but the most important aspect of that is the block level where there is no capacity. They don't know and by the time they learn the ropes, the five years are over and not only five years are over, they have learned the ropes. There is reservation of women, there is reservation by caste. Now I am talking very clearly in the context of my own state and suddenly he finds that his constituency which he had as an elected block member has been taken over, has either become for women, the women finds it become male and somebody finds a general seat becomes reserved or a reserved seat becomes general. So they are on the wayside. Similarly capacity building, we are talking about building these hundred cities. It's all very well. What is the level, what is the level of expertise at our municipal levels? You find people who are from the veterinary department posted on deputation as chief municipal officers. There is no municipal quarter. There is no capacity building. I mean there is no town planning. You can't unless you are going to build, you are going to look at it holistically. You cannot build smart cities. Smart city doesn't mean an IT city. You connect it, wire it up and it becomes a smart city. But normally this is the connotation that you put in all kinds of IT and it becomes a smart city. A smart city has to be very holistic, whether it is water, whether it is sewage, whether it is housing, whether it is town planning and unless again in this we have capacity building. I think one of our biggest failures has been. I am talking about capacity building in government. capacity building with ministers, with secretaries, with joint secretaries. How many ministers of any government or any party really have the competence to deal? They are electable but are they capable and if they are capable they are not electable. So you have this great dichotomy between, in capacity in India. We will say we have great capacity in the IT sector but that is a niche sector compared to the huge population we have. So again in the urban sector, which I banged my head with for a long time, we find there is no capacity when you want to train people. You set up an institute to train people. Who do you train? But the chap who is going to come for training will go back and be posted somewhere else. And he has been trained in all these years. He has been trained in town planning or in sewage or in water or something. And finally when he goes back in six months, he is transferred back to his parent department. So one of the biggest things I think where there is a partnership, scope for partnership is between the private sector and capacity building, capacity building in India. We have, when I was handling urban development, I said we will have the Urban Institute of India with the private sector. We have got Mackenzie as our private sector partner. It is still languishing. I do not know if I will take off. But it is languishing because government doesn't want it to be a PPP model, a private sector model. Private sector says is government please take care of it, we will be stepping back. And that becomes the real challenge today. How do you bridge this gap between capacity building on one hand and what private sector can do at every level of governance? We have spoken about the block level, the surpunch level, all of those levels. What kind of a role can corporate India play in that? I agree with what Kamil said on one thing, but I will start with a little light and hope by disagreeing with him when he says competent or capable people don't get elected. Maybe. Generally. Generally. Generally. There is no hundred and zero in the life coming. But he said also capable people don't get elected very often. Maybe generally. How did he get elected? That is the first point. And not only got elected. Elected for 34 years. I want to run that. That was meant for Rahul. Voters do make mistakes, but that's fine. But where I agree with him is that whether it is a civil society and represented by two outstanding people here or business, corporates and the government, of course they can get along. There are problems and this and that and my views on that but when my turn comes again maybe I'll talk about it. But I think what I noticed as a citizen, as a corporate and as a member of the upper house of parliament rather than the disagreements between the civil society and the corporates which are there, we misunderstand each other and things like that and both the politicians and industrialists have to improve all over the world. We have a bad reputation. We are crooks. Let's face it. That's what the general view is. But that apart, I think the problem I found the most disturbing and that's not in this program of this session is political parties agreeing with each other or not. Tremendous opportunistic opposition without getting into names, without going into subjects when the U.P.A. was in power for 10 years and let's say the last three or four years we all know things were slow whether you call it paralysis or not paralysis, scams etc. I'm not saying one is good, one is bad, but there were problems. The growth rate came down, etc, etc. And certain laws were not being passed. And the Congress party would say, but the insurance, there's that. What is BJP doing? I would talk, my friends are on both sides, because I don't belong to a party, I belong to India. So go to the BJP and they say, but they won't consult. See, the Parliamentary Affairs Minister, big shot. They won't consult us. They only come to us when they need us, etc. But I'm trying to say, without going into details, and I'm sure he'll have an answer to that, that each blames the other. And I think that's a bigger problem. Then politicians and corporates coming together, in fact the major corporates, I'm sorry to say, do chamchagiri to the ministers in power, previous government, and the present government, already we are seeing how they change. So that's not such an issue. Such an issue. Yes, they will not do this. There's an infrastructure deficit, labor policy, they are doing minor changes. But even Arun Jaitley would agree, they can't stand, start spending their political capital so overnight. That's right. And they don't have a majority in the upper house. They can't pass that. Land acquisition act, they are bringing something, not to the prices. We may not fully agree with that, but that they can't, and they won't. It will be almost bad for them politically. But I mean, it's a disaster that act. I'm saying it in front of him. But I told Arun Jaitley at dinner last night, didn't you support it, didn't it get passed unanimously? Yes. Land acquisition act, their story is, they did it to win votes, why should I go against it? There is no end to it. So I believe that this government, I don't know about the prime minister, but Arun Jaitley and the team would be the first to extend their hand on those points where Congress comes with them. Rasa Bhai is clear, because some of the left will not come with them. That's right. You have raised a very important point. I'm going to come to the two of you in just a bit, but political opposition. And one is tempted to believe that this is actually just political rhetoric. What they oppose while they were in opposition is what they're supporting while they're in government. What they're supporting in government is perhaps, we're given to understand, we oppose in parliament. Insurance is an example. Exactly. So is opposition merely political rhetoric after all? Because they are stuck by some of your flagship things like an MNREGA, the Food Security Act. You know, they were opposed to insurance while in opposition, they're passing it now. How would you view it now that you sit across the treasury benches? Well, they are now proposing what we, they are opposing, what they had opposed for so many years. They are now proposing. The Land Acquisition Act, which he said, they didn't move a single amendment. In fact, as the parliamentary affairs minister, when I brought this onto the floor of the house, I asked them, if there's some amendments, I'll take care of it. Do you have any ideas? Not a single amendment was moved by them. And now, suddenly they want to correct it, maybe. And I would agree with Rahul. There are basically three things in the Land Acquisition Act. I was in the ministerial group who drafted this. So one is the process, one is the price, and one is section 24, which is that if you've not paid compensation for five years and you've not taken possession, the public good, well, that means they were there. So you will start the process all over again. That's right. The BJP government of today wants to talk about process. We are happy. We don't want a process which doesn't fly. There's no Land Acquisition. We are trying to benefit somebody by Land Acquisition. But if there's no Land Acquisition, how will you benefit them? Okay, let me just be the devil's