 All right, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and thank you very much for staying here at the India Economic Submit and for participating in the many conversations that have happened over the past two days and we're here now at the closing. Our co-chairs are kind enough to join us here for the closing session so many thanks to Minister Goyal, to Dipali Goenka, Ajay Banga and Malvika for being here this afternoon. As I said, we've talked about many things from digitisation to financial inclusion, diversity in the workplace, pollution, several things pertaining to what India needs to do to improve the quality of life of its citizens as well as enhance its economic power. So let me try and crystallise this to some actionable agenda that we can take forward post this summit. Minister Goyal, let me start by asking you. I remember in the opening that you said that your word for the summit was going to be trust and you spoke about how that is going to be something that this government will pursue in the manner that it formulates its policy, in the manner that it engages with citizens. So if I could ask you at the end of what you've heard here, the big take a ways around jobs, around employing the youth, around education, the many aspects that we've spoken of, what would your actionable agenda be at the end of the summit? I think if we could just focus on two issues. One is a mindset issue and the second is an involvement issue. The focus, if it is changed to the narrative becoming outcome oriented, if the narrative, even in our own discourse or in our own thinking, including the media for that matter, is focused on what's gone wrong. We are happy with that. It's great because that, as you know, I've always enjoyed getting feedback which helps us improve our work and our effort. But if it is motivated, if it is singularly intended to disrupt the positive environment, then I think that will be pretty much unfortunate for the country because somehow in this day and age of 24 hours, television, breaking news and all, it's very easy to sensationalize without really bothering about the outcomes. And more often than not, my own experiences, very trivial issues, sometimes are sensationalized beyond they really deserve to. And very often falsehoods are sensationalized with not even an apology. I'll share a small example. Once one of the pink papers wrote that I have a shareholding of some 20 or 30 crores in a company which had recently had an IPO. Now, the least I would expect a pink paper which is basically running economic news is to verify its facts and a Piyush Koyal name can be verified very easily. Our data is on the website every year as ministers. And if at all they should have otherwise written that I'm falsifying my data that I'm submitting to the honorable prime minister. But it's very easy to write that Piyush Koyal owns 30 crores worth of shares. There must be 500 Piyush Koyals in this country, right? So this kind of sensationalism that is sought to be created, and I am saying this with full responsibility, often motivated, should change to a more positive mindset where what is wrong, you criticize and you take us to the cleaners on that. And what is good for the country, be willing to even say that that is good for the country. So that's one part. And the second part is the change that we always talk about, be the change you want to see in the world, make a difference to society. Malvika spoke about it yesterday. I think the more all of us get involved, I was in a program this morning where a gentleman came up to me, said, I have retired from the Defence Military Engineering Services. I said, great, I need help to make foot bridges wherever there's a large amount of passengers on trains, in military precision and military speed. Can you help me? He said, I'd love to help you. But that's the kind of enthusiasm you find in a large section of India. We are trying to channelize. I've already set up a meeting to meet him and see how he can help me in my world. We need to channelize our own energies to get more involved in this changing dynamic that the country is going through. I've often said that we also have to become whistle blowers. So if we see somebody doing wrong, we've got to talk about it. If in our industry, if she's in the textile trade, somebody is evading taxes, we should let the authorities know so that we can have a level playing field on its business prevails, rather than just cribbing, crying, cursing the system and hoping it is somebody else's responsibility to stop that. I think if we all decide, we will never pay a bribe. We will not encourage or allow anybody to cheat on taxes. This country can be just completely a new story by 2022. I don't want to digress and make this a political issue, but since you spoke quite significantly in your opening comments about motivated sensationalism, are you talking about comments that have been made about the state of the economy? No, no, no. I'm talking about general stuff. There's so many things that come up, which are irrelevant very often, sensationalized, and by the next day, it's not even there anywhere. And nowadays with these online media houses, so-called social media is still a different thing. With online media houses, you have a number of them who will write anything and get away with it because they don't even have to substantiate anything. So do you believe, like Harish Salve does, that social media needs to be regulated in India? I don't think you need to regulate social media. I think collectively, we