 Good afternoon everybody. Thanks for coming to the Carnegie Endowment. My name is Milen Vaishnav. I'm a senior associate here in the South Asia program. It's my pleasure and honor to welcome all of you here today to this event, which is really the sort of start of the season for us. I see many familiar faces, and we've had sort of a busy summer, but not a very public summer, and so this is our first event of the fall, and of course we have many more South Asia-related events in the upcoming weeks and months, and so we hope that you'll be a regular figure around here. In case anyone has not noticed, there's a lot going on both in India as well as with U.S.-India relations. In India in early August, of course, we saw this landmark move by both houses of parliament that almost unanimously pass a constitutional amendment to create a unified goods and services tax, which if it all goes according to plan will bring India closer than ever before to a common market. As I speak right now, the government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is completing the first half of its first term in office. We have elections on the Anvil for several states in early 2017, including India's most populous state with the Pradesh and Jan and Feb. And of course on the U.S.-India front, the Prime Minister and the President just met on the sidelines of the G20. We had the successful conclusion of the second ever U.S.-India strategic and commercial dialogue this time hosted in Delhi. And for the MPs who are here, you may have noticed we have an election going on as well here, about which I hope that we can get some of your impressions. But what we'd like to do in this conversation is to take stock of where we are in India, where we are with respect to U.S.-India relations, and again get the view from Delhi on how they see developments here as we head into our own election. And we have an excellent group today that we're going to speak with, comprised of three leading MPs from across the political spectrum. Jay Ponda, Anurag Thakur and Sushmita Dev, I'll say more about them in just a moment. This event today is hosted in collaboration with two of our friends, the Georgetown University India Initiative, represented here by Irfan Nuruddin, who I'm sure is known to many of you, as well as the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, better known as Fikki. And I'd like to thank Harsh Nautia Diddhar Singh, Riddhika Bhattra for helping put this together, and Rachel Osnos here at Carnegie as well. In addition to the three MPs that you'll be getting a chance to listen to on stage, there are several other MPs who have taken time out, and they're here as part of an annual dialogue that Fikki runs, something called the U.S.-India Forum of Parliamentarians, which aims really to deepen engagement between parliamentarians in India and not just parliamentarians in the United States, but really the whole ecosystem around policy and foreign policy. And Jay was just telling me outside that this is, I think, the 15th annual delegation, and it's his 12th time chairing this distinguished group. So in addition to Jay and Anurag and Sushmita, I'd also like to give a shout out to Jay Dev Gala, who is an MP representing the Telgudesan Party from Guntur in Andhra Pradesh. Harish Chandramina, an MP from Dosa in Rajasthan, representing the BJP. Rajiv Shatav, an MP from Hingoli in Maharashtra, representing the Congress Party. Niraj Shekhar, who's a Rajya Sabha Upper House MP, representing the Samajwadi Party. And of course, as I mentioned, we're very pleased to have our guests here from Fikki as well, and I'd just like to turn over the floor to Mr. Nyotia, who will say a few words, and then we'll get the discussion started. Mr. Vaishnav, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great honour and privilege for us to be here with all of you. As Milan just mentioned, Fikki has been running this US-India relationship on the track too, with bringing a parliamentary delegation annually. And I'm delighted that we have been able to do this over the last 15 years. I'm sure it has contributed to a great extent in building the much closer ties that we see now between the two countries. We are excited about the two countries getting closer, the prospects both in terms of business and in terms of mitigating some of the challenges that we all face, be it climate or terrorism. And I think the leadership of both countries seem to be committed much more than I have seen in recent past to working together closely and looking at each other's issues with a greater sense of openness and understanding. So this is really good news. I wish to also say that it's wonderful to have our parliamentarians, a very, very bright and looking at the Indian age profile, very young set of parliamentarians here with us. I think they represent the best that India has and its multi-party. So clearly, there is a multi-partisan kind of convergence on the fact that India and US relationship need to move forward and move forward in the direction in which we are headed. So with these few words, I wish to also thank, especially, Carnegie Endowment for hosting us this evening. And thank you for all the support. Thank you very much. So let me begin just by saying a word or two about each of our three panelists today. Let me start with Jay Panda, who, as I mentioned, this is his 12th year chairing this delegation. He is a two-term Lok Sabha member representing the Biju Janta Dal in the state of Odisha. He was previously a member of the Rajya Sabha and a frequent commentator on issues, not just domestically, but also both foreign policy and US-India relationship. To his left, to my right, we have Mr. Anurag Thakur, who is a three-term Lok Sabha member, a parliament representing the BJP, and the Hamirpur constituency in Himachal Pradesh. He also serves, and this, I'm sure, will elicit some questions from the audience, the president of the Board of Control for Cricket of India, which is about the only other thing that can compete, I think, with Bollywood and politics in terms of popularity in India. Last but certainly not least, we have Sushmita Dev, who's a first-term Lok Sabha MP, representing the Silchar constituency in Assam. She was previously a member in MLA in the Assam State Assembly, and she is, of course, from the Indian National Congress. So thanks to all of you for being here. Let me start with Jai, and where I began my remarks with what's happening in India. We've just seen, and I think most people who are here have probably followed what the government has called, or many analysts have called, a game-changing development in the form of a new goods and services tax. And that's, I think, been the cause for a lot of euphoria, a lot of excitement about perhaps where the Indian economy could be heading. I'd like to get your thoughts on, you know, how important this is. How does this fit into the Indian economic reform more broadly? And, you know, play this out for us. Where do we go from here? This is, of course, just the first step, I think, in a long path ahead. So many people have said that the GST is the biggest thing that has happened in India since 1991, when we started opening up our economy. But I'm on the record of saying that the GST is the biggest thing that has happened since 1947, because we became one country in 1947, but till now we are not one market. We are 30, more than 30 markets. So it's actually cheaper, and it takes less time to ship goods from a port on the eastern coast of India from Odessa, say, where I am, all the way to Japan than to move it next door to Bengal or to Andhra Pradesh. That's the kind of competitive disadvantage we have put on ourselves for all these decades. GST has an idea as a dozen years old, and it happened for, let me give a context to this. So I think the Prime Minister surprised everybody two years ago in turning out to be immediately a foreign policy Prime Minister. I had not been expected to be that, and for the first two years I think he spent an enormous amount of his own time, energy, political capital in repositioning India once again in the world's eyes, and I think he's done a pretty good job of that. But over the past six months, he's again refocused on the domestic agenda, and it took his own personal efforts to make sure this happened. I'll give you an example. One of the things that we have not seen in India before is the kind of political pitching of major legislative ideas, which was done, for example, by this Prime Minister on GST. But I think it's important to note two things. One is this wasn't just a sudden overnight flip into India getting things done. For