advocate. While you're talking about Land Acquisition, you wanted the insurance bill to go through, but look at the kind of opposition it faced in the upper house. So what I'm asking you, Sir, is because you represent... I must tell you about the insurance bill. I pleaded with the BJP at that time. Let's pass this. So they said, in fact, one of them told me, I don't want to take names here, one of them told me that I'm okay with it, but talk to so-and-so. Okay. When I talked to so-and-so, he said, I'm okay with it, but why don't you pilot it? Why should the finance minister pilot it? Because we don't want it to be the finance minister's bill. I said the content of the bill, forget about who pilots it. He said, no, no, no, we want, if you pilot it, I promise you, I will not obstruct it. Now the last five years of parliament saw not opposition, but obstruction. There's a difference. You're breaking down the parliamentary system, you're breaking down on the most important edifice of democracy by you oppose, stand up, vote against it. But it led to opposition, there was nothing known as opposition to a thing. You obstructed it. Now, we are good learners, we've learned from them. Right? All right, so the political opposition will continue because it's political rhetoric. Okay, so we've learned from them, we are going to play back the same thing. And it takes time. Just now they wanted an insurance bill and they talked to me saying that why send it to the select committee? It's already been through a standing committee. We said, that's the parliamentary process. And when I talked to you so many times, why send it to a standing committee is such a simple thing. They were very simple bills, citizenship act, you know, some very simple amendments. So will India's policy making be hostage to political opposition from one side or the other? Well, I think you're framing it wrongly. What happens in the US? What the president wants? The Senate, the House of Representatives doesn't let it happen. The Congress won't let it happen. They send it back to the president. We don't accept it. It will be interesting because now the Senate, the municipalities, the Congress is now with the Republicans. Does it become lame, dick or not? So that happens. What happens in Germany? What happened in the UK? That's happening. So let's not, let's look at the positive side of things that we are turning. We can also look at it that we are now a mature democracy. And why should we say, why should we beat ourselves with all the time that is happening only in India versus happening versus happening in the United States when I was Commerce Minister, the United States would straight away tell me, we can do this, but we can't take it through Congress. We want it. But let's see. Why don't you talk to some of the congressmen? And I actually did, would talk to congressmen, then why don't you do it, exactly what they are doing with insurance? Trade matters. Yeah, trade matters. On the IPR, on the 301 issues on IPR, so we cannot just say that this is India. Let's not beat ourselves up with that it's only India and it's only Indian political parties which are bad. I must tell you, much better political parties are in India than what they are in the United States. All right. Not uniquely Indian opposition, but let me come back to you and we started off this discussion as far as partnerships are concerned, how there is this, there is a lack of partnerships at least at the absolute block level, at the panchayat level. What has been your experience? What kind of transformative partnerships can really happen between India and say, you know, the governance at the absolutely local level? I think we've got a huge opportunity. The only question is, are people willing to come forward? While we may not have a physical divide, but we all know there is an invisible divide between what we call Bharat that's the rule of India, as well as India, which is the urban India, right? So what can we do to break that divide and treat this as one holistic nation? And I think we can only do that if we create those partnerships. The tragedy is that, given the cynicism that exists, I think it's because of that that people are not willing to take that step forward. They think it's a high risk. They think there's no return on investment if they enter the rule sector, which I don't think is true. Yes, maybe the ROI may take longer, but it is there because people in villages are willing to pay, provided they benefit from it. So far, whenever people have entered the rules sector, and I can speak for my area, there are certain states which have done well. There have been certain partnerships which have been formed, but I think we still have a long way to go. What usually I've seen happens is that the villages are not ever taken as a key stakeholders. Nobody has a dialogue with them. Nobody doesn't need analysis. And all of a sudden you don't do that. You will always fall short if you continue to have a top-down approach. And as Mr. Nath said, even as far as the government is concerned, and going back to what Mr. J. Lee said earlier today, it seems like a daunting task in the scale, but I think that is exactly where the opportunity lies. And while the government has the intent, where I think it lacks is the fact that they're not very good at management. And that is where private sector can come in and help assist. We probably need specialists to come in with focus areas to help execute and monitor the different schemes, the different sectors. Currently we don't have that. So people, even when the government are lost, be it at the district level or the block level, on top of that, I think where we fail is the fact that our system is not held accountable. Again, going back to what Mr. J. Lee said earlier this morning, that to evaluate government officials and the delivery system is a daunting task. I do not think so. What we need is partnerships to bring in technology which is user-friendly and ensure that we have both positive as well as negative motivation. So if there is a budget allocated to a district, now you need to find a methodology to ensure that the funds are dispersed. Our biggest issue is funds reach the district headquarter, but they do not go anywhere beyond that. There's no question asked. So we can ensure that the government officials set turn around time or time frames. So when a panchat, for example, proposes certain projects for the village. So from the time that reaches the district, set a time frame within which the administrative sanction, the technical sanction, and the financial sanction happens. Usually what I've seen is a year goes by, the administrative and technical sanctions have happened within a span of 15 days to a month. The financial sanction comes in only after a year. So we've lost out, if we're looking for water, we've lost out on an entire year of monsoon, which is a big thing. So again, going back to cutting it short, I think what really is needed is, and we don't need rocket science, have positive and negative motivation, positive motivation, meaning when the official or department disperses funds, give them credit. And if they fail to do so, penalize them. And I don't think that is daunting. Yeah, it's not a daunting task. I will come back to you for a reaction on that and why there is this lack of enthusiasm, even on part of India. Let me first ask you, we began this whole thing by, can there be a common vision between political parties, across political parties, business and civil society? From where you see things, the question is, do you believe a common vision of India as possible between civil society, India Inc. and policymakers? Yes, definitely yes. One is decentralized governance is an issue which we are discussing. I think bad governance, both in public and private sector. This is what's the experience I was a vigilance director in Okaikta looking at corruption in health services, seen corruption both in the private and the public sector. So good governance is the issue and decentralized good governance. If you can do it, we have one of the good Panchayat Raj systems in Karnataka, but again, corruption has percolated down. So today, whether from Bofors to Kohl scams, where prime ministers are involved to gram panchayats or punch level, it's ubiquitous. I think good governance is an important issue. Second issue is, I think we all have the same vision. I think we all agree on that, but there should be equal commitment to bring in good governance by politicians, the business, ethical business, and others, which the other partners also have to join hands. Second is the inclusive growth. We are all emphasizing the inclusive growth. We want, example in health, we have pet scans, MRIs in major cities, but in the villages today, where I work, a simple microscopic facility you have, you can diagnose leprosy tuberculosis malaria. We don't have that. So this is the dichotomy. We can do heart transplants, all organ transplants, but people are dying of simple hookup of anemia with two grams hemoglobin. We have not been able to solve the problem of anemia in this country. 