as the citizens of India need to give a befitting reply to such motivated people. You know, I do want to... I think Piyush is raising a really interesting point on the involvement of citizenry. Piyush, it's almost like you were listening to a discussion I was having half an hour ago in a conversation with young global leaders and somebody asked me a really good question there and I said, if each of you went back and spoke to 10 people about what can be done differently, that's 20 people here, that's 200 people you reached. You can change the world with that kind of behavior as compared to waiting for someone else to do it. So I think he's raising a really important point and this thing of being, of creating the leadership you want, of setting the trend, I could not be more supportive of what he just said. You know, and I want to pick up on both these points and take this conversation forward. And let me start by asking you, Minister Goyal, because you spoke about a need for a mindset change as well as linking that to outcome. If I could ask you about whether we could change this L1 mindset that we live within this country. Yes, and also, and I'll link that to corporate boards because yesterday we've had the Udaykota Committee on Corporate Governance bring out its report saying that people who are qualified to be on corporate boards have the domain expertise of that particular industry, etc., should be the ones who represent corporate boards. But you know, this mindset that it has to be the lowest bidder, irrespective of whether they have the expertise, they have the competency, they have the skill. I mean, is it not time that we look for reimagining this template, reinventing this template for better India? Well, first of all, since you alluded to Uday's report, let me also tell you that I think he's gone completely off the mark here. He's gone off the mark? Why? That's right. And I'll explain why. I became the power minister of this country. I didn't know the P of power or the C of coal, and renewable energy was the farthest thing from my mind when I became a minister. IEA's officers all over the country, many of them have done illustrious jobs. I don't think they have some domain expertise. Sridharan didn't know what a metro looks like when he became the metro man of India. So, I mean, I don't think very often I tell people when they come to me and they say that, you know, this company doesn't have experience in manufacturing pipes, for example. We can't buy from them. I said there is a process to determine if the pipes that the manufacturer are good or bad, you do tensile testing. There are all sorts of testing available. But if everybody takes that mindset, he'll never be able to get into business. So, making India or entrepreneurship and startup India can be history from tomorrow. To my mind, you have to encourage diversity of opinion, diversity of experience. So, if I'm running a steel unit and I've run a steel unit, four jings, I didn't know a damn all of that. I'm a chartered accountant, right? So, businessmen are supposed to keep their accounts honest and correct. Businessmen are, maybe if it's an engineer doesn't know what, Dhirubhai Ambani probably never went beyond a certain basic level of education. So, I think there's a completely wrong thinking. You, just education doesn't make a man any great or any expert in the field. And the most educated people run some of the biggest frauds that have happened in this country. So, is that the only reason why you believe that he's gone off the mark or do you think other directors can do the same as well? I have not even gone into all the details. There are many things good, many things which I think are inappropriate. There's a good idea that a woman director should be compulsory. Great idea. And an independent director. That's also a good idea. But, since you're raising the point, I can labor whatever little I've read on the television screen. He also spoke about the board themselves should decide the independent directors. Now, frankly, this is what is already happening. There's nothing new in that. But that is where the problem is. When I run my board, I choose people who are going to be yes men or going to listen to me or going to go by what I say, and that's going to be my board. But that's the whole problem, the biggest problem is that only. So, what he's recommending is that I get to choose who will be on my board, who are convenient for me to be on the board. So, anyway, we are not discussing Uday's report. I'll talk to him tomorrow, maybe about it. But the bigger issue is... He just got a preview. He didn't get a preview. But Uday has been like a mentor for me for 25, 30 years. I love him. And therefore, I can take the liberty and he takes the same liberty with me. When I go wrong, I know that Uday is there to tell me you're doing something wrong here. So, I just said it because these were two or three things that I just picked up on the screen yesterday. So, I'm not even suggesting don't pick enemies. But Raul Bai, I am saying that moment you are insisting that I will only have the right and I must have the right to pick my own board. That's what Uday has said in his report. I'm going to have to call a timeout on this because this is not meant to be a conversation around Uday Kotak's recommendations. So, let me go back again to the mindset change that we were talking about, Mr. Goyal. And how we can actually insist within government that the policies are outcome linked. See, L1 is something again, which is not easy