two sessions before August, we started seeing bills getting passed, and that corresponds to the time that I think the Prime Minister himself started devoting time in reaching out, in talking to the leaders of the Congress Party and other parties, and you saw a slew of bills passing that had been on the anvil for a few years. The GST had been on the anvil for a dozen years, like I said, and it took, as you said, virtually every party coming together in both the houses of India's parliament to make it happen. So it is very historic. It is an inflection point. And I think it sends a very clear message that this is an India that can. I'm going to draw you out a bit more on, and you alluded to this already in your comments, what lessons can we learn from watching how this played out? I mean, some people have gone as far as to say that this is a rare example of, quote, how democracy can work in a country as complicated as India. Would you agree with that? No. I think you're going to see this become less and less rare. You know, we have the habit as human beings of thinking that things are going to play out linearly. And they are not. In a big, diverse democracy like India, it is, I think, perfectly normal that you spend quite a bit of time in selling the idea, getting buy-in from all the variety of stakeholders. And once things start falling into place, you have a tipping point effect. And I think, as I said, you can call it an inflection point. You can call it a tipping point. And I think we are beginning to see that. And I gave you the example that it's not just this major piece of legislation that we've seen get done, but in the six months prior to this, a dozen other bills such as the bankruptcy bill, such as a crackdown on illicit money, black money in the system insurance bill. And please remember, the government does not have a majority in the upper house. So I think that is particularly significant that despite what the picture that we see of a squabbling parliament not much happening and largely it has been true, clearly there is something that is changing. So Anurag, let me bring you into this conversation. I mean, I think one of the interesting aspects of the GST is, in a sense, by creating a common tax rate, the states are actually giving up some of their rights, some of their responsibilities, and sharing those or pooling them with the center. And so this is, the government would say, part of a piece of a new mode of working called cooperative federalism that rather than deli dictating things to the states, or the states going off on their own, that there needs to be a tighter linkage between the state capital for tapping in deli. Is there really a new model taking shape? And if so, what are some of the elements? How would you describe cooperative federalism as this government understands it? I think as Jay said earlier, it is one of the biggest reforms India has seen, and thanks to all the political parties who have given their support to pass this major legislation. I mean, at the same time, when we say one tax, one country, it is going to help the market in a big way. If you look from a small transporter as per the World Bank report, 60% of the time, the truck drivers waste on the roads from one state to another state, so that's going to help. At the same time, what was your question, Sari? No, I mean, in terms of the, you know, what is the new relationship that's developing between the center and the state? So the cooperative federalism, if you look at the 14th Finance Commission, the 10% more money which will go back to the states, and the majority of the states will be benefited out of that. The central government could have taken more time to give back to the states, but more willingly because Mr. Modi has spent more time, 14 years as a chief minister, and he understands the problems the states faces as far as the finances are concerned, they're more majorly dependent on the central government's revenue. But here the states and center coming together because majority of the projects, if anyone coming, even the money coming through the FDI is going to the states, it is the states' responsibility to give sanctions and all that, permissions and all that, so the project is implemented. Whereas state and center coming together, it becomes a big force to help India and grow in a big way, I think that's going to help. So, Sushmita Dev, I want to ask you how you feel. You represent the Congress Party, you represent a state that was previously for many years under the control of the Congress Party and of course recently came under the control of the BJP. Do you see such a sea change as been described by your two colleagues in terms of the nature of the relationship that's developing between the center and the states? I'll have to admit that the relationship between the central government and the state government is actually governed by the constitution, we have written constitution. And it's quite clear what are the areas where the central government will exercise its jurisdiction and where the state government will exercise its jurisdiction. And then there's a concurrent list. But I think cooperative federalism as the government of the day is talking about is that both must have a consensus on the vision they have, not just for India as a nation, but every state. And it becomes very important because India is a country where every state has unique needs. We have different cultures, we have different kinds of deficits if you like when it comes to infrastructure, health, education, whatever. So I think when they're talking about cooperative federalism, what the government of India means is that they will give every state government the right to have a dream of their own and fulfill it in the way they think it's fit and proper. It's not necessarily going to be any kind of an imposition vis-à-vis that vision for the state from the central government, that's my understanding of it. And that's in the constitution as we know. Can I add something to this? Please. So we have had a very, very over-centralized system. We had a plethora of funding schemes funded by the union government ranging to nearly 300 that stipulated all kinds of big and small projects that had a cookie-cutter approach to every state. I'll give you an example. My state, Orissa, has a literacy level of 75%, which is about the country's average. Kerala has a literacy level of 100%. We have very different requirements for primary education. And yet the funding that was available was a cookie-cutter, same formula. And so Kerala obviously would not be able to use those funds. They didn't really need many more classrooms at the primary level. We did. So this was untenable. And this over-centralization, I think, many people think, was a result of the trauma the country faced at the time of getting independence and that political centralization also led to fiscal and other kinds of centralization. So what is happening now with the 14th pay commission being implemented a big chunk of more money is the tax share is going to go to the states. But let's remember something. The center is also cutting down on the plethora of programs that it was funding. So as of now, the data isn't in yet. It's just been two years. Some of us think that the actual amount of money that's going to the states is probably just about the same or maybe just a little bit more. That data will come in over the next year or two. But essentially what happened, even if it's just net the same amount of money, the states have a lot more flexibility in how they want to deploy that money. So let me push you guys a little bit because you're agreeing too much on too many things here. This isn't a fair representation of parliamentary politics. So, Sushmita, I mean, you represent the leading opposition party in the lower House of Parliament. Some would argue, you know, on a pan-Indian basis, there's no party that quite meets the Congress party in terms of its reach. Do you also, would you agree with Jay and foresee this kind of bonhami between the ruling party and opposition? Do you expect that this continued way of working and agreeing and compromising consensus is likely? Or do you see stumbling blocks in the road ahead? Democracy, they're bound to be disagreements. That's the entire basis of a democracy. So to say that for the next two and a half years, we're going to have no disagreements is, I think, going too far. But in the last two and a half years, I mean, this is my subjective view. A lot of focus has been on what the parliament is not doing. Whereas, silently, we have worked our way through various reforms. We have everybody's