60% of the pregnant mothers are anemia. So these are challenges. We need innovations. We need innovations, but what type of innovations? The greatest breakthrough innovation in healthcare is the intraocular lenses. When I was a medical student, we used to import intraocular lenses. Today, it's a business model where we manufacture in India intraocular lenses for 100 rupees, which I buy and use it. And our healthcare costs have come down. So appropriate technology, businesses which will also help, which will also empower for the inclusive growth is also very important. Not only the high tech, not only the growth, growth is important, but it has to be inclusive growth. And it has to happen. And environmental sustainability is also very, very important. Whatever. I'll touch upon. And so I'll ask you to hold your thoughts there. Mr. Aadip, I may come to you. The last few years of the UP, I did see the civil society and government on two sides of the spectrum. Given the recent examples in the past, do you believe the civil society has been a little obstructionist as far as development is concerned? You can't brush all civil society. There are examples of civil society doing excellent work. In fact, many times we look for civil society individually, personally I look for civil society to come to my own district and participate. So there is, just brushing it, saying that all civil society's confrontation is. But there are also cases of civil society which has been obstructionistic environment. You haven't come to it. But there have been cases where civil society has been used combatively between one company versus another company that block this. So they'll go and go to, they'll go to one of the judicial bodies and file a PIL and blocks it. Then suddenly there's a settlement. I know of at least three cases where civil society has filed complaints, filed PILs, and suddenly there's a settlement, something's exchanged, and the matter's settled. Now that is not civil society, that is business. So, you have good and bad civil society. You have some very excellent work of civil society. I think India should be proud of its civil society, what is done. But civil society also, there's never been a question asked when we talk of delivery. In civil society hasn't delivered. Nobody asked that you spend 10 crores and nothing was delivered. What is there to show for it? If it happens in the private sector, you spend 10 crores on the government, you will have, you are accountable. There'll be the CAG, there'll be an audit, there'll be officers, there'll be, you'll be chased. But civil society, there's nobody to ask a question. Then, if you take environment, you know, environment became a catch word, became fancy and fashionable. When I was environment minister, way back in 91, I had, whichever country I visit, there'd be demonstrations against Narmada, against the TD Dam, against Ports. Now you can't have Ports in Connaught Place. So my first question was, okay, do we need Ports? We need Ports, let's have Ports. But are we gonna have Ports in Connaught Place? We can only be there, all part of our coastline is ecologically sensitive. Let's face it, which coastline is not? Is all ecologically sensitive. So we gotta make this choice. Environment and environmentalism. Environmentalism does the greatest harm to environment. And some of our civil society takes up the cause of environmentalism. I know when, I was the one who cleared Narmada, I was the one who cleared the TD Dam and they said whole of Delhi would be flooded and you know, people, civil society members from Delhi that Delhi will have floods. I said, how will they have floods? They said, the dam breaks. I said, oh, God, it hasn't broken so far. And it gave me a great sense of fulfillment when I went there about seven, eight years ago to the TD Dam and saw all the resettlement, rehabilitation, which has taken place. But when you talk of rehabilitation and resettlement, that's where the delivery fails. That is where civil society can play a big role, that how do you resettle, how do you rehabilitate? Because the government money, the government package is not properly spent or it doesn't reach those who have to be resettled and rehabilitated. In irrigation projects, how many litigations are pending on various irrigation projects across the country? Across the country, not in one particular state because somebody's gone to court who don't live there, who don't belong to the state, right? And we'll go, we'll go to a court saying that this is gonna cause this damage, and this will cause that damage. The question is, do we need irrigation? And irrigation, a dam cannot come up anywhere and everywhere. It can only come up where it's technically feasible. So we have to look at civil society holistically, not just either brand them to be bad. There are bad elements there, but they're very good elements. In fact, India has one of the most vibrant civil societies in the world. You wanna come in on that, a very vibrant civil society. You can choose to protect the environment, but you cannot be an environmental hawk. And that's the view that also comes from Bal Singh and India Inc. I agree that there are good politicians, good business people, good civil society. There are also corrupt civil society, corrupt government, and corrupt business. So all good people, we can join together and have a common vision. But what we can't, there will be some differences because I am biased against the poor for inclusive growth. The same business people may not feel that. For me, for them, the growth itself is important. Inclusive growth may not be, I understand. So let us have dialogue, it's a dialectical process. We should not oppose at all. Little bit of healthy criticism is needed so that we come to some synthesis. So it's a dialectical process. Don't look at it as obstructionism, but look at it positively. These people have some point. They have some concern for the poor and the inclusive growth. So we should be looked at that type rather than calling it as obstructionism. I think coming back to environmentalism, I totally agree. But there are models. I work in a tiger sanctuary. It was a wildlife sanctuary. Now it's a tiger sanctuary. We have clearly shown a model where ecotourism, the people's development, the hardcore environmentalists would say we should displace them from out of the, because it's a project tiger. But we are shown that the 10,000 Soligar tribal people living within the sanctuary, their development and livelihood of those tribal people and the conservation can go together. So development can happen of the people without eroding so equal concern for the conservation and at the same time development of the people. Tourism also can come there, but tourism has to be managed. Community-based tourism is more important than somebody else coming there. So we have a community-based tourism, community-based development, and that's the type of inclusive growth we need to have models. Fair point indeed. Chhavi here raised a point about inclusive growth. It has been repeated again by Mr. Sudarshan. If I may come to you, Mr. Bajaj. Inclusive growth is a very good concept. Every politician likes to talk about that. India Inc keeps repeating that. But a lot of people here in this room from different sectors of life will perhaps say that there hasn't been enough walk the talk on inclusive growth. Like she said here, the perception is that there isn't such great return on investment in rural India. Why invest there? Why invest with the last mile? How would you defend corporate India's position on this? First, a small point. Supriya, you asked a question. My friend Kamala, that the previous government seemed to be anti-civil society, you know what I'm saying? What he answered by and large, I share his view. But I couldn't understand the question. Most of us felt the government was run by the National Advising Council, which essentially headed by Sunia Jee, whom I know, was comprised of civil society. So they were not on the opposite side. A lot of the people in the government, he was very much part of the government, but did not fully agree with what they recommended but had to be la, la, la, la. So I'm just putting that on record so you don't ask that question again to anybody else. All right, I have a lot. I'm going to invite you, I may be wrong. Talk to inclusive growth. I mean, as Sudarshan Jee, I think he's an outstanding NGO. We just got an award last night with Outstanding. I spent last two days with quite a bit of time, three or four hours with a month ago, nobody heard his name. And many of us didn't hear his name. Kailash Satyar, the Nobel Peace Prize. I'd heard of Malala, but