to do away with. And for good and bad reasons. When you point out L1 is not good, you're talking of quality of service. Let's say if I want to take an architect, I certainly can't take it on an L1 basis. You know, when a PSU is disinvested and merchant bankers bid for it and there may be some merchant bankers in this room, every time they bid zero, are you aware of that? Yes. Why do they do that? Because of two reasons. They make money on the side because of the investments that flow in from them and they get some carry on the money that's invested. You know that very well. And the second is they want to up their league rankings. Correct? Now in that case, it's certainly we cannot do anything. Everybody is zero. I had in fact suggested to the deep firm secretary, which I usually do, like in the coal mines. And now you start asking them, how much money you will pay us to be the merchant banker of a disinvestment to the government. But the bigger point is that, look, we also want probability and honesty in government. Yeah, I get that. Beyond the stage, if we start messing up with L1, we're also going to land up with scandals and excuses of quality always becoming a cause for scandal. Therefore, there are established processes. You can create committees. You can create technical specifications which are robust and protect you from the riffraff. You can have 70% of the marks for technical, 30% for financial bids. There are ways in which you can reasonably protect. I personally am of the opinion you should have a technical spec which is strict, remove the shaft from the drain, and then allow them to bid on a financial parameter. Many people use the 70, 30 or 50, 50 principle. I personally believe it leads to more objectivity and then people can manipulate transactions. I have so far avoided doing that. Okay, so let me continue with the conversation that we're having on outcomes. And I remember, Dipali, in your opening, you spoke about the one big concern that you have and that is around jobs. At the end of everything that we've heard here during the course of this summit, if I were to ask you to prioritize what you would like to see the corporate sector do, what you would like to see the government do, the two or three things, so that we actually move up on the agenda as far as job creation is concerned. You know, along with what I witnessed in the last two days, somebody commented on why is textiles important? I mean, do you think India should have that agenda as textiles? I mean. It's one of the largest job creators in the world. Yes, exactly. So I mean, I was just wondering, you know. So I think the key thing for us as corporates is that how do we look at the grass root level deployment, employment of the youth population because the non-farming jobs is critical. And apart from that, the women deployment is very, very important. I think that's where I think would be a key agenda for the corporates like us. That is critical. But what do you think when you talk about the participation of women in the workforce, and it's unfortunate that in India, both when we talk about rural India as well as in urban India, the numbers are actually declining. So women participation in the workforce has declined over the last few years. What do you believe is the remedy? What is the answer both from a corporate perspective as well as a government perspective? See, the remedy from the corporate perspective is still we don't ourselves become the agents of change until we don't take the commitment to do that. For instance, of Elspen's vision, for 2.0 is around 20% women at the workforce level. And we already have 40% in the senior leadership. And that's what I'm talking about just textiles alone, which is very predominantly, very men-oriented kind of industry. So I think the commitment has to come in from our end. And skill development, I think the initiatives the government has taken, I think we have to take the lead and take that forward across all, like the skill India is very, very important. We actually take on 10,000, we actually skill 10,000 youth every year. And I think that becomes a very interesting initiative by what we do, and I think the government will also need to take that. Okay, Ajay, I think it was, you also rated jobs as your number one concern in your opening session. So, you know, it's a mammoth task and it's a mammoth challenge. But you and I were having the conversation before we came out where you said that we must approach this in bite-sized solutions so that we can actually go after the problem and attack it. If I were to ask you, how do we attack this challenge in that, so that we actually deliver on the outcomes, what would you suggest? So my view is that the reason I said jobs is because of the whole issue of the informal, formal economy and getting workers into that so you can get productivity going, including for women. And if you do that the right way, you can get a great improvement in where we are. The thing about bite-sized chunks is the following. You look at what Piyush was talking about about his situation in the railways. Piyush, how many days have you been the minister now? 32. 