 Thanks very much for coming to the Carnegie Endowment. My name is Mila Nveshniv. I'm a senior fellow and director of the South Asia program here at Carnegie. I want to extend a warm welcome today to our colleagues visiting from India, respected members of parliament who are here as part of an annual FIKI parliamentarians forum that they do here in the United States. And this has been, I think, the second or third year that we've been lucky enough to host them here at Carnegie. So thank you again for coming this year. I want to thank a few people who are not in the room from FIKI, Riddhika Bhattra, who many of you know, who leads the FIKI effort here in Washington for North America, Harshvar Dhaniyotya, who is a former president of FIKI and the chairperson of this dialogue, and Dilip Chenoy, who's the secretary general of FIKI, who will be joining us. They've just come from meetings on Capitol Hill. So we have half of the MPs here and the other half will be coming shortly. We're holding this meeting at sort of an interesting time for at least three reasons. One is on the foreign policy front, of course. We've just seen the conclusion of the first-ever U.S.-India 2-plus-2 meeting between the respective countries, foreign and defense ministers, which took place just last week in New Delhi. On the economic front, of course, India's latest GDP figures once again place it as the fastest growing major economy in the world. Some other data show that there are some cause for concern due to external emerging market issues, which hopefully we'll talk about a little bit. And of course, I don't know how much we'll get into the politics today. Obviously, that's a sensitive subject. It's okay. But we have general elections, of course, coming up in the spring of next year. So I want to recognize the MPs who are here with us today. So in the audience, we have Anurang Sikdakor from the BJP and the Huda from the Congress. And to my immediate left is Geetha Kothapalli, who represents the Arakul constituency in Andhra Pradesh from the Jana Jagruti Party. No, from YSRCP. YSRCP, excuse me. As a sign of Indian political change, we have an update. My apologies. Rajeev Pratap Rudi is a Lok Sabha representative from the Sadan constituency in Bihar, representing the Bharatya Jantha Party. And to his left, coincidence or not, is Rajeev Gowda, who is a long-time member of the Indian National Congress, represents the state of Karnataka in the Rajasabha. And we have joining us shortly will be Mr. Dinesh Tharedi, who's a Lok Sabha MP from the Thirunamal Congress, representing the Bharatpur constituency in West Bengal. So please, Mr. Rudi, maybe we should just get started since we're not sure. Why don't we start on the foreign policy front? Because I think that's top of people's minds. We've seen the images coming out of New Delhi of the successful meeting between the foreign ministers and defense ministers of both countries. So some interesting announcements in terms of defense and strategic cooperation. What's the sense coming from Delhi on how that meeting went and more generally the current state of sort of the US-India bilateral relationship? It's a very interesting thing which's been happening, especially. I would not say whether it's a Trump administration or prior to that. But there's a growing sense of ease as far as India and the US is concerned. And would not be in particular at this stage, but overall over the years. And ever since last two decades, what we see when for last ever since India got independence, there was a great alignment with Russia. And that not only included cultural alignment, it also took a lot of defense alignment. And of course, we were heavily dependent on them. And that time there wasn't a close engagement with the US. That's a reform-setting as the governments became more open. Last two decades, so I think I'll have to remove the mic and it will be more clear. It's vibrating at me, now it's better. We should have, yes, thank you. So last two decades, we are finding a closer movement towards the US. I think the US very well appreciates that it's a legacy which we have with Russia which cannot be done overnight. At the same time, the Indian government does want to establish a parity as far as major blocks are concerned. And while doing all this, the challenges what we face is jointly shared. A, at the micro level, what we face is what we have with our borders. India today maintains the third largest armed forces in the world after the US and China. And a country like India, which has too many challenges, has no business to maintain such kind of an armed forces. And that's truly because we have our next door neighbors who are extremely hostile. But it's a different issue that the world's most hunted terrorist was in the backyards of Lahore, Islamabad. And he was hunted down by the Americans all the way. We don't talk about it. And America refuses to openly acknowledge because they have issues in Afghanistan. So Taliban, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Now, this is a point which possibly makes the relationship a slower one with US. Nonetheless, the present administration has moved in a direction where Pakistan, of course, is not possibly as we believe in favor as it was in favor would not be the right word, but possibly. So we have our own challenges. And when we look at what we do at the foreign policy level, we also have a lot of limitations back home. And when we talk about India, we talk