focusing on stalling of parliament. I think Prime Minister Modi also on a lighter note says, I know the perils of the upper house. He did say that. But the fact is, yes, we have, there are certain things in which we still haven't agreed like the land acquisition bill. And it's still in the committee and we're still deliberating on it. So having said that, of course, we're not going to agree on everything because that's the very basis of a democracy. We have differences of opinion when it comes to what should be our economic policy or what should be our foreign policy. But having said that, the best part about the GST is that we never really had a disagreement about the fact that it should be one nation, one tax. But we had some differences when it comes to the rate of that tax or the mechanism by which matters would be arbitrated. But net-net, we never had a difference in opinion vis-à-vis that India should have a GST. And like Mr. Pandah said, that it didn't happen overnight. GST was being debated and it was a part of the Indian dialogue right from the time UPA was in power. So I think the best part about a democracy is they're going to be agreements. They're going to be disagreements. And I'd like to believe that when we agree or disagree, we all think it's in the greater interest of the nation. So one place where there's been a lot of disagreement and it's gotten a lot of media attention, not just abroad but in India too if you turn on the television or you open up the newspaper is on this issue of tolerance. And is India becoming a place where the freedom for expression, dissent is closing or is it the same? But it's clearly been a point where the opposition and the government and other parties and voices have ventured into. You all are smiling so I realize that this is a sensitive issue. Well, I was going to since he does represent the ruling party. But really for any of you, what's your view on this? Do you think that it's overplayed? Do you think there's something to it? Are things fundamentally changing in some way? Because that's certainly how it gets portrayed. In the US it's election time. The kind of speeches we hear today. What kind of opinion people make outside US? But is that the true US in America? One of the incidents which happened a couple of days back in New York when a Muslim woman was set afire. That doesn't happen everywhere every day. One of the incidents has been played in a big way. It doesn't give the right picture about the country I believe. India has been tolerant and has to be tolerant. And that's our strength. That is why we are one of the largest democracies and given good leadership as well. And at the same time, if you look at in India, it's a large country. You come from there and I think I'm thankful that you raised this question. We have discussed this issue in detail in the parliament also. All the political parties have given their viewpoint on this. I think at times media also play a large role. And depends how do they convey the message. For example, Jordan Erwin University. How many in America on the eve of 9-11 if somebody asks you to say a country without a post office. How do you feel about it? And if they show the people behind the 9-11 attack rather than a terrorist or give a new name to them, how do you feel about it? The sentiments are same, whether it is America or India. The country is the priority. Nation should be the priority. I think in a way, these things are discreet, deliberated. But yes, things are same. India is moving forward. It is one of the fastest-growing economies. We have been ruled by Mughals now, then the Britishers now again independent countries. We have come so far in the last 75, 70 years. We have done well I think. And one of the incident happens in every part of the world. Jay, would you like our Srishmati Kehra? So let me say something on this. We have had a few horrific incidents that have been highlighted by the media as they ought to be. And these have been criticized across the political spectrum. We have aside a few wackos. From the Prime Minister downwards, from the leader of the opposition downwards, they have been criticized and they have been condemned. The impression that some people have that there's suddenly a surge of some incidents is, to best of my knowledge, not yet backed up by any kind of criticism. We are aware of incidents like this that have happened. But when they do happen, it is the job of opposition parties to press the government on them. And that's what opposition parties do. It's the job of media to keep the spotlight on, which is what they do. But let me draw you an example. If you remember at the end of 2014, there were reports of alleged attacks on churches in India. There were maybe five or six that were reported. And it felt that it was becoming some kind of an epidemic. Subsequently, the majority of the maybe four out of the five incidents were shown to be something other than a communal incident, maybe vandalism, theft, etc. And you haven't heard about that particular problem for quite some time. You've been hearing about different kinds of problems that have been pointed out as a rise in intolerance. Now there have been intolerant incidents. It's a very large country with still many problems that need to be sorted out. I'm not sure there's a rise, but there is certainly a lot of reportage. And as I said, as it ought to be. A lot of these seem to happen around elections. And the point that Anurag was making election rhetoric can lead to activities by groups of people that nobody can really control. We have a problem in that we are in a continual election cycle. We need to sort that out. We have elections virtually every three months because of a parliamentary system with its misaligned elections between more than 30, 35 states and union territories. There is a trend that's been noticed by some that these incidents seem to peak just leading up to elections. And then that particular type of incident vanishes. Either way, be that as it may. Let's be very clear. Our constitution makes it very clear that every citizen is equal and that there can be no tolerance of this kind of intolerance. The last thing I want to say on this is that a lot of people who keep being about increasing intolerance say it openly on air in articles. And I think that is the dichotomy that doesn't get affected upon often enough that they're able to say this. India as a country has a very conservative side to it. Also has a very contemporary side to it. So politics is about perception, how you're perceived as a leader and as a government. And I think what there was, yes, there was this rhetoric or this narrative in the media in India that intolerance is growing. But what happened is we actually debated it in the parliament and our home minister gave us each opposition spoke. So we aired it out. We aired it out. And under no circumstances I think would I like to sit here and give an impression that India's becoming a more intolerant country. But I think we all have to together fight that perception. And I think the government has a greater responsibility. And I think I'll leave it at that. So several of you have referenced our own election. Before we get there, I want to get there by first discussing where we stand between the U.S. and India. I think that when the Prime Minister came into office in May 2014, the future dynamics of the relationship were up in the air. No one quite knew how the Prime Minister would embrace or not the United States. Of course, the President and the Prime Minister didn't have a long-standing pre-existing relationship. I think when you fast forward two and a half years, quite a lot has been done. There's been, I think, significant progress on a number of dimensions in the bilateral relationship. One area, however, where I think we've seen perhaps less progress than we might have liked to have seen is on the economic side. On the strategic side and the defense relationship in terms of foreign policy, we see a lot of increasing convergence, certainly in terms of rhetoric and I think some concrete action as well. So my question to you really is on the economic side of the house. First, do you agree with this assessment that there hasn't been, that the economic has lagged with strategic? And if you do, what are the kinds of things you would like to see our two countries working together on? What do you actually think is in the realm of the possible for a future administration here and with the Modi government in Delhi? Can I answer that? Please. You know, when you've had a sudden surge and huge success in one sector, such as defense performance, tends to overshadow