32, and he's not counting. But in those 32 days, he's trying to create a plan to create a million jobs. That correct? That's right. Okay, today the World Economic Forum put out a report on tourism by this young lady in pink here. And what it says is that if you do the right things with tourism in India, you can get to create a million jobs in that sector. Just look at this, one, one, two. I mean that as bite-sized chunks. To get tourism to go, you shouldn't science solve and boil the ocean of getting the whole of India to somehow, tomorrow morning, or three years from now, or 15 years from now, become tourism friendly. Let's pick 10 places and let's work on the infrastructure of those 10, not just to see the Taj, but to have other things to do when you go to Agra, to be able to have hotels you wanna be with, to feel safe as a woman on the road, to be able to feel welcomed and not to be cheated upon by people, culturally, mindset. This is not different from what Piyush was saying. And what Dipali was saying earlier. So that's what I mean by bite-sized chunks. Break the problem down into bite-sized chunks, create a process of measuring it, put color coding against it, saying I'm working well on this one, not well on that one, and then go chase it down. I continue to believe that tourism is India's quickest return for jobs in the next one to two years. It's that much of an advantage. And I didn't understand that Piyush could generate a million. That's remarkable in the railways. So I'll give you a simple thing. If I invest 150,000 crores, and if even 20% of that is labor cost, which I'm being very conservative by Indian standards, it's 30,000 crores. 30,000 crores, the railways, people don't do that investment. It's all done through contracted and outsourced stuff. So that 20% is 30,000 crores, 300,000 rupees per person at an average. Some may be less, some may be more. Is a million jobs. And I'm spending that every year. So that's the bite-sized chunks. I want to give you why I said Jan Bhagyadari or Peoples Enrollment. And why it should be a collective effort. Ma'am spoke about tourism, which she alluded to. In the railways, what am I doing? We have 276 saloons, including a saloon which I can use to go anywhere in the railway. Right? It's a beautiful luxurious saloon. You may love to go on that someday. But we are not planning to use those saloons. I have paid my master contract. We are making sure that henceforth, you'll have to pay right now. I can only give it to you as a favor. Oh, I see. But what we are doing is we are keeping those which are essential for any unfortunate accident or repair work or inspection work with the divisional managers. moving probably 150, 170 of them out of the divisions, creating luxury trains out of that. And I'll tell you the thinking. I'll have a train go from Delhi on the Booth Circuit, Sarnath, Khushi Nagar, Gaya. And I'll tell you why I'm doing it, because in those places we don't have very good hotel facilities, stay facilities. But these trains have beautiful staying facilities. So Japanese can come on that train, stay in the night in that coach, good toilets, good everything. In the day, pays respects at the Booth Tourist spot. Again, come back in the night, go to the next place. So his hotel, his stay, his toilet, everything is well taken care of. I'll probably add one or two Japanese translators or whatever countries, Chinese translators. And there, lo and behold, you've got a, without doing anything else, you've created interest. So my point about this was, bite-sized chunks. You do that, that's one example. The ingenuity of this country will produce five more from that. We hope that that will certainly... Tents, the luxury tents. Sure, so tourism clearly, as is very evident from this panel, is one big idea that the government needs to take forward. And Sarita, yes, please do send the minister your report. But Malika, I wanna come to you because in your opening you talked about inclusion and education as the two sectors that you would like to focus on. And inclusion is a theme that you would like to focus on. At the end of this summit here today, in terms of tangible ideas, what is it that you would like to take forward? Thank you. I think for the past two days, I have been strongly advocating for inclusion at every platform I got. And I am very happy for the support I received for the response I got from the business leaders here, the government leaders and everyone at the summit. And I was extolling the promise of my generation, the millennial generation and my country to this world. So while I remain optimistic about this dream, I would be fooled not to acknowledge that banking on the future is a treacherous endeavor. So to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, there are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. I'm a student of the social sciences and I'm interested in the most, almost all the intangibles of society. Chief amongst them is attitude, which I have been emphasizing in every platform. I speak as a woman and as a disabled woman here. And I must speak that no matter what, no matter where I go, which Indian street I walk, I can almost taste the prejudice in the stair. I can almost see people discriminating me. And we could play an endless statistical game here, but the truth is this, we as a nation need to be more cognizant of how we perceive our fellows. Education must be well-rounded. On the steep hill to educate our children on civic behavior, here is my first lesson, do not stare, period. Our attitudes towards those different from us, may they be gender, age, religion, education, all of these have an effect on the overall stability of the nation. Attitude affects one's perception. Perception affects one's communication. Communication affects one's actions. So the integral of all individual action must amount to the idea of society and in extension the character of nation. And I