I'd not heard of him. He was such a quiet worker. And I spent a lot of time with him the last two, three days. We have outstanding people in NGO. Similarly, forget the guy who wants to make quick money in industry. There are those, they will be there. But no, I would say it's totally sensible. A selfish businessman would genuinely not work for inclusive growth. I mean, sorry to use a bad language. Who the hell will buy my motorcycles if he remains poor? I mean, you have to grow, grow, grow to create purchasing power. It's the elementary principle of economics. So you want to be efficient, input operation has to be positive. You don't dig a well and fill it up. I've had my reservations on Marega. They are also controlling, but they are fine tuning it to the new government. You have to create asset. It's very easy. If you have to provide millions who get 200 rupees a day, only the real gari will come there. And you have to give him within three, four, five kilometers of his home. So you can't go for a big damn. So what do you do? Build some small road. So no productive asset, I believe. It's almost like a dole. So that is a waste of resources. We said, get him to work. Now how to do it? I don't know. We businessmen feel most of how many of us, to reduce poverty, I think elimination will take time, you have to provide employment. That's right. Don't give good dole, provide employment. Till you can provide employment, you have to give some assistance. That's correct. And for providing employment, other things being equal, you need growth. Growth in the right sense of the term. From that point, in fact, as I said, we have got some outstanding NGOs. But general impression sometimes, some industry people have of NGOs is growth. So that's what he did say. They may want growth, but not inclusive growth. And prosperity, if I may use the word. For the poor, yes. But otherwise, they look at it a bit as scants. They think it's this side or that side, there's no gray area. So those, I'm not talking of, I think, 30, 40, 50% of the NGOs who don't utilize the funds properly and they are bad. I'm talking of good NGOs. There is that chasm. There is a little difference. Yeah, money malata hai. I'll be saying, what are you doing? You take our money and what do you do with it? Where is accountability, et cetera, et cetera. So there has to be a mindset change amongst politicians, bureaucrats. Bureaucrats need to be accountable. It's only recently since we know the right. The CAG, let's say accountability has come on the bureaucrats. Where was the accountability of bureaucrats? At the most, again, the new government has transferred a lot of guys. Finance, ministry, so everybody barely expended change. Entire object transfer, three secretaries in the last four or five months. Sorry? Three secretaries in the last four months, yes. Almost all of them, especially the finance ministry, barely the expenditures, everybody changed. That's right, yes. But that part, okay, I can understand. But whereas for politicians, the problem is political experiencing. But to the extent you want to get re-elected, there's nothing wrong with that. But okay, now this sounds bad, but don't forget national interest. Don't let your, don't cross the Lakshman Rekha to get elected, start doing wrong things. What you think is wrong for country and what I think is wrong for country, we may have a genuine disagreement. That's understandable. So political experience must be controlled. Accountability should be there with the bureaucrats and the industry should realize that innovation, environment is good and that you have to do. This question is 2% CSR. In principle, I don't like the mandatory part. Forget that. But now that that's there, our charitable trust spend money. Now our companies have to spend money. That's a huge amount for some of us. This is the right opportunity, as Bill Gates said, to spend money properly is more difficult or as difficult or not difficult than even earning money, honestly. So, but we have to show to the people of India, because you've got such a bad name, industries have got a bad name, like politicians, I'll have to add that. I wouldn't get blamed alone. I mean, they are 2G and Colgate, what? There were two sides, one was giving, one was taking. That's right. Clear cut, everybody knows. We know the names, you can't prove it. We'll see what happens in the court. We won't take any names here. No, no, we won't take any names here, don't worry, but even if you do, what happens? I get into trouble, only I get into trouble, nothing else happens. So I think the subject is such that we have to, in the interest of the nation, and I say in our selfish interests also, if they have to achieve the aim of getting gradually the poor out of poverty, and if we have to grow our companies, unless we do good, unless we are environmentally conscious, unless we innovate, we will not survive. So in our own interest, I think we have to do well, but this is a bit theoretical in essence. Practically, it takes time. Some of you do it and some of you don't. Chavya, why don't you come on on that, because Mr. Bajaj makes a very important point here. It's in his own selfish interest to go out there and do inclusive growth, because he has to have more buyers for products that they make. How do you see this? You buy that argument? Pardon me? You buy that argument? Well, if I were a business person, I probably would. But I think, and I'd also like to just, one thing you said, which is bothering me, you said poverty alleviation is their responsibility. I would just like to say, I think it is their responsibility. You said- No, what is their responsibility? Getting people out of poverty, right? No, no, no, no. So that's the- That is their aim, that is their aim, fine. Very much asked you. Absolutely. Which is what I wanted to hear. Very much asked. That's what was bothering me, because sometimes I often feel, because I've been at various forums with industrialists and it's just really unfortunate to see how people don't have the vision that you are speaking of at the moment. They think it is somebody else's job. But if this is our country, if it is our globe, I think it is as much my responsibility as yours or anyone else's. So I think that is something that we need to learn to come up with a common vision for. So that's my point I'd like to make. But in terms of, and I'd also like to add over here, which going back to speaking of decentralization, inclusive growth, et cetera, and reaching the last mile. Now growth, I've again been on various academic sessions where I often feel that people only think that industrialization, urbanization is the only way forward. But which means we are forgetting that there is the agrarian economy which needs a greater focus. Now if we're gonna just industrialize, and I'm not against industrialization, but I am against the lack of focus that 70% of rural India, or rather 70% of the Indian population requires. And I think that is being omitted. And therefore I think that needs to be looked into. And when the private sector is coming in or the government is working towards growth, that segment has to be given the required focus. Because unless and until we do not, we're not gonna have a balanced growth. And that would be my input. Coming back to decentralization, I think that there's a huge role that the government needs to play. The private sector can also, as I said earlier, play a huge part. And when we speak of rural sector, are the last mile coming back to 73rd, 74th amendment, great attempt, great intent, but has it really reached the grassroots? It has not. I was gonna ask you that question, that what has been your experience? We like to talk about decentralization. It's a very fashionable term. It's also the right intent. Has it really happened at the grassroots level? Do you really represent the last mile here in this room? I think I do represent the last mile. But has the decentralization happened from my observation in my district? I would say clearly no. Now, at one end we keep hearing people saying that how a PM is to the nation, the CM, the chief minister to the state, the serpent is supposed to be for the panchayat or the village council. But the sad truth is that, barring certain states, and again, purely from my own observation, a serpent or a panchayat is not given the due respect. And I think that is a tragedy of a system failing as far as the last mile development is concerned. Because if that respect is not there, if the panchayat secretary's salary is more than the honorarium that the serpent receives, what kind of equation that is gonna create we can understand. If you have honorariums in Rajasthan for a serpent is 3,500 rupees per month, in Maharashtra it's much lesser. Now, is the system not breathing corruption? Yes, people like you and I are privileged, but how many serpentias come from privileged backgrounds? They