what's happened on other sides. What has happened on the economic front in terms of foreign direct investment coming into India, for instance? The 50% year-on-year growth, large part of it American, the kind of e-commerce, new economy that's developing in India with a lot of American companies being involved and a lot of American companies being involved in India in many other sectors and vice versa, Indian companies getting involved. There is a startling growth that is taking place and only because it's overshadowed by the defense side of things, should not be treated as lagging in some. 50% year-on-year growth is not lagging in any sense of the term. I think it's a good thing that we've got this defense and strategic relationship that's growing because certainly when we started this process 15 years ago, it was unthinkable. Even though this relationship has been built by three sets of administrations, starting with President Clinton after we had sanctions after our nuclear tests in the late 90s and Prime Minister Vajpayee and then President Bush and Prime Minister Manon Singh and now President Obama and Prime Minister Modi. But clearly the years have been shifted to very high gear now in what's happening. I think there will remain economic issues that we will not always see eye-to-eye on. But that doesn't mean that things aren't improving. I mean you could point to a bilateral investment treaty not yet being in place. We have issues too in the reverse direction. Our economy has strengths in services that don't get the same kind of access in this country and in other countries that we feel it deserves. And we could talk about other aspects of trade and economic ties. I think the bigger picture is what we need to keep in mind is that everything is going like gangbusters but doesn't mean that every individual sector or sub-sector will be hunky-dory. We will have issues and we'll deal with them. So I mean this question is if you want to build on that, Anurag, you often hear this criticism that yes, India is the fastest growing major economy in the world and you can point to many areas of dynamism and growth. You can point to FDI, you can point to particular sectors. Yet a lot of business people, a lot of economists, a lot of ordinary Indians say it doesn't feel like it, it doesn't feel like we're going at 7%. And I don't think that anyone is suggesting, anyone serious is suggesting that there's some kind of fudging of the numbers but that there seems to be a disconnect between the growth numbers that get reported and what people feel. When you go to your constituency, do you feel that kind of disconnect? Is that a real concern or again, is this something you think is a sort of hyped up kind of media creation? I think you'll see the impact in couple of years. On the very first year, you won't see that kind of impact at the grassroots level, especially in the rural areas. But years when you see the 50% growth in the FDI on year one, that's going to have impact on year three or four, not in the very same year. So in a way, the things are moving in the right direction, the positive direction as far as the FDI is concerned. And the government focus on various projects like Digital India, Make in India, various other projects. FDI in defense also, initially people said what will happen, who will come at 49% but that happened. Many US companies and many other international companies, they have tied up with the Indian companies that have their infrastructure and have the manufacturing in the defense sector. You will see that impact once the industry is built. You could see more job requirements coming up, actually helping that in the economy. On the other side, if you look at the infrastructure sector, whether it is railways or roads, the road construction has gone up from 3 km to 18-20 km. So people can see that happening in the construction as the roads are concerned. So things they could see with their eyes that is there. But many other areas, you rightly said that may not be visible to the common man. But yes, that impact you will see in the coming years. What's your take on this? I know where you're coming from because it's the old saying, it's the proof of the pudding is in the eating, that's what you're saying. But I'll tell you that biggest challenge that India faces and how we actually judge real time, how we judge ourselves whether we are happy with the government or we are unhappy with the government. India is a young country and it's jobs. So there is a debate and it's a healthy debate. I'm not being critical of the government that are we heading towards a jobless growth because a growth without jobs has no meaning in a country like ours. Having said that, there is no doubt that this government is talking about greater impetus in the manufacturing sector and making India and still India and many other slogans out there. So the problem, I perceive it as not just a problem of, again, I say it's a problem of perception because we, no one expected or that a government is such a huge mandate will come to power. So when you have such a decisive mandate in favor of a government, 282 elected member of parliament's expectations are high. But sometimes expectations have their own right place in politics. But after all, we are in the world economy. India can't be seen in isolation. So we are connected to the global economy and things like that. So it's a challenge. It's a challenge. So as an opposition member of parliament, I will consistently remind the government about the need to create more jobs. But having said that, it would not be fair to expect or judge India's growth or its growth in the manufacturing sector or any other sector in isolation from the rest of the world economy. So those are the challenges that any government would face and expectations are high. So let's see what happens. Jay, let me ask you. I mean, you know, on this issue of job or jobless growth, I mean, we've seen a number of agitations in several different states, whether it's the Jats in Haryana where it's the Patels in Gujarat or the Marathas in Maharashtra. And it's a central animating theme has been about reservation and wanting reservation for the purpose of getting access to government jobs. Now government jobs are increasingly small in number as the years go by. And everyone realizes that creating more private sector jobs is really where India's economic future is going to depend. How do you assess what this government has done to date on the issue of job creation? And do you see the seeds being planted now that are going to pay off, you know, in years three, four, five, as Anurag mentioned, on this particular issue? Because in some sense, growth, inflation, current account deficit, fiscal deficit, these are rather abstract notions. At the end of the day, it's about livelihoods and jobs and gainful employment. One thing is sure that 7.9% GDP growth rate today in 2016 does not have the same kind of impetus and job creation that it would have had 10 or 15 years ago. Not just in India, anywhere in the world. The world is changing. Automation is kicking in. E-commerce is kicking in. I was in Singapore last week for a conference. They apprehend the loss of something like 30% of white-collar jobs in the coming between 10 and 20 years. And they're trying to grapple with how they're going to deal with that. Plus, we are paying for the sins of the past several decades because of the mistakes that we made over the past several decades in education and skilling. And not having as high an economic growth rate as I think we potentially could have had means that the pressure for jobs is much more than the jobs that are getting created. We do have a genuine challenge there. Is what the government doing today enough? Obviously, any time we can do more would be even better. But I think what has happened in recent years is quite a lot. The skilling that the government is doing today, again, is something the work started a few years ago with the setting up of the National Skills Development Corporation and larger budgets being allocated. But what clearly has happened in the last two years is, again, like the examples I gave on legislation and other things, is a shifting of gears. So suddenly there is enormous amount of activity. And for the first time, what I'm noticing is the willingness and the eagerness to harness the private sector's ability to speed up, to have more efficiency in skilling. Now, there is still a mismatch between the number of jobs needed, the types of jobs needed and the skills available and the numbers of young men and women that are looking for jobs. I don't think it will all