 Thank you very much for coming here to this press conference. Sam mentioned most of it. We've been traveling abroad to meet different people, both from Europe and from our diaspora. And we've been doing this regularly now. We went to the United States and now we've come to the EU, trying to get a sense of what is going on here and also to give people a little bit of a sense of what is going on back home. So happy to take your questions. I have three questions if that's okay. Can we do one at a time please? The first question is, what was the main message for the parliamentarians here and what do you expect from them? What do you expect from Europe? Have you come with any sort of expectation that you tell them, give them a message and then you want them to do something? No. And it's more of a conversation than a message. I'm no one to come and give a message to the Europeans. It's an exchange of ideas about what is going on in India, what's going on here, the type of cooperation that we can do. So it's more of a, the frame is a conversation. We discussed with the parliamentarians across the board, relationship between India and Europe, changing globe, transition into a new sort of energy paradigm, into a new mobility paradigm. So that was what the discussion was about. Yeah, we were giving them a sense of the type of challenges India is facing, economic challenges, other challenges. The general sort of attack on the democratic institution. So that's what we discussed. Go ahead. Yes. Can you speak a little louder? We're going to be meeting with Mr. Modi, we're going to be meeting with the government there. And my question for you is, do you feel with all of these, do you feel with all of these meetings they're going to be having, the Western view, are they giving Hindu nationalism a free pass? Are they giving the persecution of Muslims and minorities a free pass in India? I don't think, I think the G20 is an important conversation. And it's a good thing that India is hosting it. Of course, there are issues in India that we raise. But I don't think, I think the framing that are they giving them a free pass is not exactly correct. Obviously, there's a war going on in Europe right now. And there's been this constant, I wouldn't say an allegation, but there is the fact that India has close relations with Russia. And we've had your different leaders talking to India about it and feeling this aspect of trying to go India away from Russia. They won't bring up the persecution of minorities and Muslims in India, leaders from the West. No, I mean, India of course has a relationship with Russia. India has a relationship with the United States. India is a large country and by nature of being a large country, it will have relationships with many other countries. So, that's a normal thing. That's not, you know, India has every right to have a relationship with whoever it wants. There is of course, there are serious issues about the type of actions that are being taken with regards to, with regards to institutions, with regards to democracy and stuff. And yeah, we would hope that there is a sense that there are, there are underlying issues. Let's have a follow-up. No, no, please just, yes sir. We know that the Modi government takes quite cautious position on the conflict and the war. Russia held, Russia held against Ukraine. So, that I curious what is the opposition point of view on the issue. And the related question is that cautious position of the Indian government related to the sharp increasing of the oil supply supply of Russian oil to India. Thank you. I think the opposition by and large would agree with India's position, current position on the conflict. We have a, we have a relationship with Russia and I don't think the opposition would have a different view than what the government is currently proposing. I am from actually Kashmir. I would like to ask a question related to Kashmir issue. And what is, what would be your policy if you came into the power next election hopefully. And the, the, the recently four years before the article 370 was appropriated and even a portion leaders were restricted to visit and meet the people and how you see the future of Kashmir. Thank you. I mean our position on article 370 is very clear. It's in a resolution passed in the CWC of the congress party. I would urge you to take a look at that. Of course we are, we are for ensuring that every single person in our country has a voice, is allowed to express themselves. And we feel very strongly that Kashmir should develop, Kashmir should progress, and there should be peace in Kashmir. I just would like to know what are your next priorities, political priorities and what will be your world vision in the context of growing tensions. Thank you. What would be my, your view on international relations in a difficult context that we are now? I've been, I've been saying in all my meetings that it is pretty clear that China is proposing a particular view, a particular vision of the planet. And they are putting on the table the idea of the Belt and Road. And one of the reasons they are able to do that is because they have become a center of global production. And this is something I told the people yesterday in the external affairs office. But I don't see an alternative vision coming from our side. That, that vision requires a vision for production in a democratic environment. What the Chinese have basically shown is that it is possible to produce effectively in a coercive environment where you don't give people freedom, where you restrict their freedom, but you offer them prosperity without political freedom. And the challenge for us is can we