 First, we're going to hear from Sherith Patel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me put to you an analogy. I think this is useful because it's a cryptic form of communicating a number of ideas. Imagine that we have a national health service, that all of medical practice is privatized, and that the government runs the health service, as it did for many years in the UK. Now imagine that the government decides it doesn't need doctors. After all, the pharmaceutical companies know what drugs are good for what disease. So let the pharmaceutical companies prescribe medicines for different ailments. And the whole thing can be run by government, directly. The parallel is that we have no planners in the city anymore. The government has systematically dismantled planning. So in the last 20 years, parallel to a situation where you would have no doctors, we have no planners. We have instead a set of development control regulations emanating from government. You could have a similar set of health control regulations emanating from government, but after this and that symptom, this is the medicine to take. And everything runs very smoothly because the government regulations prescribe what is to be done in what case. And in the case of planning, the developers decide what's to be done. There's no need for planners anymore. Mr. Mukesh Mehta, by his own admission, is a planner from New York. He knows what's to be done about Dharavi. There's no need for any planning of any kind. There are no detailed plans, and nobody sees the need for them. I heard two numbers this morning. Mr. Kshatriya said that, or earlier this afternoon, sorry, he said there were 70,000 families to be rehoused. And in one of his slides, Mr. Mukesh Mehta showed that the area of Dharavi is 236 hectares. So 70,000 families with a family size averaging five is three and a half lakh people. Three and a half lakh people on 2.2 square kilometers is about 150,000 persons per square kilometer. Now Bhuleshwar Kalbadevi is about 100,000 per square kilometer. It's the densest locality in the world. It's 70% more crowded than its next competitor, which is in Shanghai, which has 55,000. Bhuleshwar has 95,000 or 100,000. And these numbers suggest that we are planning 150,000. That's just the people in Dharavi. In addition, we are expecting to put new construction there, which people will buy, in order to finance the free housing for slum dwellers. I don't see how this can work. Now, on one very interesting question that you raised about government acquiring land around the city. The new Mumbai project in 1970, when it was launched, started with the government acquiring 345 square kilometers of land on the mainland across the harbor. This was all acquired and made government property. What's happening now is that we are selling that land to private owners to establish ACZs. ACZs are zones where they establish economic activities plus housing. So government is actually surrendering the right to develop this land which was acquired, and we are moving from the South American model to the North American model. On the issue you raised of land supply, I think it's being kept deliberately short. There are many things government can do to increase the land supply, and they are not being done. And I think this is part of an unstated deliberate policy. The salt pan lands could be acquired, we are going slow on that. The port trust lands could be, part of them certainly could be reused. That's not being done. Railways of surplus lands. The Urban Land Sealing Act locks up large tracts of land. The intention originally was that government would acquire this land and use it for housing. Government has taken no steps in that direction. And it locks it up so that the owner can't do anything either. It's just locked up. So I think land is being kept deliberately in short supply. And as regards this FSI-4, this is my last point, you have to look at FSI in the context of the amount of built up floor space consumed per person. In Mumbai's slum rehousing, it is five square meters per capita. In New York, it is 65 square meters per capita. That's 13 times as much. If you have an FSI of four in Bombay, that corresponds to an FSI of 13 times that, that is 52 in New York. I think even New York would book at an FSI of 52. Thank you. Thank you Sherif. We next are going to hear from our last participant who is PK Das, who is with the slum dwellers organization, Navarra Huck. But I also want to acknowledge that you were part of the Bandra Waterfront Center, which is one of the winners of the Urban Age Award for your project, for opening up the city to the sea, which is a very ambitious and exciting project. So congratulations to you for that. Thank you, Darren. I have probably just about five minutes or less than that, so I just make about, okay, three minutes. So I have five points I thought I'd make in five minutes, but I cut that down. Just quick summary of key issues that I derive from the various speakers, and I relate to from my experiences in Mumbai, very broadly two points. One is I think these are two aspects that we haven't really dealt with or mentioned much, the second we have, the first we haven't. I think a city like Mumbai, it's the housing as a real estate agenda is something that we've really not discussed. We know that the politics of the city, the making of the city, has been historically been influenced by the real estate interest. And this is something that we need to really understand in the context, particularly in the context of social housing or mass housing, and how the two are opposite to each other in terms of their fundamental interests. And we have been in this process championing since 1991, which is really a very critical turning point for the city of Mumbai. In fact, for the nation, because in 1991 we pledged our support to liberalism, to privatization and we pursued since then neoliberal policies and the government put its hands up to say we are not going to develop, we are going to facilitate development, set backed out, but what it means by this and what we see from it happening is that it's actually facilitating private agencies from in depleting public assets. And that's a huge problem right now because if a representative government if a state lacks resources which it could actually hold for social development programs and mass housing, it's tripped and it's sort of popularized, the state is popularized. So therefore I think it's these two contexts which are extremely important to understand and we've come to firmly believe as housing activists that the production and supply of affordable housing for the urban poor can only happen through state intervention. Through active role of the state government or the national government and not through private agencies. We've experienced from 1991 to now which is over 26 years. In spite of the private sector taking over dominant role, we have not supplied any housing stock to the market which is affordable for the urban poor. In fact, the government which through its agencies was producing some amount of housing for the poor has stopped producing. Why are slums proliferating? Because poor do not have access to housing stock in the city. As simple as that.