be hunky-dory in one or two years. But clearly, a lot of work that has gone in, I agree with Anurag. If you travel around the country, if you see the highways that are being built, if you see the airports, if you see the metro rail systems that are being built around the country, it's very, very impressive. And we are not at the level of countries like China which have had 30 years of growth and today they might be overdoing it. There may not be enough requirement for that kind of infrastructure. We are still, we have a backlog to catch up on. So the infrastructure boost that you're physically seeing, it's staring you in the eyes, is for India's stage of growth, is very, very appropriate and very good. So let's transition now to the sort of final issue before we open it up. I'm sure there are lots of questions from this group. You're here in Washington, D.C. We're, what, two months out from an election. I think at least for the past 12 months since I've been going to India, the number one question I get from Indian friends is, you know, can you explain what's happening in your... Don't come and talk to us about Indian elections. We don't really care what's happening in your own. And as a political scientist, I actually have zero answers. I have no way of characterizing what we're seeing now. How does it look from Delhi? I mean, how do you make sense of this? What are people talking about? What are your concerns? What are your impressions you've now had? Well, just a couple of days here. So you've gotten some taste inside of the beltway. But, you know, what does all of this look like to you? You know, for all these years, he who are used to Indian elections used to think the American ones were so tame. It's taken some catching up, but it has caught up. Look, as legislators of one of the two largest democracies in the world, far be it for us to comment on how people in this country will make their choices in the election. But clearly, the controversies that are being reported, I don't know how to quite explain it, it's quite different from any American election we've ever seen. I think India and America have been moving together not just because of the personalities that we have, but because there are structural changes that have been taking place. I use a phrase that the world seems to be conspiring to push us together for the last 15 years. Look at geopolitics around the world. Look at the coming together, not just of India and America, but other democracies around the world, countries like Japan, countries like Australia and other countries. So I think, irrespective of how the election turns out in America, the bilateral relationship will be on fine footing. And that's what we are primarily concerned with. As far as the impact that it has on domestic politics or on the impact that the next American presidency will have on the rest of the world, I don't think you have anything to add that hasn't already been commented upon, both the apprehensions as well as the talk of a very different turn in the kind of politics America has seen. Let me ask any of you who wants to answer. I mean, India hasn't been a central factor in any real way in this election thus far, although there are many places where it does actually come in. So whether we're talking about immigration, whether we're talking about H1B visas, whether we're talking about trade and the United States stepping back potentially from a massive trade agreement in Asia, of course, which doesn't include India at this juncture, although there's nothing that would foreclose that option in the future. Talk of religious tests on immigration. And these are all things which could in some way large or small affect not just India, but the nature of the US-India relationship. Are people taking notice? Are these things that you're worried about? I mean, you said that we're on a good footing, but I mean, these are, you know, three or four pretty hot button issues which could change the trajectory in quite fundamental ways. Yes, people are taking notice. So one on a macro level, there is a sense that after decades of we being told that we need to open up our economy, if the developed economies are going to start closing down and go against globalization, it sounds odd to us because it's taken us a long while to get the consensus in our country to start opening up and start liberalizing. So that's the backdrop. Now, as far as some of these issues that you pointed out, H1B visas, I referred to them earlier that we will always have areas that we don't see eye-to-eye on on trade-related issues and that's fine. You know, friends don't always have to agree on everything as long as the fundamentals of the bilateral relationship is strong. Now, I would say this, I think sooner or later at some point, I remember on many of these earlier visits with this delegation, we used to talk about issues like outsourcing and a lot of data was shown to us that for every dollar that's outsourced out of the country, for example, to Bangalore, there is a dollar plus that the U.S. economy gains. Now, if the U.S. wants to make its economy a higher-cost economy because of protectionism, that's a political decision that this country will have to take. It will not just pinch India, it will pinch America's competitiveness. Beyond that, again, I don't think we should try to deal with hypothetical pitfalls that we might face. As I said, on this trip, as in recent trips that we've had over the last few years, I get this sense of confidence that there are constituencies in each other's countries that are rooting to play together, to work together. And I'm very confident that we won't have any major disconnect on any of these. Tanu Rao, Shrutnita, either of you care to weigh in on this? I think I'll agree with Jay. And there's no doubt that we're looking to prioritize with the U.S., whether it's on the economic front or defense or otherwise. And I'm sure it's going to happen. I would just like to say that your election, we are watching it very closely. And like Jay said, I don't think we should comment on what the people of the USA would eventually choose. But it's my subjective view. I'm surprised to hear that most people are anticipating it's going to be a close contest. That's the part that surprises me personally. But let's see what happens in November. I think in all this, what we are missing is terrorism. I think from 9-11 to now, in the last 15 years, that is one of the areas where both the countries have come together to fight terrorism as well. Along with trade, that's another challenge what the globe facing today. I think in the interest of the world, it's very important that India and U.S. come together, work closely. That's very important. We have worked from Mr. Vajpayee to Dr. Manmohan Singh Ji to Mr. Modi with other presidents in U.S. from Mr. Clinton to Mr. Obama. I think what we have seen in the last so many years, both the countries are working on the same lines. And it needs to go... I mean, we need to work together in a very effective manner. I don't know what's going to be the outcome of your elections and what we hear today, but in the interest of both the nations, what we have suffered for the last so many decades, what the other world is facing today as far as the terrorism is concerned, we need to work very closely in the interest of it. Let me just end on one last question when it comes to the two countries working together. I mean, I think one area where a lot of people feel like there's been much greater convergence in the last two and a half years than perhaps the previous several decades is on the issue of China, but there seems to be a greater recognition of challenges which emanate from that part of the world, whether they're economic, whether they're military, whether they're strategic. And perhaps this has fed into India deciding to step up in some ways the defense partnership with the United States. Jay, I wonder if you could comment at all on what is the view right now in Delhi about China and how would you characterize the government's views, this government's views, because it's on the one hand a very thorny issue. It's a government that wants to attract investment. It's a government with a prime minister who has a relationship with China dating back from his days as Chief Minister. Yet there are a number of strategic issues beginning from his first days in office when there was an incursion on the border, and of course things were seen in the South China Sea. There's a lot happening. How paint a picture for us about how Delhi sees what's happening right now? So let's see this in the context of China being India's