are hand to mouth. They don't have a regular source of income. So one has to look into basic aspects such as those and I don't think that is getting voiced and I don't think that is even receiving the focus. That's an important point. I want you to comment on that because this is the last mile of governance. You were at the top of governance. How do you bridge this last mile? Like she said, I mean, what kind of a role can Assar Panch play if he doesn't have enough resources to survive on his own? You are in some sense breathing corruption, even though the intent must have been good to decentralize to the last mile. Of course it does breathe corruption because if the honorarium is so little and he's got to spend time in holding his meetings, he's got to hold the sabhas and it really gives him no time to do anything else. Even if he has a field, he can do agriculture. He or she. He or she can, cannot have the time. And getting 3,500 rupees, then the serpentias will look for a cut into any contract which is given for developmental work. But I want to come back to another point about what Shavi mentioned about financial sanctions not coming. That I think is again between administrative sanctions and financial sanctions. There's a big gap. They don't happen at the same time. Now there has to be systemic changes. There has to be systemic changes in our panchayatiraj system. We have the most unique panchayatiraj system in the world. And if we can strengthen this and we can strengthen it that it is corruption free, we've got talent. I think large number of serpentias have a lot of talent. They are the closest to the people. I'm very far removed from the people. I have 20 lakh voters. You know, I'm very far removed. A serpent, a serpent's election is a door-to-door election. That's right. Mine is not a door-to-door election, but I possibly can't cover 20 lakh people. So a serpent is at the heart of governance because a serpent can, I've seen some very effective serpentias who come all the way to Delhi to meet me saying that this is not happening. Please do this. And very enthusiastic. Now, if he's not properly remunerated, he's come on his own because he's got some land, he's got children who can tell his land, how will he pay the fare also to come to Delhi? How will he stay in Delhi for a day or even from morning till evening? So we must look at the panchayatiraj system as a model of governance and remunerate them accordingly. Now it's considered to be something which is peripheral, peripheral to governance. And unless it is there, of course, a serpent certificate is required, we won't need this, a serpent certificate is required, we need that, but the panchayatiraj system cannot be peripheral to governance and good governance cannot happen without a successful and a good governing panchayatiraj system. That's a fair point. I want you to add on to this because what has been your own experience with working at the decentralized power center, which of course is the panchayatiraj? The ultimate solution is empowering gram sabhas to pull down even serpents, corrupt serpents. So that's the ultimate. We need to empower the gram sabhas. Gram sabhas, don't have. Sorry, I'm interrupting you. Gram sabhas, effectiveness. You know, these are motions of gram sabhas, as you've seen many times, they are motions of a gram sabha taking place. Not a gram sabha in the total, in the real sense of the word, what it's intended to do. So if we have proper gram sabhas, they can remove a serpent. They can remove a serpent. But again, to put that act together of having a proper gram sabha is a challenge. But there are good experiments in Rajasthan, Arunarai and friends, the social accountability mechanisms in other countries. Bunker. Bunker. All of them have worked and I think we need to give emphasis on not on serpents increasing, it's enumeration, but the empowerment of gram sabhas is equally important. I'm not saying they should not be given enough. But empowering people to manage their own development, their own health is very, very important. You wanted to add? Two things I wanted to add over here is when going back to the topic just spoken about, yes, gram sabhas are excellent. But the issue again, coming back to how the system functions and the mindset that the people within the system have. So at the block level, I've heard the sub-divisional officers say that he has all rights to challenge the grams of our decisions, which is not true. Now, the problem is that that is the mindset that the system which is supposed to assist development has, then we know what kind of development we're gonna have. So what do you do when you have hindrances being posed by the block level officials, by the district level officials and the local politicians? Who does the selfish go to? Now, because you don't have a, technically you do not have a party affiliation. So there's nobody who's willing to support you and I have to, I mean, case in point, while trying to get a public building constructed, during the previous government, nobody gave a damn. I met the chief minister, I met the chief secretary, I met the ministers in the state, sorry, in the center and they turn out and said that it's the state subject. So nobody came forward to provide the required support. The government has changed and I still don't see that support coming through. Why? Only because I'm a self-punch. So coming back to what I said earlier that unfortunately this designation does not carry the kind of respect and therefore does not receive the support that it should be receiving. And I think that mindset needs to change if we are to bring about the required development. And coming back to the other point, which also going back to why I became the self-punch was to play the role of a facilitator. So I think both the private sector as well as the system, which is the government, needs to learn to take advantage of people like me, people like Mr. Sudarshan and use us to showcase the schemes they have and bring about that development. For the private sector going back to your previous question, yes, it is not the business of a businessman to be working in the rural sector. That is why people like us are coming forward because we know that they need to monitor where the funds are going, provide them the required reports on a continuous basis, mobilize the local people to ensure that that project sees its way through. So that's why I think it's an appeal. I'd like to make one, both parties, the government as well as the private sector, need to realize that there are people, yes, sometimes you may burn our fingers, but why do companies have R&Ds? You have to try. Fine, you may burn your finger once with a particular group or individual, but there are others. So as you pointed out, there are good people and bad people. That is a universal truth. But we have to take that step. We have to take that risk. Mr. Bajaj, you agree that people like Chavi and Mr. Sarshan here should be your channels to tap those markets, to tap development-oriented projects that you want to launch for there. Is that a pragmatic solution? Prime word I would agree, if you had said solely, I may not necessarily agree. You know, for a corporate, feel like mine, it's much easier to give money than to do the good work yourself. And what's happened this year, some groups may be different. From our group, we used to spend, because of the accumulation of funds, most of our, all our financial expenditures were through our public shareholder trust. So it's 60, 70 crores a year. Mention the figure. Now from 1st April, 2014, while that continues, we have, it's not, I won't go into detail, it's not technically mandatory, but let's, we will spend 2% any good company, 3,000 companies like that who are covered. We'll spend 2% of our average three years profit on CSR. For this purpose, I take CSR and philanthropy as the same. They have books written on CSR, it's not the same as philanthropy, but my reading is my government, this government and this government, considers that similar to philanthropy. They are very liberal in the previous government, such in pilot was the minister. They made it very broadly, so we can do what we want. Now same fact, I spend 100 crores per year on that from our company. So I would spend a total of 170 crores. There is no way I can spend it myself. I can't, somebody else may, Tata may be the only exception, but even they donate a lot. So I have to, this year itself, I don't know whether I'll reach 170 crores. Please don't ask me. You forget, you look at Chindwara. No, no, look at Kabal Chanchi. You can Kabal Chanchi. That's a very low percentage made there. So yeah, I'm very good to travel. Yeah. We do spend some on our own. And as I said, it's much more important for us to do that. We work in villages. My brother, my brother is sitting here. He spends a lot of time on that. And even this amount of money