want to highlight another important point that is mental health and it is an aspect that is not often paid much attention and sometimes even willfully ignored in even amongst the educated, there is a stigma associated with seeking help for mental health. Mental health has a direct effect on one's ability in realizing their true potential. And we have the largest working population in the world, hence it is not a stretch to say that we will have an epidemic on our hands that will affect our nation's stability for a generation if we don't pay enough attention to mental health. Well, I'm going to stop you just there, Malvika, because you raised very important points and I'm glad that the India Economic Summit actually addressed some of those issues, including the issue that you raised here of mental health and we did have a conversation around that here at the summit. Yes, Deepav. You know what Mishrin, what Inamalika said about, I think there are two things I want to talk about. One is safety and security and the other is about, you know, the especially able. I think these are two interesting things that an important integral part of the industry's initiatives that they need to talk about. You know, you're talking about safety and security, you're talking about women in workforce. We're talking about skill development. Are we training those men who are working as the coworkers with them to respect them and look at them respectfully? I think that's so important. I think that's where it comes in from. Important is that if people like us and the corporates like us, you know, take on the initiative of taking on the specially-abled as a social inclusion, I think it's going to change the world. I mean, that's the diversity you're talking about. You're not just talking about the gender diversity, you're talking about the social inclusion and that's what is a vision at Wellesman also, you know. You know, Shireen, when Prime Minister spoke from the Red Fort on 15th August, 2014, his first address, my daughter was sitting on the ground below the Red Fort. She was, I think, that time all of 16 or 17. And that dialogue of the Prime Minister, that statement, had a profound impact on her when he had said on that day that we are all the time telling our girls how to behave, how to look at boys, or how to take care of themselves. Why don't we teach our boys how they have to behave, how they have to look at the other sex, what is proper, what is improper? And I was remembering that in our time in school, we used to have moral science in classes. And I think it's not there in schools anymore. But if we were to try and introduce it, I don't know your channel, but many would be first off the block trying to tell us you're trying to force education or force a certain culture or force Indian tradition and heritage on the children. And therefore, this whole political discourse in the country has become one where every good step also, which is in the interests of the people of India, is looked at with a jaundiced or a colored eye and then sought to be converted into an issue which more often than not has no relevance. There's nothing communal about it, nothing really political about it. But then if you try to teach moral science, you're trying to teach Hindutva, you're trying to teach Gita or whatever will come in and you'll be back to square one. Well, I don't think telling somebody that they need to respect a woman or respect the differently abled has to necessarily be linked to a particular religion or to a particular text or a particular text. How I wish you ever a skill development course on that for all the media also. I can't speak for anything beyond my own organization, but since we are talking about tangible ideas going forward and there was a lot of conversation in the opening around corporate social responsibility. I think corporate social responsibility is much more than just that 2% that goes towards the CSR spend which has now been made mandatory. How do you ensure that when we talk about a participative democracy, when we talk about engaging citizens for the betterment of a country, what is the role that a corporation can play there? Should I believe that you, I said this yesterday, that you have to do well and do good at the same time. If you don't understand how to do that, you cannot have a role to play as a corporation today because you're not working in a vacuum, you're working with your community and my community is people like her and him and her and you and so I gotta make sure that I can engage in a constructive way with everybody. Now what do I mean by that? I think the 2% by the way, I would not let that go by, I think it's a really good idea and a really good step because it creates a discipline around putting some money back but here's the problem, there is not enough philanthropic money in the world or government money in the world to solve some of the challenges we're all facing. These are fairly large monumental challenges. In my belief, the reason for public private partnerships to have become flavor of the month right now is because you need the public sector to create the regulation and the guide rails for the private sector to bring in its capital, ingenuity and balance sheet and make this doing better a part of our business model and that is the point about inclusive growth that I was making with Piyush yesterday, that inclusive growth matters not just inclusion because inclusive growth is a way to prosperity and a way to prosperity in my business model and therefore I