second largest trading partner. Also, we have long had a disputed border. We had a war in the early 60s, but also it has been many decades since a shot was fired in anger, unlike some of the other borders that we have. So clearly it's a situation that's managed. China and India being the two most populous countries in the world and having a long history, I think we... I'll put it this way. India has had the approach that America has always had that we don't grudge China's rights. The only thing we want is that China should play by the rules. The same rules that it has benefited from itself. And India is beginning to learn as India also grows as an economy and as India also gets to participate in many more international issues, geopolitical issues. We are going down that same path, but we have a different political system and I think that helps us. So as far as China goes, India has concern, but at the same time, we're not blinded by those concerns. The Chinese investment into the country is quite significant. And let me put this in context. A few years ago, we had a great deal of reservations about Chinese investments in the telecom sector because of security concerns. Today that's deemed as not a concern. So there's a great deal of Chinese presence in the telecom sector. In the infrastructure sector, it's not deemed as a security concern at all. So there's going to be more and more Chinese involvement in the infrastructure. At the same time, we have other issues of concern with China. For example, the CPEC, which passes through disputed lands to the Northwest. I think nobody in India wants to create a situation where we have unnecessary confrontation with China. It as a rival in the best sense. This country in the world, if you turn the clock back 35 years for capital income was about the same. China has done phenomenally well. We've taken time to get to this tipping point that I've been talking about. And I think the economic future for us looks pretty optimistic for the next couple of decades and we have a lot of catching up to do. So it's not a simple black or white situation. We have to be alert to the concerns that we have, that America has, that other nations in the Indian Ocean and the South China Seas have. But we are committed to working together with China as well as with other nations, the West and others. Thanks. Let's end there and now turn to the audience and try to get some questions. I think because there are many hands which I've automatically shot up. Let's take a couple of questions, give our panelists a chance to respond and then we'll do a second round and if we have time the third round. And let's start here. There's microphones coming around. I just asked that you state your name, your affiliation and please keep your questions short. Tezi, we'll start with you. There's a microphone coming. Thank you. Tezi Schaefer from Brookings and McClarty Associates. I wanted to pick up on something that Jay just said about how India has a bright economic future. The nature of economic issues and particularly of trade is that they cause winners and losers, which is why we're having so much controversy on that subject in the United States now. Who wins and who loses. But one of the more interesting changes that's taken place in India in the past 20 years or so is that for many people the economy has become a source of strength rather than a perpetual vulnerability. I wonder if the panelists could talk about how India's bright economic future is likely to play out. Does it require a continuation of its expanding opening to the world? Does it require a more cautious approach? I have to tell you that when I was in India about six, eight months ago, I got an earful on the need for greater caution, which is quite different from what I had heard a little bit earlier, so I'm just wondering how the panelists see it. Great. Let's take a couple of questions then we'll give you a chance to respond. So Yashwin, no, sorry. The gentleman here. Yeah, in the blue shirt. Sorry. Hi, my name is Akshad Vishal and I work for the World Bank. Climate change. My question is related to the climate change and of course growing population. Unfortunately, none of the political parties speak about climate change and rising and pollutions in our cities in India and consequences on the public health in general. What's the, what's the feel like about climate change in among the parliamentarians? And the second question is very brief. Law and order from Partida Randolan to Kaveri recently what's going on in Bangalore and Tamil Nadu. It's deteriorating. Every state is victim of it. And but it doesn't seem like something is happening in enforcement of law order. Thank you. I think Amit just in the row before there in the check shirt. Thank you so much for a fantastic presentation I have two very quick questions. My name is Amit Ahuja. I'm a political scientist at UC Santa Barbara. There are two ideas about Indian politics and I'd like you to comment on both of these. One is we teach our students that in India, economic reforms are conducted through policies which are made in sort of behind closed doors. Bureaucrats wrote those. They weren't really discussed, but it's basically it's been economically formed by stealth. The story around the around the bills that have just been passed that you folks have telling talks about deliberation. So do you, what is your thought? What's your response to this idea of reforms by stealth because what you guys have done isn't that stealthy. Second, many of your colleagues in the parliament I know two of you at least have returned to the parliament have been re-elected, but many of your colleagues are going to go back and fight elections two and a half years out on the line and lose those elections. And yet they have supported a policy that will bear fruit many years down the line. Why do you, how do you drum up support among those members who have short-term interests? How do you make them think in the long term? Thank you. All right. So we covered the waterfront here. Let's start on the economic issues. I think there are several people have touched on that and we can begin with whoever wants. I think Tezi's question is about has the future play out? Is India going to turn outward, be more engaged in trade negotiations? How do you turn the demographic dividend into a dividend rather than a disaster? And on the reform agenda, are we going to see reform by stealth? Are we going to see a new model perhaps of reform by deliberation in the public view? And how do we think about some of these longer term issues that somebody who's just there for five years this year he had the incentive to really pursue those? Why don't we start with there and touch on some of the others? So let me touch on a couple of those. So to Tezi, I would say this, if you think of India as a big tanker with 10,000 moving parts, nothing is going to be a sudden turn. Just because we've reached a tipping point doesn't mean that ideas don't need deliberation. They will require deliberation. I'm getting more and more confident that the periods of deliberation will get shorter and shorter. In terms of trade negotiations, one of the things that is becoming more apparent to us is that we have to build a lot of capacity in India. Despite the best intentions, despite the best relationships, despite the best structural logic for some of these treaties and agreements to be in place, we have a capacity issue. Add to our capacity because we do not have the number of trained people to get into the job of trade negotiations with all the other countries. So I think that India is becoming more open generally. And I think I've answered this somewhat partly in the earlier question. So that's what I'll say on this. Now, in terms of stealth, I've written about this actually. Now, I think the era of reform by stealth is gradually coming to an end. What I've written about is that you saw a period from the late 90s for about 15 years where many regional politicians sold good economics to the public and got re-elected again and again. In fact, Milan and others have written about some of these phenomenon. And the last election was the first national one where the campaign ran on good governance. The primary raison d'etre of the 2014 campaign was about good governance, about economic reform. And you hadn't seen that really at a national level. Now, I give you an example on this GST, how it got done, and this addresses that last question about how we deal with members with short-term interests. And Milan, by the way, it was not all Bon Hommie. I will not disclose to this audience the bare knuckles that was also