is not enough to take care of India. I mean, government can't take care of India with all our taxes, apart from the inefficiency of their spending. How can we? So we have chosen Maharashtra and Rajasthan for whatever reasons. All our manufacturing plants, most of it is in Maharas. And that's our home also, Varadha in Vizhar. But originally, we are from Rajasthan. So we don't go to other states. Well, there's no end to it, except in some exceptions. Shabi, you're made. I look so. Thank you very much. They don't work in a secret district where you come from. But they are a part of the talk. So yes, I think Shankar Nethla is a big institution. We have been in a huge amount of money. Lots of such organizations, we have given in the last few years, and we will continue to do that. Some may be called NGOs. Some are not NGOs. And Shankar Nethla is not an NGO. It's a huge hospital. And we are giving it to for, basically, we are trying to spend money on upliftment of the poor, which means education, health, rural development, which includes sanitation, availability of clean drinking water, et cetera. But basically, upliftment of poor. And so there are some things like, I won't take names, where it's a little elitist. Good work creating leaders for India, seniorly, top leaders, who are already very highly educated, who are already doing very well as well. I have a little hesitation in helping that. Somebody else will do that. It's like a poor country like India, rockets going to Mars. I think it has to be done. But certain small percentage and do the basics first. So we want to concentrate on the basics. You know, that was my starting point, partnership. Now, if Rahul, you said you are doing, you want to have 170 crores of CSR, it's not spending the money. The private sector knows how to spend money efficiently. Now, that is a skill. If you were to partner with, say, few panchayats, in the kind of problems they have, you got people. You got a management team. You got qualified people who can go and assist. It is this kind of partnership. Why the hell isn't it happening? The chief of the block panchayats, the BDO, the chief of the block panchayats at the block level, will sit on something for six months. But if he sees somebody from Rahul Bajaj's company is monitoring this, and he knows these people will come and they've got access even to go to the state capital and to move, he will make sure he's doing... You come a lot when he was a minister for various things. Yeah. And he will automatically see. So I think one of the great partnerships which can take place today, again, even in training, in training the surpunches. Everybody is not a chabi, okay? You have, this is an exception. So when you have, you can train surpunches. Training programs, that's rural development. Training programs for surpunches. Training members of the block panchayats. That this is what the law allows you. And this is what... This is how sanctions are done. ...including our company and many others have developed. But till now, the only thing to add to what Kamal said, yes, we have a lot of people, many of them, very efficient. But that's to run businesses. Absolutely. We have no extra people who have to be efficient. I don't have extra people like the government. I can't afford to pay them salaries. Neither can you teach now. Put that apart. So, we have to now add to our people. Yeah. And train people or train them to work with them. Or, normally I like in my two sons who have taken over the businesses, like young people with energy, initiative, enthusiasm and aspirations. Only experience is not good enough, though a person like me has nothing but experience. So, but those who retire from our companies, not all, but maybe 20% who are, say, 60, 62, another five years, they would like to, if they are well off, they've got enough retirement benefits from us. They would like to work in social areas where they live or nearby. We can use those kind of people. These are matters of detail. But yes, what Kamal says, I agree with. But today, I'm short of people. I don't have people to go and have chavi or... You have to build it up. You have to build it up. Yeah, yeah, exactly, you have to build it up. I think the CSR is a wonderful concept and we can partner with the good businesses and do it. But there are limitations. I have a personal experience. A distillery plant polluting the ground water. The rural people there, the drinking water is also spoiled. But they want to do CSR in those villages. They approached us whether we can take up. I mean, that type of hypocrisy of a tobacco company or an alcohol company are the junk food manufacturers. They might be prosperous, but my heart breaks when I see tribals when they have no nutritious food. But they get enamored by drinking beverages or the junk food where the need is good nutrition or essential drugs. I don't have anti-snake venom serum, but I unwanted medicines, irrational medicines, the so-called tonic bottles and all these rackets which are based on advertisement, which are not essential. They are being promoted. So that's where I think a responsible business. We need to make, I mean, growth should be there. But with the responsible business, some amount of concern for, I mean, they are very good in advertisement and the beverages, I don't want to name them, but they can reach out. But milk doesn't reach those poor people. And the need for drinking milk is more important than beverages is very important. That type of responsible businesses are also. Very clear what you said. And I hope I'm not miscellaneous to you. As we say, let not perfection be the enemy of the good. I don't know, is it vice versa? As far as that corporate, in this case, I'm talking corporate, bigger than what? More important here to be properly measured, whether it's tobacco or alcohol. As far as they don't do anything negative, otherwise boom, don't cooperate. As far as they are doing good, not as good as you would like them to do. But by and large. Let them do it. We need so much work in 120 crores of people. There's no end to it. So, I don't know, I don't think he meant that, but if he meant that, Garbar Karayate, sorry, we can't accept that. But as far as he's helping something, for example, and we mentioned them, I can take a name, Baba Ramdev is a very close friend of mine. We are in touch regularly. Now, you hear him speak, not recently, so I gave him a piece of my mind. Before on Coke and Pepsi. It's worse than the water in the toilet. The whole world but lives on that, no? So don't encourage it, don't support it. But let's do something, let's do something else. Now, we have to do so many other things. So, I'm not taking of the case, I never made a soft drink in my life. I have no support and I myself don't, I used to, but no longer I drink that after I've heard all that I've heard about it. But I think that's going too far, no. He wants to make Pepsi, let them make Pepsi. Let us give the clean water or better water. Fair point, I'm going to come back because I have a last question on growth and can that be the rising tide, but I have time for a few questions around the table. Yeah, sure, you can. This is pointed to you, Mr. Bajat, not to you personally, but many other people from the corporate sector. One thing I struggled with is you said, as far as development is concerned and health is concerned, you're looking at Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Fair enough, fair enough. Now, my question to you here, which I'm tickled by this really, is that when you're looking at your market share, you're looking at all of India. So, which means you're also looking at the rural market. So, if you're willing to reach out and expand your business to the rural market to take benefit from it, then why does one- I need focus, I need focus and my amount I spend is limited, whereas motorcycles. Every nook and corner of India, I should... I'm expecting... I'm not saying every nook and corner, but I think people have to be open about the idea of developing your own country. So, that's the thing that I struggle with. Yeah, hundreds of corporates will cover Kerala and Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and other countries. I can't cover my charitable activities at CSR, otherwise I'd spend myself too thin. So, what's wrong with covering only... I would say why even two states if I cover 100 villages, depending on how much I spend, and really develop them as moral villages, I think that's great. You must only say total amount that you're spending, which is this here on WhatsApp, substantially higher than what it used to be, good, bad, indifferent, that's the law of the land. So, it's already very high. One thing you can tell me, shall we spend still more than that? Thank you very much. Go to somebody else. I won't spend more than that. This is good enough. I have to take care of other stakeholders, including