 Good afternoon to everybody. So one of my favorite texts is a short story by an American writer called Raymond Carver, who wrote a book, wrote a story called What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. And I think one of the most incredible things about it is that love is perhaps one of the hardest things to speak about, but I don't think Raymond Carver could have actually written a book about housing because what we talk about when we talk about housing is actually perhaps the one thing that is more profound than love. So what I want to do a little bit is to actually take the next 10 minutes to think a little bit about what it means to talk about housing. And the summary of my presentation is this. Housing is not about houses. And if I can leave you with that, I will be happy. So the thing that I want to start with is to take a moment to the topic of the panel is very interesting for us in India because it's also the title of our new central housing mission, Housing for All by 2022. Now, so the first question is, what's the game? What is the all? So the numbers, all Indian numbers are very impressive since there aren't presentations from China here, we will win. And I just want you to look at one number in this slide, which is that bottom number of 18.78. So our government says that this is housing for all. The deficit is 18.78 million units. And I want you to look at one second number, which says congested housing, 14.99. And the point I want to make here is congested housing is not absent housing. It is housing that is currently inadequate, which means that the sum total of the housing question in India is not that people don't have homes. It is that the homes that they have are not adequate. The problem with thinking about the empirics of a housing shortage is that it makes you count units. And the minute you count units, housing becomes about houses. And as I've told you, the only thing I'm here to say is that housing is not about houses. The important part of this slide then becomes to understand that the housing question in India is that affordable homes are inadequate and adequate homes are unaffordable. And you put those two things together. And what you're left with is an understanding of the fact that our cities have not been built by planners, have not been built by architects, they have been built by people. And they have been built by people who are not policy makers and not on this table. And I think that's precisely part of the problem. So when we start thinking about what it means to think of what can be called auto-construction, the argument that I want to make is that when you think about housing as an incrementally built one wall at a time, one roof at a time, the average low-income house in India takes between nine and 11 years to complete. But what's important is that while this is being incrementally built, people live in them. None of us will move into a house that had three walls made of concrete and one of catch and no water connection. But almost every urban resident in a city of the South lives precisely in such a house. And they built it as their own wage at economic status changes. If you build too fast, your material form improves. But you don't get to improve with the material form. You're actually displaced from that house because the market takes it and gentrifies it from you. If you build too slow, then you have to live that many years with inadequate infrastructure for the house. So our tension with incrementality is not can I transform this built environment? It's what pace of transformation can take people with you and not be about transforming the built environment but transforming actually people's lives. So when we think a little bit about when I hear about the last panel saying temporary urbanism, post-carbon urbanism, as 21st century thought, I would like to remind us that this is actually the urbanism of the majority of our cities and has always been. So the tension is not whether to see if planning can respond to self-built cities. It is to recognize self-built cities as planning. And the people who make those houses as planners. And the minute you do that, we are not looking for solutions. We are looking actually for governance and not government. And I think that move becomes critical. So what can that do for housing? In housing, what happens is that the game of shortage is the way in which that framework breaks. So if housing is not just units, what can it be? Here's the framework I would like to leave you with. That housing must be three and conditions. Affordable and adequate and viable. Currently, housing is only one part of adequate, which is what you see there as the adequate dwelling unit. And hence the debates, 25 square meters or 30, 35 or 40, RCC or temporary construction, new technology or wood. We obsess on the unit, not on the other conditions. What does this look like in India? Oh my God, it's five minutes. What does this look like in India? In India, these are three things. One, who can afford a house? You see the last point there, 62% of Indian households cannot afford a house. In the current housing market. But when you look at this graph, 7.5% can unaided enter that housing market. Now what's interesting, this is monitoring inclusive markets. McKinsey has the same numbers, KPMG has the same numbers. But when you look at that graph, that 7.5% and that 62% of the same blue. This is not a visual trick. This is