involved. But that's politics. That's how things reach out. You use carrot, you use stick, and you build consensus. Now, in terms of why, how it is going beyond economics of stealth, I'm sorry, reforms by stealth, is because the campaign from 2014 was about that. And I gave a hint about how this GST was communicated. The Prime Minister actually went on national TV and tried to connect the GST to jobs growth in Uttar Pradesh, where there is a big election coming up. Now, that is as open as it can get. And that is as much of throwing down the gauntlet as it can get. But there was also, of course, behind the scenes reaching out, talking to individual opposition leaders, getting them on board. So this is what politics is about, and we have not had enough of it in the past. We've had too much of a hangover of earlier decades of parties and leaders thinking that if they've won the election for the next five years, they don't have to convince anything, they just try to do their own thing. That is changing. There is a recognition that even if you've won the mandate, you still have to sell your ideas to the public, to your opposition, to the media. And you're beginning to see more and more of that. So, Sushmita, let me ask you on the law and order issue, because you were until recently a state legislature, state legislator, and states, of course, have primacy over issues of law and order, state subject. For the longest time, there have been innumerable reform commissions about fixing the police, fixing the judiciary, fixing prisons. I mean, the whole chain all the way from top to bottom, yet the perception is that very little concrete reform has happened. What are the prospects, actually, for fixing law and order? Are there states which are moving? Are there important developments that are happening, or will it continue to be a cause of some concern for years to come? The gentleman there mentioned Kaveri and other instances of the agitation in Gujarat. Definitely law and order is a state subject. But having said that, whenever a situation is very grave, the center does step in. Actually speaking, it's not only for the state to handle a law and order situation. When it comes to reforms, you may have heard that when it comes to the judiciary, it started during the UPA time, but now even this government has taken it up about appointment of judges and how we've tried to make it a more transparent exercise as opposed to a collegian selecting the judges. And we are having teething problems with that. But some things have to evolve, and I can't give a definitive answer about internal reforms whether it comes to police or other systemic reforms, because everything also comes at a cost. And India has many challenges, and sometimes we prioritize things. That's just the way it is. So, yes, I've been in the state legislature and I come from a state which is in the northeast of India, and in northeast insurgency is a very big issue and has been a very big issue, terrorism in the northeast states. But over the last decade or so and it's continuing, we've come a long way. And I think that is not just the credit of the state government but of the state government and the central government. So, there are many challenges when it comes to law and order. So, I cannot give you one solution or the other. But I have to say that right now Kashmir is a big problem for us and it's a challenge for us. And I have to say that in the last two days, whatever sessions we've had at the university, I have to say that I'm going back very reassured that U.S. is repositioning itself when it comes to Pakistan or their stand on Pakistan vis-à-vis terror. So, it's heartening to see that the challenges will always be there. But I just want to say about climate change and pollution, something you've got up probably, Anurag will address it and sure address it. But we now have a ministry that's called Science and Technology Environment and Climate Change and it's happened for the first time in India. And I'm sure Anurag will tell you about Swachh Bharat Abhyan. I'll leave it to him. I think I'll add more to it as far as the environment is concerned. Yes, we should leave a good world for the coming generations. But look at the per capita emissions as far as the India is concerned. It is far less if you compare it with other 12 countries. Look at the Kyoto Protocol. Who could not deliver? Who could not fulfill their commitments? I'm not getting into that. As far as India is concerned today, first we set a target of 100 gigawatts solar energy or the renewable energy in the next 10 years. But we have increased that to 175 gigawatts only in the renewable energy. And look at the investments today which we could not see three years back that people will be interested to come up in the solar energy. We are much more interested that tariffs have come down by 50%. There is a new interest. That's also an answer to that when you raise the question that, you know, why Indian companies have given preference and all that. Because there is a lot of demand as far as the solar or other industries concerned. We need to create more jobs as well. So that is why, along with the, I'm just getting it mixed up with make in India, but I'll come back to environment again. That is one of the steps we have taken as far as the clean energy is concerned. From plantation to Swachh Bharat, there are many other areas we are working upon. It is just a change of mindset also at the same time, where from rural to urban areas what we used to see earlier, even going in a car, throwing something on the roads, the things are changing fast, especially the children. I won't say much about the older people, but the children are changing and they are teaching their parents as well. We have seen a major change and the government is spending a lot of money as far as the cleanliness drive is concerned, as far as the Swachh Bharat is concerned. On environment areas, we are very serious about it and India has taken many, many initiatives in that direction also. We stand committed towards what we have put at the international level. Let's take some from this side. I think we had three questions in this round. So we have this gentleman here on the aisle, Elena. Right here we'll take the first. I want to switch to the... Can you just tell us who you are quickly? My name is Sant Gupta. I've been in this area for... I came to this country 48 years ago, so that's the only qualification I can give you. You mentioned about tolerance. You brought it up. And I read a lot of newspapers. In the last two and a half years, the rate at which India has been demonized in academia by the elected officials in the press is appalled. And there is nobody standing up for India. All these newspapers, they have their correspondence in India. And I read them. Completely anti-Hindu, anti-Modi, anti-India. So my question to you is that who will and how will you counteract that narrative, which has been so pervasive in this country for so long? Just hear the gentleman in the gold tie. Thank you, Milan. Good afternoon. You got a question which is basically I'm starting back with GST. The reason I ask you because we're about... I work for the U.S. State Department. We're going to build a huge consulate in Hyderabad. Contractors have some serious questions on BAT and GST. How are they going to be charged on BAT? Is it going to be materialized? Because I create the budget for this particular project. The project is going to be awarded at the end of this month. We have an MP from Andhra Pradesh. Maybe he wants to talk about his neighbor in Telangana. Just in the glasses there, this lady, please. In the white, thanks. My name is Carol Doran Klein, and I'm with the United States Council for International Business. The timing on this question is perfect because my members are very excited about the move to GST. It's a huge improvement, and they want to get there. But the transition is actually very hard. And so the timing is a very important question and when the legislation will be released. And I was actually told if I got to say this to say this, it takes 18 to 24 months to implement new systems. And so the timing and the transition is a very important thing. And so if you're considering that, we'd like to know what you're considering. All right, so let's take these. So one question is about this tolerance issue, how India is portrayed in the media, anti-Hindu, anti-BJP, anti-Modi, anti-India. How much validity isn't that? How do you counteract that? And the second is really two questions on GST. What's the path from here to implementation? The finance minister has said we want to get this going