provide an alternative vision where we do production under democratic conditions with political and economic freedom. And I think there's a lot of cooperation that can happen between the United States, between Europe and between us. And I think that's where a lot of our focus should go. How can we create an alternative to the Chinese production model that is a coercive production model? A competitive vision. What's contrary about it? I mean, they've decided not to invite the leader of the opposition. It tells you, it tells you something. I mean, it tells you that they don't value the leader of 60% of India's population. And, you know, it's something that people should think about. Why they are why they are feeling the need to do that. And what is the type of thinking that goes behind that? There was a 17-year-old boy who was shot in France and the French actually jailed about a thousand people just so that they even could go peacefully. And at the same time- I didn't realize that. And you tried to raise that issue. But there was no conversation on that in the platform. Instead, there was a lot of retaliation from the, you know, Indian ministries regarding the same that this should not be brought up. We were actually talking of freedom at that time in France. And I thought that that issue should have been brought up. But what do you think about that? Have you spoken about it here? About what? About the Manipur issue, the human rights issue that we're facing. Yeah. I mean, our position on Manipur was very clear. I actually visited Manipur. And I think we are very much for democratic rights, harmony, peace between people. I mean, I, as Sam said, I walked 4,000 kilometers for that very purpose. And I think there is a sense in India that the democratic structures of our country, the institutional structures of our country are under attack. And they're under attack from the group of people who are running India. I don't think this point is missed by anybody. I think everybody who has even a little bit of an understanding of India knows this. But of course, there are other considerations. So when, you know, when you're dealing with India these days, there are other considerations which are also important, as you would be well aware. The democratic fight and the fight for democracy in India is ours. And it's our responsibility. And we will take care of it. And we will make sure that the sort of onslaught on our institutions and our freedom is stopped. The opposition will make sure it happens. Do you want to speak in Hindi or English? You decide. You ask. Okay. The aim of the visit is to meet our diaspora here, to engage with them, to get a sense of what they're dealing with, what they're going through. That's one aspect. The second aim is to meet members of the government here, MPs, other people, and to get a sense of how they're seeing India, how they're seeing the possible cooperation between India and Europe, how they view India, what they think India should be doing, and also giving them a bit of a sense of what we think our relationship should look like. We can hear you, I think. I mean, of course, I would have to see the program before I could comment on whether it was exaggerated or not. So I don't know what that program was saying. But certainly there is an increase in discrimination and in violence in India. And there is a full-scale assault on the democratic institutions of our country. That is, that everybody knows. And internally in India it's been commented on and globally it's been commented on. And of course, minorities are under attack, but so are many other communities. Dalit communities, tribal communities, lower caste communities are also under attack. There is an attempt to change the nature of our country. Our country in the constitution is described as a union of states and we believe that the most critical aspect of our union is the conversation between members of our union. And there is an alternative vision, which is the BJP vision, which believes that power should be centralized, power should be concentrated, wealth should be concentrated, and the conversation between members of the union, between people of India should be suppressed. And so this is the fight between two visions. I like to term it the fight between Mahatma Gandhi's vision and Nathuram Ghotse's vision. Nathuram Ghotse being the person who assassinated our leader. Let's deal with one question at a time. So when we design these tours, we have a structure and the organizers decide whether we are going to have closed door meetings, whether we're going to have public meetings and stuff like that depending on the length of the tour and the type of place we're going to. So I guess in Belgium we sort of opted for a model. By the way, hundreds of people are coming and meeting us. And pretty much everybody in Belgium who of Indian origin knows exactly where I am and they've been coming and coming by droves to come and see me. But I think we decided that a full blown Indian style public meeting in Belgium might not be the best way to do it. I mean, the fact that Pegasus was on my phone is a known fact. I mean, I don't know the details of how I'm tracked, but I'm certainly tracked for sure. I met thousands and thousands of youngsters and all of them said exactly what you're saying. The three things they said. Number one, unemployment. Number two, huge increase in the levels of poverty and completely skewed income distribution. So few people getting very, very wealthy and the bulk of people being pushed back into poverty and then rising prices and inflation. Those were the three things that repeatedly they told me. The fact of the