about the country with 1,280 million people. And if you look at the two states which I represent, and he represents, is equivalent to, I come from Bihar, he comes from West Bengal. And these two states alone would be equivalent to a whole of United States of America. So that's the dimensions. And we, of course, as we heard today, we are the largest democracy, you are the oldest democracy. And a combination has come, but there is a growing sense of ease with the United States of America. So in defense and most of the strategic relationship. So I think this is an improvement for on my scale as a politician, if you see on a scale of 10 from three, it has moved to five. I would not say it's moved to seven or eight. So that's my assessment. Thank you very much, Rajiv. Maybe I could bring you in on this point. You know, in light of the Prime Minister speech that he gave at the Shangri-La Dialogue this past summer, and then there were subsequent summit meetings between Prime Minister Modi and Vladimir Putin, summits between Modi and Xi Jinping. There was a sense in some quarters in Washington that India may be having sort of second thoughts about having put so many eggs in the American basket. And those worries perhaps heightened by, shall we say, the current president's unpredictability. How do you see this? Do you sense this kind of hedging or balancing from the Delhi side? Ever since we moved on from Non-Aligned Month, we've moved towards what we call an independent foreign policy. So essentially, we are going to do what is in our national interest. And that does mean ensuring that, you know, as we get closer to the United States, as my colleague was pointing out, it doesn't mean that the major powers in our own backyard and neighborhood need to be ignored. And there is a tremendous amount of balancing that India would have to continue to make as we move forward. But I would not have any concerns really about, you know, the outreach to the United States, the fact that our nations are coming closer on multiple fronts. So really, I think it's just a question of, you know, our own perspectives on where we fit in and how the various balances of power need, you know, where we fit in that scheme of things. If you just look at the presence of our diaspora, we have, that itself makes a huge, you know, sort of emotional connect with the United States. So in that sense, I wouldn't worry too much about the leadership of the country and its potential unpredictability. I think the country's, you know, again, the United States also has been very, very focused on its own national interests. And I think the way the world is developing, the way there are new, you know, centers of power emerging next door to us in Asia, there will be, you know, alignments where the U.S. will have a close role to play with us in the Indo-Pacific. You will see that, you know, while we are maybe moving away somewhat from Russia, we are hardly going to ignore, you know, an old friend, you might say. And so, for example, there is the whole plan to purchase aircraft from Russia. So those are all part of our, you know, our own strategic balancing. So I wouldn't, I don't see any need for anyone to worry about that here. It's, all we need is understanding, not necessarily concerned. Could I just follow up with you on one point, Rajiv, which is, you know, if you kind of had to boil the conventional wisdom down in Washington, I think people would say the two countries have kind of moved full speed ahead on the defense and strategic side. But the economic side lags behind. And given the brewing sort of trade war dissension in the global economy, that that could potentially spill over and create problems on the strategic side of the House. Do you worry about the economic and the strategic sort of blurring into one another? I really think that we would be able to compartmentalize those. And the economic moves that are being made, not just with regard to India, but, you know, in terms of, say, tariffs on cement and steel and a whole bunch of things that affect multiple countries. It's not something that, you know, it's aimed specifically at us. You know, a close U.S. ally and neighbor, Canada, is facing the brunt of a lot of these things as well. So I don't expect that these two dimensions will necessarily spill over to create some other kind of complication and conflict. I actually think that these are separable and compartmental. Let me bring in Dinesh Thivedi and Gita Kotapalli. Dinesh, let me start with you, if you don't mind. There was quite a lot of excitement in India over the recent growth figures, GDP coming up to 8.2 percent last quarter, seen as perhaps getting over the twin bumps or turbulences of the rollout of the GST and then demonetization. But now we see emerging again some concern on the macro side. So it used to be the case that the macro looked good and people were concerned about the micro. And now it's sort of the reverse that the micro looks better, but macro, not just in India, but a lot of other emerging market countries. Give us a sense of from where you sit, how the economy is looking right now in 2018. Well, first of all, let me say hello and bring greetings to Carnegie from India. And we are so very happy to be out here. Of course, we would definitely have some limitation in our expression because we are supposed to be on a foreign soil. And at the moment for us, the most important is always. So we certainly would not get into what we