by April 1st. He's also said that's very ambitious. It may not be possible. So on both of these issues, why don't we start Jai and then anyone who'd like to comment on one of the issues that please do so. One of the things that continues to amaze me after all these years is the similarity I see between DC and Delhi. And I'll tell you what I mean. Is this a compliment or? Let me complete. One of the things that is being commented upon in India is that the change that has taken place since the last election is not just a normal change over from one government to another, but a rather more systemic change where what you would call the inside the Beltway crowd, we call the Luttian zone in Delhi, which is the power center of Delhi and a lot of armchair opinion making, people who think they know best about everything. And that is getting changed. The one aspect of it is a lot of power brokers find that they don't have access anymore. And one of the narratives that comes from that is a lot of griping, a lot of grousing. And that's not so different from what we hear in this country about a more systemic political change to throw out the elite here and have more grassroots representation. And this I'm alluding to the demonization of India, as you said. There are many Indians who feel the same as you do and it's not that people aren't speaking up about it, they are speaking up about it. The counter to that is from the traditional voices which feel exactly the opposite about the intolerance issues. I think what is required is more sunlight to be shown on the issues. So when you see about a narrative about things going wrong in India, very often the allegation is that it focuses on specific issues and doesn't give the backdrop, doesn't give the statistics. Very rarely will some of these articles quote the statistics to go back to the question that was being asked about law and order. Yes, we've had protests where a few vehicles were burned in Bangalore. Is that so out of the ordinary in India? I mean, it's not earth-shattering. I understand. My point is it somehow gets played up as something hugely different from before and that's usually not the case. That's all I'll say. It is getting discussed. This is a subject of big discussion in India and we see echoes of this similar discussion in the American campaign rhetoric that we've picked up on in just the last two days. I'll address GST. Sir, you will have to fly blind because we're moving at record speed. Remember, in one month since the constitutional amendment, 50% of the states passed there because we needed 50% of the states to be also making the same amendment before it becomes a constitutional change happened in one month. Despite that, there is a process to be gone through. There is a committee which is the finance ministers of all the states and the finance ministry of the Union government which has to go through the integrities of the rate. There's going to be back and forth on the rate itself and lots of other little nuts and bolts that need to be worked out. There's very, very unlikely that you'll have some answers in one month. The government is trying very hard to stick to the April 1st deadline to implement it. I hear what the lady said about the time it takes for implementing these systems. But some of that work has already been done. Some of the work in anticipation of the GST being implemented has been done. Contracts have been issued even long before the bill got passed. So parallel work is going on. If we get it done in the coming fiscal, it will be fantastic. We have to keep our fingers crossed. Was that what I'm saying? That's the committee that will deal with it. I want to say about the intolerance issue that you're saying. I mean, it's a nuanced thing. I don't know how, if you're talking about the Indian newspapers that you're reading or you're reading the US newspapers. See, intolerance issue, politics in India is very connected to ideology. Which party has what ideology? Which comes to the forefront during every election. So obviously we come out of an ideological battle and then we go into parliament. So this whole intolerance issue, the thing you need to understand the debate carefully. But that's correct or incorrect. I'm not going to opine on that, definitely not on this forum. But nobody is saying India is intolerant. I think what the... Wait, wait, wait. Let's let the MP finish. Let me finish. Sorry? Go ahead, please. I think what has been said by the media or the narrative that has been dominating the media in the last few a year or so, I'll say is that what is the attitude of this government towards intolerance? That's the debate. So India being intolerant and what are the views of this government vis-a-vis any such kind of intolerance? I would like to make a difference there. One. And two, I think any political party, any political party, whether it's the Indian National Congress or the BJD or the Bharat Piyajanta Party, it's very much a part of our political ethos to fight to ensure that we are perceived in the right light. So if the media over here has been portraying India in that light, I don't think you should view it in a way that India as a country is intolerant. But you see, Prime Minister Modi is a very vocal Prime Minister. Very vocal on issues. He's on social media. He's on every other Sunday he speaks on the radio. So what generally happens, I'm speaking as a member of the opposition, being very careful not to criticize my government because it's my government too, is that when he remains silent on certain things, wonder whether he's condoning it. I think that's a part of the problem, like the Akhlaq issue in UP. The opposition was saying, why aren't you talking about it? Say something about it. So I'm just broadly giving you what the picture is. So if anybody is portraying India as intolerant, I think it shouldn't have been done and I'm glad you brought it up. We take that message back to India for you. But I'm just trying to make the picture a little clearer for you what's happening in India. So it's natural, I think we should end with the MP from the Bharat Piyajanta Party. With any words on this issue, what your takeaway is, and then we'll have Vidyadar say a few closing words. I think Prime Minister said it very openly and clearly. The people who pose to be called Rakshaks are not. They're dividing the country. And no Prime Minister could be that loud and clear the way Mr Modi has clarified the issue. But you can't expect a Prime Minister of a country speaking every minute and every day. Yes, I can understand the concern shown by various members and writers in India and abroad. But the government made it very, very clear that the government is very keen and very clear about what they think. And nobody else, it is the Prime Minister of the country who has clarified this. Which puts the things to rest, I believe. Who else can be better than him? Well said. I just would like to thank each of you and hope you'll join me in thanking them for participating here. Before we adjourn, I'd like to disinvite Dr. Vidyadar Singh, the Secretary-General of FICI, to offer a few parting comments. Thank you very much and really thank you on behalf of Indian industry. We are FICI, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. And we've been bringing this delegation for the last 15 years as you've heard. And as you've just heard, India is not just the largest democracy, but we are also the very mature democracy. And you can see from this, it's not just bipartisan, we are multi-partisan. That's what makes us so special. And you see that individually, the members of parliament, you've heard them yourself. And there are others also here. In fact, it was very nice for them to say to themselves right at the beginning of this trip that today we are going as Indian parliamentarians. We're not going as any party or we're not going as any government. We're going as Indian parliamentarians. And this is what they have conveyed in their interactions with the U.S. government and with the India caucus and others that they are meeting over these days. And I think this is a very important signal that we as a country, as a democracy and as a very mature democracy give both to the U.S. who are our close friends but also to the world that this is what we stand for. So I guarantee you to each one of the parliamentarians that have been with us and I guarantee you to Carnegie for hosting this for us and our support with Georgetown University that supported this. And we had the morning two days of interaction there which was extremely, extremely useful. Thank you all for being with us and have a good evening.