a way in which the common sense of our housing reproduces itself, that we can speak of something called a real estate and housing market, even though we know that 62% of our households cannot enter that market. As long as we keep talking about that market, we are fooling ourselves. What does it mean then to think about adequacy? I want to leave you with this idea that if you break away from that last column, which is just the physical materiality of the unit and instead ask for an adequate house to have a secure tenure, by which I do not mean title as an ownership in a disorder model alone, I mean a range of property rights arrangements that ensures to you that if you invest in your home, you will not be evicted taking away your eviction. Protection from eviction is the beginning of property rights. Ownership is the end of property rights and we have to think of that as a spectrum, not a binary. And if you think about it in terms of services, fixing the first two columns is a political question, not a financial one. Fixing the last one is a budgetary allocation of how many houses you can build and then we go back to counting units. If you think about the question of viability, sorry, I'm skipping a little bit. This is how Indians move. I'm using transportation as a metric of viability. Again, my point is just to give you examples of other data points that don't look like housing data points but are absolutely housing data points. If you look at the gray, that's all the people in Indian cities who walk or bike to work. Our current housing is deeply viable, but it is viable precisely because of inner city occupation, which means that residents in Indian cities tolerate poor physical housing conditions in order to be close to work because people make housing decisions on the basis of employment, not on the basis of the quality of the housing unit. And the minute we think about that, we start telling a different story. This is a pattern that is deeply breaking. On the left, you see my home city of Delhi. In blue are existing informal settlements. In the larger blue, our places where those settlements were evicted and resettled before 1990. You'll notice a still urban fabric connection. In red are places where people have been evicted and resettled after 1990. Those people are not going to walk to work, which means that the opportunity of viability breaks with segregation. And I think if you look at Addis, you will reproduce that map with red, not with resettlement, but with new condominium development. And we start thinking a little bit about housing that is adequate but not viable. I want to then think a little bit about the prospects of our new housing policies. In India, we have discovered the art of the new national urban policy. I think this is a very good thing for a long time we were a country that lived in its villages and a country that did not actually make peace with urbanization. No Indian was ever from a city. We never belonged to them. At the same time, these, the current housing model is built entirely on the building of vertical. Sorry, I have no idea where to point this back. There we go. The building of this type of unit as opposed to a shift from earlier housing policies of the upgrading of this kind of movement. So the question that I want us to leave with is not only to say upgrading is good or that vertical housing is bad, it is to understand how we choose the balance between improving existing housing and building new housing and suggesting to you that the empirics of the practices of house building in our cities are the places we should look for answers. The last slide that I want you to leave with is what I think is the boldest experiment. I'm gonna get to it in a moment. There we go. The boldest experiment we have seen in this regard, the Eastern Indian state of Odessa, one of our poorest states, which in one single policy move has given land rights to all occupied public land across the state in the smallest of the urban towns. Going back to Edgar's point about non-metrocentricity. And when you think a little bit about the newspaper advertisement that came up on the front page of the question of land rights as central to the question of housing, we get away from a planning imagination of the delivery of units to a fundamental spatial justice imagination like Edgar was suggesting, where we start thinking about supporting the planners who have actually built our cities, not those of us who got degrees that let us call ourselves planners. And therein lies the rub. Thank you. Gautam, just before we pass on to Jose. Had you been in the previous panel, you, I'm just borrowing your words. You talked about inadequate housing, et cetera, et cetera, made that very clear. Would you say that we suffer from inadequate planning? Because just tell us more about that. Because does it mean there's no model that India can follow to solve the problem? Because the numbers and densities, though you don't want to go into units, that you would deliver by upgrading, presumably may not be. So just very quickly on that point. I think that what I am interested in is to understand what the right boundaries of state practices of planning are, that then are relevant to auto-constructed cities. I think that the meaning of planning practice in cities that are dominantly self-built cannot be the same as those whose form is the hallmark of intention. And I think if we shift that planning, we're good.