would have perhaps otherwise done on the floor of the house. And you would not see in such a serene environment. And that is what the vibrant democracy is all about. But having said that, I have a very different view on GDP. OK. My view is we have outlived this measures of GDP. And I'm not even talking about the Bhutan model of coefficient of happiness. That would be fantastic. So for me, what matters is how many jobs we have created, how many people who are below the poverty line have been elevated, how many people have got access to health, how many students have got access to education. So GDP per se, I personally really don't give much importance because if GDP grows and I'm not talking about extreme. I mean, you have problem here also. You know, one person of the population has 90% or 60% of wealth. So I think somewhere down the line, we have got to collectively understand and move away from this classic figures of GDP. And GDP is figures and figures can always be looked into the way you want to look at. Now we have got a new measure of the GDP. So first of all, you have to subtract two percent because you are getting advantage of two percent. So every government who has come in power have obviously tried to address to the poverty issues, job issues. But you know, we get bogged down into the effects of the world as well. So I feel we need to understand what is the employment and what all things I've just said, I need not repeat it. And so if I get to stick with you for a second on the jobs front, what do you see as the key priorities for the job creation? I think most people in this room follow India. They understand the potential of the demographic dividend, the crisis. If the demographic dividend turns into a disaster, what do you see as some of the demographic is a very fragile word, it could turn into a demographic disaster as well. So if people are getting out of colleges with degrees and if they have no job and there is a level of frustration. So I personally feel that the process of opening up in India had been started in early 90s. We need to really open up not at the cost of the country's interest. But I feel India has so much of potential in the scale of one to 100. If our potential is 80, I don't think so we have reached 15. And I'm not on one particular government because the talent in India. The other day I was speaking in parliament and I said that please understand a new world is getting redesigned. And that redesigning is done by who? People of Indian origin sitting in Silicon Valley. I mean, we have the brightest of students, the brightest of faculty, whichever university you go. But that is the talent we have got to understand that between US and India. We forget that this soft power can change the world because the kind of innovation which is taking place in Silicon Valley. And I know a little bit because my son is there. It's just mind boggling. So this is what we have not integrated. We have always gone down to that what are you going to buy from us? What is this trade? I personally feel the time has come on a larger scale. Rest will automatically happen. So my take on job creation is this is the century of knowledge. And India has been a country of knowledge right from the days of Vedas. India was and India is a country of knowledge in foreseeable future. India will remain a country of knowledge. So this knowledge industry, if you may say so, because now we have the intellectual property rights. This knowledge can be bought and sold. The raw material, if I may say so, is in India. And the market is in India. I think this is where we have got to focus. And I see tremendous value between India and US. Why do our students crave to come here? You have come here. I studied here because America has created this knowledge environment. It's not possible to create a Silicon Valley anywhere in the world. Because America has invested in knowledge, which used to be there. Nalanda, Takshila. I think we need to create this. And the job and trade and purchases and defense will automatically follow. I will conclude by saying that we have learned early days that if you want to go in business, and if your objective is to make money, you won't make enough. If your objective is to create wealth, give employment, and the works, then you would be a very successful, not only business, but a social reformer also. So that is where I feel India and America somewhere down the line is missing the focus into hardware and into what you're purchasing. That's important. I'm not saying it's not important. But this will come automatically. And I always say that India-US relation is natural. We don't even have to labor enough. But we have to understand the strength of this relationship. Thanks, Dinesh. Gita Kotapalli, I'd love to get your view on how things look from Andhra Pradesh. We heard Dinesh Thivedi talking about knowledge economy, need for jobs, need for livelihood creation. How do you see things from where you sit? Yeah, first of all, I would like to thank Aniki for this opportunity for creating this interactive conversation. I'm here for the first time in US. But I understand the relations between US and India are very important for the people of India, as well as that of Andhra Pradesh. Because we have a huge diaspora here in America, almost 3.5 million people living in US. And coming to the perspective of Andhra Pradesh, yes, Andhra Pradesh is a newly formed state after bifurcation. And today we are facing so