incidentally that minor guy, that idiot guy called Sherholder. Forget him. So, yes, I export 40% of my motorcycle and 60% of my three-wheeler all over the world, Asia, Africa, Latin America. But if you say do charity there, of course CSR is not allowed to be done outside India. Thank God for that. But so, no, I've not, if I understood the question, yes, I'm going to concentrate on this and I'm doing it with full confidence and no guilty conscience whatsoever. But I must do good work there. That's the fortune. One point, you can't spread yourself so thin. You can be in five states, but if you're not doing anything substantial, yes, that's why they spoke about partnerships. That's why somebody's there for. Okay, there are lots of questions in this room. Let me give you another example. I'm not showing off at something. I'm sorry. I've never given up any last 30 years, 40 years to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund because I believe it's spent badly. Whatever it is, do I have to say that? I have no evidence, but that's my belief. I was also in the parliament, I was also in the government public sector institutions, et cetera. In the last two months, I've said two, they're going to detail, two separate checks. One for 20 crores to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. He made a request on 13th of September, the Prime Minister signed a request for JNK relief. That's right. Hoping, this is only a hope, quite frankly, I'm saying it openly, that under this Prime Minister, one man can't do everything, but the money will be slightly more efficiently spent. And then I gave him 20 crores for such a Bharat. But that is for the such Bharat course. I'm showing my two reasons for that. First is public, that I'm showing some confidence in this government. I'm not a BGP fellow, I have no desire to be a BGP fellow. I'm an independent. Though he didn't bring me to Raj Sabha, that's somebody else who brought me to Raj Sabha, but that's the rest of the world. Though my family has been a Congress family, all their lives, but this is a different Congress. I think he has a bone to pick with you and he will write on it, especially, yes. We have questions. We'll come to you, sir, first. Right here. Hi, I'm Saif Kamal. I'm a global shaper with the forum, and I'm from Dhaka, Bangladesh. My question is first, thank you, Chavi, for touching on the R&D and Mr. Nath about the partnerships. But we were actually more, a lot interested into learning more about innovation and growth partnership for social inclusion. And that was something that how public sector and private sector can support innovation and move ahead. And not just as a CSR, but more of a sustainable, long-term partnership which grows for entrepreneurship as well. So it's more on the new growth models on innovation. Do you have a question? No, I think you can address it to anyone that you think would fit for it. Okay, innovative growth models is what he wants to talk about with partnerships. Innovation is of many types. We have disruptive innovation, which is great innovation. Take Uber, right? Now, Uber is inclusive. It brings in a lot of people who are not doing anything. And there are many examples of disruptive innovation. And I think we should be applying ourselves in disruptive, not in a disruptive sense, but it disrupts the routine. Right. And it creates jobs. It's inclusive. And it trickles down. You can have innovation. It trickles down all the way. Take innovation in water tanks, you know, of lining some water tanks. There's some great innovations that have taken place. Rahul was saying that most of the funds are spent not correctly. But I think that, yes, there is funds which are not spent correctly. But no assets are created. But I think the best asset you can create in the village is a water tank, is a talab. And a talab, which has a layer where innovation has taken place. And that innovation is not taken place in the urban centers of India. That innovation has taken place in rural areas where they are now being able to line so there's no seepage. And that is, I think, one of the greatest assets you can create in the village, a talab. Fair point. And you have a self-question. I'm going to come back to you in two minutes. Thank you. Madhur Bajaj is my name. I'd like to introduce myself as Chairman of Women's Empowerment Committee of CIA. One of the panellists is in the same company as I am. I'm the chairman of Bajaj Auto. One is in the same school as I studied in. But I'd like to come to Chhavi. I don't say I'm saying much. I don't say much of it. I don't believe it. I looked six times to see whether you were a surpunch or I was reading it wrong. Because we have some stereotype image or something. You will not believe it at lunchtime. And I got a little late because we were talking about empowerment of women at the Panchayat level. Normally when we talk about governance and leadership, we normally talk at the top level. That's right. Top corporate level or government level. But we hardly talk about governance and leadership at the grass root level, which is the Panchayat level. It was Kamenath Ji's government that I remember had that one third reservation of women for Panchayati leaders as women. Am I right? It was Rajiv Gandhi Ji's stuff. There are about 100,000 ladies which occupy that position. Some of you by merit. Some of the ladies by reservation. Now we want to empower these ladies so that they are not just friends for men, whether father or brother or husband. But they have leadership roles. That's true empowerment of grass root level. Now, we would like, invite you to partnership with us and we would like you to tell us how we could do that where those 100,000 people become a little chavi of chavi. Well, thank you so much. That's a very nice play of words firstly. Yes, you all take that. Firstly, I think I like to point out when we speak of women especially in India and we speak of empowerment, I think we need to understand that even when a woman stays quiet and deals with say domestic violence, I think that is immense amount of strength. So I think we need to respect that firstly. But yes, coming back to your point of governance, as Mr. Nath also pointed out, I think this is a great space to be in because we actually want to execute a project and ensure that there's 100% delivery of that project. I think this is the space to be in and that's the beauty of being a start punch. Again, as you pointed out, yes, we don't have enough people out there to make the transformation primarily because we don't have good capacity building. Now, if we are able to provide that training and it's a space that I'd like to get into which is even if we can give basic information about what the budget allocation is, what the schemes are, which department is responsible for what, who can the panchayat go to, if there are hindrances being posed by the system, what can you possibly do? I think even if we can provide a framework focusing on these aspects and train the women, train the people working, not just the women, train the people in the panchayats, the elected representatives, I think that's gonna just change things dramatically because a lot of people also think that education is the only thing that empowers you. Yes, it does, it provides you an added advantage. But I have seen great women who are illiterate but they've done such a phenomenal job in transforming their society or the community that they are living in. But what is required for women, first and foremost, is moral support. And in addition to that, the other knowledge and technical know-how, I think knowledge in itself is great power. So what can we possibly do? And I think the private sector has a huge canvas to work on if that is a segment they would like to come into. So thanks for that question. We have a point to add. I think, Madhu, your question is very well-directed, but reservation itself hasn't worked. I'm giving you a specific example because I encounter this, this is not in the abstract. Out of 800 panchayats, and then one third of them get reserved, how many women come out? There's a new, at least in my state, there is a new designation called Sarpanchpati. I don't know if it's there, that's that. Sarpanchpati, okay. That women don't come out. We are going to have in December, a generally panchayat election in Madhya Pradesh, and so much reservation has taken place. There are, last night I was taking a stop, where we won't find women willing to come out. It's the tradition, it's the ethos. Women don't come out. They are not going to come out to contest. Now, you're going to pull out a woman from a home, make her contest. This is specific to my district. You need not apply to Haryana villages, you see. I'm not saying this is one size fits all, but what's going to happen is that, you're going to pull out at least 60 or 70% of women who are unwilling, unwilling