can justify to my shareholders working in collaboration with the government and working in collaboration with civil society that I can make a difference. That is doing well and doing good at the same time. That's the deal. When the Prime Minister in that same 15th August, 14th speech announced that within a year we'll create a toilet for boys and girls separately in every government school in the country. That was one time where probably L1 may not have been so strictly possible because you had one year to do 430,000 schools across the country, toilets and 430,000 schools. A lot of private sector companies came forward also but that's where the government showed its true metal in a way. The companies which were under power, coal and renewable energy at that time did 221,000 toilets in half almost, 121,000 toilets, one like 21,000 toilets. About one third of them were done by just PSUs under that ministry. Now after that I realized what Ajay is saying. I realized that if we had instead of doing that we had partnered with the private sector and we could have done a far better job in terms of quality. We could have maintained it far better about which I saw problems later on. So now, about a month ago, I had meetings with Tata charities, Piramal's charities, lot of companies in Delhi, Nechiket, more, lot of people came. Then last week another three, four more charities came forward. I'm trying to see how we can leverage the same PPP model to get NGOs in the private sector and government spending. Leverage each other. There's a huge amount of money we give out through our various programs. Be it Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao, Be it our maternity programs, Be it our programs for education. There's huge amount of money spent, we'll get CSR in the normal course of social welfare schemes. So if the NGOs, and I find some really well-meaning people there, government schemes and our own CSR, if we can dovetail that, I think we can get a big bang for every buck that we spend. We can leverage and multiply many fold and also stop duplication. Out of eight or nine trusts, six or seven spoke about health, five spoke about education. So we are all working in silos. If we can dovetail all that, it can have a transformational impact. Yes, because scale matters. But specifically on the need for public-private partnership to create social infrastructure, if I could broadly call it that, whether it's healthcare or education. And these have been experiments that various state governments have undertaken with the private sector where you use the government infrastructure but get the private sector to actually run a school or run a hospital. The Niti-Iyog in fact, in its recent proposal, has suggested a PPP model where you use government infrastructure but it's actually given out to a private sector player. Do you believe that that is the idea for the future when we talk about improving the service that at the last mile, do you think that that is going to be an idea that will be given currency by this government? There's no one size fits all in these things. You have to be open to ideas across the board. I'll tell you a small thing. We wanted to start station development. Companies are not coming forward. They wanted to see if this experiment works. So in Gandhinagar, the government gave out an EPC contract and the station is being developed. A hotel will come up and the tendering has been done. And a good company has got the tender to manage that hotel when it comes out. We've done it already so that the furnishing can be to their taste. So you're using the real estate of the station? The real estate of the station. The real estate monetized it. It'll be a beautiful station and a hotel on top. Hotel given out on management contract like Hyatt and everybody takes. They take three and a half percent. That's the tender price on which it went. Same formula, technical specs, five people or whatever were shortlisted. And then in the financial bid, this company won. And once we have three or four such cases, then the general public will start taking interest. If ESL hadn't done the huge LED rollout, the private sector would never have reduced their prices by 90%. So I think every project has its own best method. Back to the bite-sized chunks. If you do it in 10 places and it shows up as being a good idea, you can do it in 100 hours. Absolutely. That's what I feel they need to do. We need to bring our problems down to things we can manage and deal with, solve for them, and then run with them. So let me last five minutes, get some audience questions in and then let the minister leave. So let me get hands in the audience. Yes, Ratul, we've got Ratul Puri right here. If you can get the microphone across to him. His question will be longer than five minutes. This question goes out to anyone on the panel. And I'm Ratul Puri from Hindustan Pa. How do we, Minister Goyal yesterday talked about trust and said trust is a critical factor. And I believe one of the key elements in restarting the investment cycle, creating jobs, doing all the good things that India needs to do is to enhance trust that is there amongst all key stakeholders, the media, industry, government. How do we re-establish this element of trust, some element of trust that may have been lost? How do we go forward and enhance it and build upon it? No, 20 seconds, not five minutes. Your turn to use it. I think, for example, the finance minister had mentioned that if people start paying their taxes and we get more tax revenue, we can