many challenges. We are just waiting for the things to take place. And the priorities of the government now right have been to build a capital city and to develop the infrastructure. But probably what is happening is the priority sectors like health education, they are still to be addressed. And we are having a lot of rural population who are actually waiting for the government to increase the infrastructure levels of the villages as well as to provide the health amenities in the rural areas. We have been seeing in the news of late of the incidents that have been happening because of the lack of proper health infrastructure. So we look at things in Andhra Pradesh, we need the support of the, not only of the government, but also we are looking at the international relations wherein people can come in and invest in Andhra Pradesh and create that sort of, because even the jobs, if you look at the jobs, there's a huge vacancy position in Andhra Pradesh where the jobs are yet to be filled up because of the economic position of the state. We are not able to fill up the jobs what are existing in the government. And we have a problem of unemployment, which is huge. Now we are supporting the unemployed by giving sort of employment allowance to them. But that is not enough because as my colleagues rightly said, demographic dividend will turn into a disaster if it is not being used. We are looking at India as, we have to promote the sustainable development growth. For that we need people, youngsters who are self-sustainable, who are going to, then we have a great talent in India which has been left untapped and unutilized. So we have to prioritize on making the youth, the asset for the nation, by making themselves sustainable, by making use of their energies to actually contribute to the development of the country. So we have now a huge relationship with the US, now 50 bilateral relations are under, they are going to be signed off late. And we are looking at this bilateral relations, I think in defense, health, education, trade, different sectors. So I think this relationship will help both the countries, all the states, in fact on the position all the states also, to definitely develop people to people relation with the country as well as it will contribute to the economy of the nation. Thank you. You mentioned healthcare and Rajeev Pratap Rudi, I wonder if I could ask you one of the things which the government of India will be rolling out very shortly is a new universal healthcare scheme that is colloquially called ModiCare, like Obamacare, which many within the BJP believe is going to be a game changer in terms of both the potential health impacts to cushion negative health shocks, but also politically in terms of how the electorate might see it as a very positive development, what can we expect coming forward and how do you frame this within the context of what the Modi government's done since it's been in power for the last four years? No, it's a very interesting thing that you have talked about. We then covering almost 50 crore, almost half the population of India under this scheme. When we talk about this scheme, everyone would say, well, it's possible. It's something which has never been heard in the world. We want to cover 500 million people under this scheme. To begin with, what Mr. Modi has been talking, he said, we started on healthcare from day one, from preventive. And he talked about Swachh Bharat that he went on and moved ahead to this point. There's one more scheme which was launched in India, which possibly proves that the government is capable of doing it. When we decided to give gas connections to almost five crore people, five crore would be about 50 million people. And that actually last five years, four and a half years, we have achieved that. So this was one scheme which actually got us to the point that the whole delivery mechanism, you see India with the federal states, you've got 29 states. And one must understand when you look at India that there could be a state in this India, like I represent a parliamentary constituency or a district which has a population of half a million. And Anurag comes from a state which almost if I increase another 10 lakhs, it is the population of state. Out of the 29 states, nine states have a population less than my district. And if you look at the country as a, if you look at my district as a whole, out of all the nations in the world, UN and non-UN nations, my district is larger than 109 countries of the world which have a missile, which have a tank, which have a fighter, squadron and things like that. So the dynamics in India is very different. You have islands in India which is 1000 kilometers away. And one island starts from Andaman and Nicopa Islands and goes up to Malaysia, that is 1000 kilometers at a stretch. The diversity, I would not know her language. I don't know his language and I don't know his language. He's from Bengal, he's from Karnataka, from Andhra Pradesh. I am from Bihar. Mr. Huda is from North, Mr. So it's a country which has got a lot of challenges. We spend only 1% on health. This particular scheme, which is in itself, it's going to be rolled out this month. And I think nowhere in the world such a scheme of health insurance has been planned or it's been planned to be executed. Because in a population of India, we have almost 33% people which are below the poverty line. And that 25% for 30% are 55 to 60% of the overall population in a bracket