matter is that India has the highest unemployment that it's had in the last 40 years. So there is something clearly wrong with our economic model. It's not accepted. And there's a lot of media support for the government. So those type of things don't come out. But I don't think the current path we are on, economic path we are on is sustainable in any way. And there will certainly be consequences and a backlash to this model. Kashmir is of course an integral part of India. So it's nobody's business other than our own, other than India's business. Our position as I stated earlier is very clear. It's in a working committee resolution. We can give you a copy of that resolution if you're interested in reading it. But I feel that it's very important, you know, the general discussion we are having here that democratic institutions, democratic structures need to be protected in India and the voice of people needs to be defended and protected. And that goes for every single part of India, including Kashmir. We're now having a name change. Yes, is that happening? I don't know. You have to ask the prime minister. I mean, you know, these are these are, I am perfectly happy with the names that we have in our constitution. India that is Bharat works perfectly well for me. But I think these in a sense to me are panic reactions. There's a little bit of fear in the government. These are distraction tactics. We of course came out with the name India for our coalition. And it's a fantastic idea because it represents exactly who we are. We consider ourselves to be the voice of India. And so the word works very well. But it's obviously disturbed the prime minister enough that he wants to change the name of the country, which which is absurd. But that's what it is. It's also interesting that every time we raise the issue of Mr. Adani and crony capitalism, the prime minister comes out with some dramatic new diversion tactic. It's curious that just after I did a press conference on Adani, this entire diversion is put into place. It's interesting. Yes, ma'am. Yes. EU journalist. I don't know what time again. Thank you. In view of the COP28, the climate conference in Dubai, what are your expectations? And do you think that India is going to be the major spokesperson for the global south? Thank you. Well, I don't know. I mean, I think India has a relationship with the global south. And I think there are there are bonds there, historical bonds there that make us make us close to the global south. I don't know if we are the spokesman of the global south, but certainly we have a relationship with them on the environment. Of course, we are as a planet going through these large transitions, energy transition, transition in the way we move. And I think environment is a central issue for India. It's of course not in a country in a country where there are many poor people. It's difficult to make environment top of mind. But I think it is a critical issue. And it's very important that we think about it in a strategic and a long term way. Thanks. Brian Rick, it's representing the European coal industry. And I've enjoyed visits to European coal industry. And I've enjoyed visits to coal power plants and mines in India. And my hope for the future is a democratic India. And the question relates to that. As China developed very rapidly over the last few decades, its economy became imbalanced. And it's now paying the price for that, I believe. How would you ensure that India's economy doesn't become imbalanced? So how to balance the powers of a market-based economy versus central planning? I think one of the lessons that I learned in my walk was that there is an inherent and profound wisdom in the people of my country. Regardless of which part of society they're in. For example, we're discussing environment. The type of conversations I had with tribal people about the environment were far more sophisticated than I have with people living in cities. So there is an inherent wisdom in the people of India, and I'm sure in the people of Europe and people of Belgium. And I think it's critical for us that in decision-making, we listen to the voice and the intelligence of the people. And that's where we have a fundamental difference with the BJP. We value the voice of the people, we value the voice of poor people, we value the voice of all stakeholders. And we want to hold a conversation with stakeholders before we make decisions. It's sometimes slower, but in the long run, it works out much better. And that's really the conflict that is taking place in India. There of the view that you don't need to ask people, you just go ahead and slam everything through. But in our view, there's consequences. With regards to the public sector and the private sector, we are pretty clear that in key strategic areas, public sector should have a role. In education, in healthcare, public sector should provide a foundation. But in other spaces, private industry is probably a better tool to achieve most aims. That's one or two more. Quick. But you asked like, you asked four questions. You asked three or four questions. Please, thank you. Anybody else? Nobody else? Go ahead. I think the agenda that you're talking about, mostly what has been happening in the in the election manifestos usually, the manifestos of the parties, that's how the elections were initially fought or held, where parties came and spoke about the manifestos. Now, with all the changes that have happened in India, we know so many PSUs have been privatized or are on the verge of being privatized in India. How in case, in next year's elections, in case tables turn and we see the opposition and the alliance probably