reduce the tax rates. If more and more people start self-punishing, so let's say she's in a textile business. They're 10 companies. If she knows that there's one company which is cheating or two which are cheating, if she lets us know about it and we can stop that, then it'll encourage everybody to start being honest. But if she allows that to continue and God forbid that comes to the attention of the government, then what happens is one wrong step leads to everything becoming suspect. So I think that trust is something where everybody will have to put their foot forward. We in government will have to be more trusting of people that they are paying their taxes, honestly. The industry or taxpayers will have to be more honest in terms of declaring their business and their accounts more honestly. And as I said, the media will have to be more trusting in terms of actually seeing is there a malified or a bona fide? For example, we want to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Prevention of Corruption Act today castigates you irrespective of whether you did it with the best of bona fides, though it went wrong, or you had some malified behind it. We are trying to amend it that only where you can prove malified, you should be taken to the cleaners, but bona fide decisions can go wrong. Similarly in banking, after all there are entrepreneurs with the best of interests that started a business. Somebody can go wrong in business, that's why they are entrepreneurs in the first place. There is a risk associated with business. Now if the world is going to look at every entrepreneur with the jaundice tie that he's cheated the bank or he's save and accept a few genuinely willfully fault us. But otherwise if the world starts recognizing that failure is an integral part of success or business, I think it'll change, it'll bring back the mojo into the business. I have a different kind of trust to back that question. In the financial inclusion space, we've done these 360 million people. I found every time we tried to work with governments and NGOs, they would think why is a private sector company interested in this and what's in their agenda? That has changed because now we've done 360 million people who've come into it. We need that trust between the public and the private sector if the PPP is actually going to work. And that mind you, that's a burden on the private sector as much as it is a burden on the public sector. This is not public sector doing it or not. Both of us need to do it. Shireen, I can appeal to all the people in this room. Just so many people, if they apply their mind, what government can do, what people can do, what industry can do, what bankers can do, what media can do to get bad trust in the system. If everybody puts a one pager on it and maybe WEF for somebody can compile it and come out with a small note on that, I promise you the government is open to listening to. All right, well, we'll take that up. Thank you very much for that. Yes, we've got a question there in the audience. Yes, ma'am, go ahead. I'm Sugandha Monshah, I belong to Patna Bihar and representing Global Shaper here. So I have, my question has two parts. It's a question come understanding I need to develop from the whole forum. We have launched Beti Bachar or Beti Parho, that's doing a very fantastic job in making people be the change you want to see in the world. Now, do you think it's a time to also launch a campaign equally, Beti Parho and Beti Parho? Absolutely. That's how. We spoke about it. So that's kind of a campaign, which also talks about men's socialization. The second aspect is about the women workforce. Agriculture is one of the greatest sector in India. But when I see, I work with women farmers, they are invisible. Their contribution is not being recognized. How do you think we can work together to make this challenge and bring a solution to this? That's very much possible, ma'am. If you, and again, I come back to those trusts who came and presented to me. Many of them are doing wonderful work when it comes to farmers. I'll give you a simple example. Devendra Fadnavis, Maharashtra's Chief Minister, along with the Tata Trust, is running a program on Jalyok Shivir, where they're creating small water bodies in remote areas in the state of Maharashtra so that even if there's rain only for two days, the farmer is assured for the rest of the year he won't have a water shortage. Now the Tata's Amit Chandra, many of us know him. Amit came up with a desilting program. It's a brilliant program. These water bodies often have silt accumulated over the years. That silt is like gold. If you desilt these ponds, not only are you expanding the water capacity, but that silt when it goes into the farms, it's magnifying their productivity twice and thrice over. So their incomes are increasing. Now farmers are willing to pay money to take that silt. So it's becoming a self-financing program. You desilt, recover the money from selling that silt. You add to the water body over there, capacity, carrying capacity. So there are a lot of things that can be done which can truly impact farmers. And it's again, people like us, people like us who understand, who've seen how Israel, for example, has three times our productivity, who know better ways to use fertilizer, for example, rather than just putting in more and more urea into the land, who can help educate farmers with soil health cards, drip irrigation, what's the best product to make, depending on market forces. I'm trying to see if I can bring coal storage. Let's