which needs a lot of support. So I think it's going to be rolled out. I think Mr. Modi's caliber or his stitches thing, he plans and stitches and executes it. It's because the states have almost 25 states have signed an MOU to implement this. And I think it's worth watching what he plans in the health sector because our health sector is actually a sector which needs a lot of support. So the scheme has been planned out. The private organizations have been roped in hospitals, apart from government hospitals. So it's a very ambitious program. And I think he has planned it out very well. We are going to roll it out. So it's actually, you see, politics does mean delivery. And so if he has delivered on the infrastructure, if he's delivered on social health care, he's delivered on the, there were 40 odd schemes which government of India implemented in the last five years and they have actually gone to the ground. So we of course feel that this is going to be a last stroke for that to be given. But he's a popular leader. He's done exceptional event. India went through a lot of reforms, a lot of changes, whether it was demonetization or many more things like this. But I think at the end of the day, we have achieved it. And I think we are heading for another second term with a reasonably good majority now. So I think it's going to be a fine, we have worked. I think that's a change. I want to come back to that in a second. But Dinesh Thirvedi wanted to say something on this point. You know, I'm obviously getting tempted to say something. We need some masala on this conversation. Well, I just was whispering to him that I have just joined the diplomatic corps. No, I mean, we have to get into realistic. As long as hope is alive, we all are alive. So I totally agree with Mr. Rudi that we must hope. But hope alone will not deliver. And I will get into the specific. I was in the health ministry. So I know a little bit. Also in the real world ministry. In the real world ministry also. So first of all, this scheme is only insurance, right? And it is for tertiary care, not for the primary. And you have presumed that 40% is going to be financed by the state government, right? So it is not 100% a central government scheme. You have presumed that 40% will come from the state government. Now, health is a state subject. Most of the states, they have their own budget. I come from the state of West Bengal. And if you look at the parameters today on health in West Bengal. And health is a huge challenge. I mean, you spend 16% is a big challenge here. We spend less than 1% as far as government concerned. And private sector put together is 4%. It's a huge challenge for us. In spite of that, if you look at the IMR and MMR ratio in West Bengal. Infant mortality, maternal mortality. Absolutely, yeah. So that has really, really improved. And today, the medicines in Bengal are one of the cheapest because this is subsidized by the government. So all I'm trying to tell you is perhaps likes the state of West Bengal. Maybe I am not aware of other states. States have already taken up these kind of schemes. Having said all these things, if your primary is not in order, which is the foundation, why do you want people to go for tertiary to begin with? So make sure your foundation is strong. Because tertiary will always cost you much more. Finally, you need doctors. You need paramedical staff. You need pharmaceutical supply. You need the entire environment as far as health delivery system is concerned. You need a lot of preventive stuff. You need equipments. So to produce one doctor, it takes about 15 years. And today, India, like the rest of the world, has scarcity of doctors, nurses, paramedical staff. Even if you presume that the money has come, if you go to places like Ames and all, they're one of the best in the world. But can they cater to the needs? Difficult. They try their best. And you have the best doctors there. So I just let me finish. So I think the thought, I have no doubt about it, is a great thought, like Swachh Bharat. I don't think so anybody can disagree with that. But you have got to provide the infrastructure. And infrastructure takes, I want to build highway, great thought. But it takes time. So while the thought I have no problem, I think everybody will support the thought. But we have got to understand, how are you going to implement? If you talk about the gas cylinder, the first gas cylinder came free. Subsequent gas cylinders, I don't think so. People, if they have to pay the money, then it won't be successful. So I think we have got to be constructive in how we are going to implement it. Thought-wise, I have no issue. Hita, could you say something on that? Yeah, I wanted to make a point here, because we had Raju Arugya Sri, Nandar Pradesh, which was actually started during the period of Vaisra Shekhar Reddy. And that was a very popular policy of the government to give medical insurance to the BPL, I mean, the white card holders. And this insurance policy, now the health insurance, which Moriji has come up with, is of the same standards. But it has more coverage over the below-poverty line people. And the amount that the insurance policy is covering is also high. I agree to my colleague saying that the health is a state subject. So health infrastructure, basically the physical infrastructure in the rural areas is a major challenge, even today. Because we are not able to get the doctors to work in the rural areas. So the union