candidates, and or they've got smart husbands who say put my wife forward, right? I'll run the show as Sarpanchpati, okay? And I've seen letterheads. They print letterheads, Sarpanchpati. It's a letterhead terminology now, okay? Just not, just not a thought. So one of the challenges is getting more women to come forward, getting more women to come forward to participate in this process. Education. And capacity building, training them. I'd also like to add to that, Ms. Naat. My team, for example, my Panchat, there are 12 of us including me, out of which eight of women, four men. So on our first day, precisely the same thing happened. We were waiting for our council members to come together, but there were only two women and the rest were all men. And I looked at the men and I said, well, if you were to be here, then you should have contested the elections. Why did you get your vibe, the respect of vibe to do so? And I also just said to them that I like for your, for the actual punch member to be there for the meeting. And I also added to that, that if even I asked for a document to be signed, I would like for the lady to call someone from, within the family who she trusts, who's literate, to read the document out to her and only then sign it. And I think just my saying that, change things. Within five minutes, the women were there, after the men would sit along with them, but they didn't. So coming back to why men take over, is because I think a lot of them, I'm not saying all, but I think a lot of them are also afraid of their women being taken advantage of. Because if you're illiterate, this Panchat secretary is gonna get you to sign a wrong document and then you are stuck. When audits happen, it's a serpent who's gonna be behind bars. It's not gonna be the secretary or somebody else. So how do you protect those women? That is a question. And that's where I said moral support, I think is key, apart from capacity building itself. Very quickly, I wanted to say in the Gram Sabas, if women participate in the Gram Sabas, then they can throw up a good, I mean, sir, punch also. So again, focus on the Gram Sabas, see that they participate in the Gram Sabas. You have a question there? Yes, please. Hello, I'm Nithya. I'm a global shaper with the Global Shapers Community of the Forum. Talking about transforming India, I couldn't help observe that one of the important dimensions is missing from our conversation, that in fact, young population of India constitute around 53%, I guess, of the total population. And still, I find that they are important stakeholders of transforming India. And I find that that aspect is missing from our conversation. If you're going to talk about transforming India, it's very important to also talk about young people because young people today are taking up a lot of things, the Global Shapers Community, for instance, we are talking about decentralized models of development. That's exactly what Global Shapers Community does. The community is a network of young people between 20 and 30 years of age, and we're all brought together through city level hubs. And we come from various backgrounds and we're all really potentially good people. And we come from various backgrounds and we undertake community projects and we are moving forward. And what I find missing is in India, particularly, why are young people not part of the policy dialogue? And I would like to know the steps that the government is taking to include us, particularly the youth ministry. I would really like to know what are the steps that you're taking and if you have plans going ahead. Okay, just in the defense of this panel, the youth minister backed out at the last moment. So there's a lot that lifts to be desired. But yes, you're right, 400 million young people, they shape political rhetoric, but they're not giving as much attention. Are things beginning to change? They are beginning to change. I think we are seeing a great shift coming towards the youth. It's not 400 million, it's 435 million if I got the numbers right. And you're seeing at all levels, the age is going down. See at the CEO level, start with the CEO level. Age is going down. See at the heads of divisions, various divisions in the corporate sector. The age levels are going down. So there is a transformation taking place. Previously, you had to be 60 years old to buy an apartment. Today, a 27-year-old goes and buys an apartment. He knows what the bank is, how he got a loan. He knows previously he didn't even bother. That's a big change taking place. So this change is taking place, but of course there's a lot to be desired in this. That how do we engage more with the youth? And I think that the youth who are previously not willing to move out of a district, not willing to move out of their block, not willing to move out of their village, are now moving out. This is a very big change I've seen 35 years ago. I remember when I first came into parliament, if somebody came to you for a job, you only wanted a government job. And he didn't want anything else. He's willing to remain unemployed, only a government job. Today, he wants a job in the private sector, anywhere in the country. And that's I think one of the most profound changes I've seen in this 35 year lifespan of mine, that people are willing to move to jobs anywhere in the country. And that's where this cross-pollination is going to take place. This cross-pollination is very important. And that is going to be what is going to drive change. And the polity is getting younger, so you have a point there, yes. I have time for only one last question. My name is Anish Bari. I'm from Global Shapers Community. I was wonderful listening to you all and thanks for the wonderful insight. I understand like in a country like India, when we talk about democracy and the positive change, it's a process. It doesn't come in a flash. That's true. But the major part of the India, that is the grass root, where Chhavi Rajavath is a wonderful example. But don't you think the, you know the intent, the people do, they have good intent to work. But don't you think their knowledge level is pretty low at the grass root? They would want to do good work, but they don't have the appropriate knowledge. And across the party, I'm not taking any names, but maybe there can be same phenomena across the top leadership in the various states. And there could be a possibility that the bureaucrats in some states, they become a thick skinned, that they don't allow the ideas to flow in the system. Especially like social entrepreneurship when you talk about the various models. I'll request you to direct your questions straight away. So I just wanted to know like what innovation models we can think of when you're talking about youth India, because we are talking about the modern India. So what are the innovative models we can address to foster the rural leadership, to foster the spirit of social entrepreneurship and the leadership at all levels? You know, we did address that question, but I'll quickly ask Chavi to come in on that very briefly. Briefly, I don't think I can answer that briefly. But I think there's huge scope there. I'll be happy to take your question, post the session to discuss it further. But yes, I think social entrepreneurship within India has a great opportunity, and I wish more people would come forward, especially at the grassroots. What is required, yes, is support from both the private sector as well as the government to allow such initiatives and be open to such ideas and incorporate those and be sort of enablers for those social entrepreneurship projects as well. So it's just a question of how quickly we're able to adapt to it and adopt it, and how quickly are we able to find those and form those partnerships to take it to a different level? And if they're going back to your question, I'd just like to add that in my village, for example, and I'm hoping I'll be able to also inspire more others in the villages to do what we are trying to do, we are focusing on the youth. The transmission is not gonna happen instantly. It's a long-term vision. It will take time, but we are focusing on the youth to try and get them involved with the various projects of development. Also because at the end of the day, they have to start taking ownership to where they come from, especially villages, along with which there has to be a sense of ownership. And I think it is very important to guide the youth in the right direction and ensure that they also participate actively in that field of development. Fair point indeed. I'm afraid you will have to take this offline now, completely out of time here in this session. Thank you very much for being a wonderful audience. I think the consensus is simple, India is a very diverse country with diverse ideas, but there is after all one vision and that is for India to only progress. Thanks very much, each one of you. Thank you.