coming forward and running the country, how do you think those kind of changes that are so massive that have been happening can be corrected? The privatization of public sector units that has been happening in India, how do you actually rectify that? Because that has actually taken away employment of so many housewives. I mean, women like my mother would probably be a very good candidate for an SBI banking job, but a private sector will not necessarily employ a person of her age and will look for a more competitive growth. So I think that's where I see a lot of people will lose employment because of this in India and are doing that. How does this get rectified? Where we draw the line is the notion of crony capitalism. We don't have a problem with the private sector. We don't have a problem with the government sector. Where we draw the line is where one or two people start to financially control the whole country and where one or two people or three people are running everything. That's where our problem begins. There's another element to this which is that government policies in India have systematically attacked the backbone of our employment system. If you look at who gives employment in India, it's the small and medium industry that gives employment in India and demonetization and GST have devastated those structures. So it's a two-pronged attack that the government is carrying out. Number one, impose a huge transaction cost on all small and medium businesses and ensure that you build two or three monopolies, monopolists who control pretty much everything. So if you look at Mr. Adani, our problem with Mr. Adani is he controls the ports. He controls the airports. He controls agriculture. He controls grain silos. He has real estate. I mean he's everywhere and he's dominant everywhere. He controls cement. So we think that's counterproductive for the country and on one side they are pushing this very monopolistic capital and on the other side they're devastating the small and medium people from where we're going to get a job. That's why we're having an unemployment crisis. And the second part is where you require key services. Country like India requires the government to be involved in education. It requires the government to be involved in healthcare. And the idea that you can just privatize education and privatize healthcare, it devastates the poorest people because they simply do not have access to this. So they are hitting this from three or four sides and the solutions are pretty clear. I mean we would invest much more in health and education. We would protect small and medium businesses. We would try to build an economy where small and medium businesses transition to medium businesses and then to large businesses and then to massive businesses. If you look at our small and medium businesses almost none of them become big businesses. They remain small or they die. And that's because of policy. So you can change policies to ensure that you start building champions in these smaller and medium spaces and you can certainly invest much more in education and healthcare. I'm not saying there's no role for private businesses in education. There is. But the mainstay of any education system in a country like India has to be, it's a government responsibility. And the government can't just say okay, we are going to abrogate from this responsibility. So the things that can be done and need to be done are pretty clear. They're not complicated. And if you look at our last manifesto, I think we ironed out quite a few of these ideas. One of the other ideas that we have, which we've tested now, you can get a sense of how we think about these things by looking at our states. So if you look at the healthcare system in Rajasthan, that'll give you a good sense of what we are thinking in terms of healthcare for the country. If you look at our social programs in Karnataka, you get a sense of how we are thinking about social programs for the country. So we tend to run a pilot somewhere, see if it works, and then scale it out. And, you know, for example, Mandrega was such a case where we ran a small pilot, then we scaled it into a state and then we scaled it into the nation. We don't believe in, you know, these rash decisions where you suddenly demonetize the economy, or you suddenly impose a GST. We believe in seeding an idea, letting that idea grow, testing the idea, and then scaling it across. Chhattisgarh has some very good ideas on how to support farmers with minimum prices. Karnataka has our, you know, the sort of support that we're giving to women in Karnataka. That's some very interesting work that's going on. And in each one of our states, you can see the sort of type of ideas that we will use when we come to power. Last question. When you were talking to the parliamentarians, you said it was a conversation and you were informing them about sharing, you know, your reading of what's happening in India. And you have repeated here that, you know, there are problems back home when it comes to institutions and democratic structures. What was their response to you? Did they seem concerned? Did they seem... Yeah, they were very concerned. They were very concerned and they felt that there is a, they felt that there is an attempt to stifle the democratic structures of India, for sure. And I mean, they were very, very clear with us. You have more questions? I think I think I think I think five questions for one person is good enough. I mean, if you know. Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate. Thank you, Raul. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we hope to see you again. We in touch. Thank you.