government has come up with one more scheme saying that they will give telemedicine centers in the rural areas. Those medical centers are also given to the states to open in the rural areas. But even today, that has not been implemented by certain state governments, particularly in my state. So we need a proper coordination between the state and center to implement these sort of policies because these are the priorities in which government has to actually concentrate. Because they are the services that the people need, first of all, at the basic grassroot level. So I feel the health insurance policy will definitely be a big boon to the BPL holders, as well as the average, as Rudiji rightly said, 50% of the people are still awaiting some support from the government and side. So this insurance will definitely go a long way in actually supporting the people because we feel that 80% of the population still live in the rural areas. Definitely this will be a boon for the nation. And it is one of the historic decisions of giving health insurance. And suddenly the states and central government, they will have to have a share in this. And it is the responsibility not only of the union government but also of the state governments because its health is a state government subject. And finally, we are getting some sort of support from the union government as a welcome step. So I want to open things to the audience. But before I do that, Rajiv has been uncharacteristically quiet. So I want to try to bring him in. You touched on something which gets at this question of center state relations. Rajiv, I'm sure you know this, but there's been some work recently on what's known as India's 3-3-3 puzzle, which is the following. The three richest states in India are three times as rich as the three poorest states. Now this has come up in a variety of fora, but one place where it's come up is with relation to fiscal relations between the states. We know there's something called Finance Commission. We're now at the 15th Finance Commission. They determine how funds from the center get sent down to the states. Many states, particularly states in the south, are concerned that they might be penalized actually for progress they've achieved because they're not as quote unquote deserving as other states whose income has lagged behind. This reintroduces, I think, a potentially difficult cleavage in Indian political economy. I want to get your thoughts on how do we think about this? There are certain states which have done well. Can we penalize them for doing well? But yet there are other deserving states whose per capita income is lower, whose infrastructural needs are greater, who are quite deserving of funds. How do we think about this challenge? Because it seems to me this is only going to get increased rather than decreased in the years to come. Actually, there are multiple things going on, Vila. At one level, if you look at the last few years, the whole GST development involved states and the center coming together in a compact that involved giving up certain rights to raise taxes and things like that. And actually to create a whole new institutional mechanism that essentially ensured that center and the states work together. This is a GST council. Just a GST council. That's a whole new innovation which saw tremendous cooperation amongst all the states and the center. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. And neither the center nor the states have a veto. In that, you need both of them to come together in some supermajority for anything to go through. So there is a lot of positive contribution and willingness to make sacrifices across states in order to ensure that we develop one strong common market and that economic growth is shared across the country. Because there was also an issue of producer states, consumer states. There was a lot of stuff in that context. Now with the Finance Commission, the complication has arisen because of if you're going to be, see this is another history even with regard to number of seats allotted in each parliament seats allotted to each state, et cetera. And we've frozen that according to the 1971 census because one of the concerns is that if you allocate seats on the basis of population, then those states, like Karnataka where I'm from, who have been very, very careful about procreation, that we are going to get penalized and we are going to lose clout as a result. That's one of the concerns in this whole Finance Commission terms about on what criteria you're going to allocate resources, whether it's population or otherwise. But I would certainly argue that we would like to be consulted and for some sort of a consensus to be evolved. Part of the tension with regard to the terms of reference of the 15th Finance Commission are that we read about this in the paper. We didn't really get consulted on what should the national policy be in this context, what census figure one should take into account, and those sorts of issues. So basically, at this moment, there's a concern that the faster growing developed states are going to lose out much more compared to those that are poor. But I would say that overall, the Indian consensus historically has been that we are all happy to contribute to ensure a more even and balanced development. Even if that doesn't happen, you're seeing internal migrations or things like that. People are voting with their feet. You have what, 3% of Kerala now is migrant