say Nasek, all trains coming out of Nasek having coal storage in the onion season. And all trains going out of Himachal having a coal storage in the apple season. So it's a role where we can all contribute both with ideas and many of us with implementation. Okay, quick question. Can I leave? They can cut. One final question and then I think we'll draw to a close because Dipali has a flight to catch as well. So the final question here this evening, yes. Sir, go ahead. Hello, my name is Roshan Raiqar and I'm a global chaperone, basic query that is, there is a lot of gap in communication between the government and the public. Now the government is doing a lot of things. The public is in the channel? No, the people, okay. Because there is a lot of gap in the communication that the people, in such forums, everybody are talking so many things and we want to do a lot of stuff. But people are wondering on the ground that what's happening, they just, they have no clue what's happening. So this gap in the communication is a really big problem and I really want to know what your views on how to bridge this. I can make a suggestion gentlemen, you have a number of these youngsters involved with the WEF, right? I'm willing to have five of you, seven of you, 10 of you spend a year in my office, help us create a communication strategy and actually implement it. To convey, let it be a two-way traffic, to convey what we believe we are doing is right and to hear the people's voice and help us maybe moderate what we are doing or modulate it and do it better. So if anybody, youngsters, want to contribute. Write in to me, my mail ID is simple, which I read Piyush Goyal BJP, G-O-Y-A-L, Piyush Goyal and I add a BJP, that's my identity, at gmail.com. Is this open for older people? If Ajay, you are willing to come in, I promise you in three years, we'll wind up Mastercard and Visa and take Babasaheb Ambedkar's beam to the whole world. So we've got homework at the end of day two of the India Economic Summit, a one-pager that Minister Goyal expects from everyone here who's attended to put forward tangible ideas on how we can actually engage with the government and ensure that we're a robust participative democracy and anyone from the Shapers program who wants to intern with the minister, you've got his email address now, so rush in your applications. Anuj Gupta will contact you. To Piyush Goyal, yes Ajay. I want to say one thing, which is Karan said something yesterday, which is very interesting and he said, you know, if this is a Bollywood movie, we're at halftime, we want to get to the end and have a happy ending. I really want us to not forget the idea of India taking the leading role on building the international order because India deserves that chance. It's time has come, we can do it. When you do things like corporate governance, intellectual property, market access, these conversations, we can do it. I just want to make sure we don't lose sight of that. This is our chance, it will go away after that. Don't lose that chance. So Ajay used, or Karan used the Bollywood analogy, I'll end with the cricketing analogy. I guess we're in the slog-overs now and let's hope that- No, no, no, no, there's not the slog-overs. This is boom time, is the time to hit sixes and really go for the juggernaut. So the heavy hitting, the heavy hitting starts now. All right, Piyush Goyal, Dipali, Goenka, Malvika, Ajay Banga, many thanks for joining us. Let me invite Chandrujit Banerjee, please, to say a few words before we wrap up. Just wanted to thank everybody for making this last two days really eventful and if we want to see an outcome of the discussions and one great outcome before I came onto this table, before I came onto this diast was the phenomenal balance that that one saw, be it gender parity or be it the type of... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So too, I think there's been lovely, lovely discussions across different areas and I'm not going to sum that up, but say that really there was a huge amount of, you know, attention and a glue factor which came in that the partnerships that one saw, partnerships between government, civil societies, other stakeholders, and I think every one to one was willingly wanting to collaborate for a very different India. And I think the international community's participation in wanting to make that happen has been so strong. It is one window of opportunity we say that India has and if we don't get it, it won't come in another 60 years. So we are very hopeful and we saw the world order really looking at India to really make it happen. It's not just the policy makers responsibility, I think it's a combined responsibility of everybody. We'd want to work on that. Forums engagement with India last three and a half decades, phenomenal, and I think they have really taken the India, helped take this India agenda around and we really value that. And bringing in policy makers into really creating this agenda along with industry and other stakeholders have been extremely important. I want to thank the forum, some of them, the stalwarts of the forum are seated right here. Philip, Saritha, Murat, many others, and I think they are the ones who have been really championing India so very strongly. Just wanted to thank each one of you, not just the co-chairs, all the moderators, speakers, all those in attendance, this is something, this is the real time in India and we'd like to take this forward with everybody together. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.