workers from elsewhere. Unimaginable, normally people from Kerala would go out. That sort of situation is happening. So you will see these imbalances being worked out by the market in some ways. But I don't think any state would say we're not going to contribute to help our brethren catch up with us in some way. So it's really a question of how the process by which one puts all this together. But there are concerns. There's no doubt about that. Why don't we open it up? Because I'm sure many of you have questions. There are going to be two mics going around. I just ask that you please stand up, let us know who you are, and keep your questions short so we can take as many as possible. Why don't we start on this side? Questions for the MPs? Vijay, just wait one second for the mic. Just introduce yourself, please, Vijay. I'm Vijay Kumar. And I've been here for quite a long time from Bangalore. I think you all agree that there is an inevitability to US and India cooperating closely. If you look at the projections of economic projections of 2045, China is the big dog. And the Indian economy plus the US economy equals China's economy. So I agree completely that US and India will have to have a close relationship. It's inevitable. It may be inevitable, but to what extent, Rajiv Pratap Rudi, do you see the US and India coming together as an effort to provide a bulwark against China? Would you put it in those terms? Well, it's a reality. And I think we could hear it across in the conversation in the last two days that China figures very prominently in the conversation with the US senators or maybe the policymakers take up. And it's an issue which possibly needs to be a corridor to be established where they need to talk about bringing India, Australia, Japan, US together. So it's there. You cannot deny it because I didn't answer that question in the beginning. And because acceptability may not be there because it's not a democracy. And their democracy is of a different order. They may claim to be a democracy now. So this is an issue which possibly is also bringing us closest to the US. And if you see a state next to us, Nepal, which is, of course, almost a part in a different way, it's just the same cultural extension. When they say that we are going to have four ports in China and get goods from there traveling 2,000 miles on each of their entry points, it's unthinkable. So the very fact that China says that, yes, we'll give you ports would be a point of planning. You'll have to bring things to Nepal. It's just not going to end there because cost of transporting that 2,000 miles and cost of transporting it from Calcutta, no comparison. So that means China will come back and support them. And they will do exactly what they have done in Sri Lanka now. So it's a threat. And they're just not creeping. They are aggressively going across. You go to the Caribbean. You see one of the finest buildings there. And you ask what it is. And it's in the Bahamas. This is the Chinese embassy. If you go to, it's exactly like that. They are there everywhere. They are not going at a small speed. I had gone to Kenya and I was watching the Masaimara tribe. They were all wearing slippers of the same kind. I said, how can it be so uniform? All of them are wearing slippers of the same kind and they are made of truck tires. Now, all of their particular type of slippers which are cut out of truck tires are made in China. I saw a queue of three test cuties. I thought they were Bajaj tempos from India. They were all there. So they are there. It's a fact which you have to accept. And they are doing it very aggressively. So it's a fact that the US is worried. And it does need partners to sort these things out. And I think this issue is there. We cannot ignore it. How do they do it? And India is, of course, witnessing that because they are our neighbors. So these issues do remain. And it's an important focus point for the US policymakers today. Let's take some more questions from the audience. Yeah, in the back, please. Hi, Aditya, my political economy candidate at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Industries. I think we have covered all the aspects of India. One thing that I think is missing is the people-to-people and inclusive part. Do you think are we moving on the path of being less inclusive? There would be a more religious dividend across India. Do you think are we moving on the path that instead of having the demographic dividend and making it as a strength, we are moving towards as a less inclusive society in general? Whom do you want to answer this question? Two national parties. Only if my friend from the regional party doesn't intervene after that. So you want to answer it or should I answer it? I can go ahead. Rajeev. See, I think it makes no sense for any policy that is non-inclusive to be pursued. The country has a particular compact, which is secular and inclusive. And there are examples of ideological thrusts. There are examples of policy measures that can be interpreted as divisive, exclusive, rather than inclusive. I don't think that the ethos of the country will eventually accept that. They may accept, even the last election mandate was partly one for development. It was not based entirely on a religion-based vote. So I really think that there are some constituencies where, meaning there's some sections of the population that will be swayed by that. But the vast majority of Indians historically and in the future will essentially focus on living together in harmony. And that's why you still find a lot of concern whenever an incident takes place. Tragedy occurs where there is some religion-based attack on a fellow Indian citizen. I am speaking like Dilesh fairly diplomatically, because we are a foreign soil. We don't want to get into the kinds of debates we would get in at home. So I'm just saying that many such policies are there. There's, for example, something called a Citizenship Act, which is opening up India to refugees from other countries every religion except one. So things like that can be very, very divisive, can lead to a lot of complications in the Northeast of India for a start. So those are not things that I think will make a political sense if you get a whole region on fire or something like that. So I don't think, I think better sense will prevail. Just when he says better sense would prevail is the last line. There's a small issue, because you see, I know where you wanted to put that question. He was very kind to take it himself. And then diluted as a diplomat would do it on a stage. But actually, one aspect which you must realize is I'm from the ruling party, which is, of course, the Bharti-Chanta Party. We never ruled the country. We just, this time, we had a majority. And we have certain ideals which we talk about. When we talk about nationalism, that was our founder, Shyama Prasad Makachi, who sacrificed himself in Kashmir. When there was an issue raised there, that there would be two flags for the country, two constitutional for the country, two prime ministers for the country. And he said, no, it's not going to happen. When you have to have a permit to go to Jammu in Kashmir, he said, it's not. And he died there. He was arrested. So that was one. And there was Pandit Din Diyal Upadhyaya who said, the last man has to be served. And this is our philosophy. And secularism is true for all. It's just not for an individual party. But every time when we talk about India, we should remember the second largest minority population in the world today. After Indonesia is India, where we have 300 people from the minority section living with us on the same planks. But of course, when we plan that India will not accept the triple talak, which has been vogue, and you speak three times and you say talak and you lose your way. It is for 50 years, 60 years. And when it was the Shabana case, when which was brought to parliament and turned around, these are issues which possibly was there on the other side. And we thought it was wrong. Even the countries which are Muslim states have done away with triple talak. And in a country which has the second largest population of a particular minority group, would not take or move in that direction is something which needs to be addressed because we are secular and ladies, gender do have a position in the society. So there cannot be two laws. So these are the things which possibly get reflected in a different order. The law, the CRPC, the IPAC is true for everyone. It's not that it is applicable. If there is a law and order issue, there's a crime, it's dealt under that law. That is not, there's no exception for that. So it's something which the government believes in. The government believes that there has to be an equality there. The government believes that these issues have to be sorted out and we will work on that. So this is not in isolation. This is a consensus which has to be made. When you talk about the national citizens register in Assam, it has been going on for more four decades. There are problems there. You remember the Assam agitation which happened, that was on that issue, the Supreme Court order. The citizens who are Indians would stay there. Indians who are not there have to be identified. We have made it very clear that Rohingyas, we have to send them back because we can't, we already are, we can't have refugees like that. We are going to have, there are solutions which the government has planned. We are going to have the national, that bill has come to parliament, citizens register. If there are people of Indian origin across in the world who are being haunted and who are being troubled, we will give them citizenship in this country. All these things are apart. It's not a closed, it's an open thing which is there on the platform and the commitment is there because it's all good for humanity. We are not talking about individual rights could be there but it's a viewpoint which we have to take. We have a question here in the second row. We'll go to the back. I'll skip on responding to this. Yes, yeah, this could end up being the 9 p.m. prime time show in India if we kept going, so yeah. Thank you. My name is Aman Thakkar. I'm from the Center for Strategic International Studies. I wanted to go back to health. So the union minister for health announced that 29 out of the 33 states and union territories have joined the Ayushman Park Program. And obviously MP Kotabali, you said that coordination is needed between the states and the center. So could you speak to how your respective states have baked in these coordination mechanisms into the MOUs you are signing with the center and how existing schemes like you mentioned on health are being built upon by, in these MOUs that you're signing to build upon in the Ayushman Park scheme. Thank you. Gita and Dinesh. Because the scheme has yet to be launched. It has to be launched this month. So the MOUs are being signed. The states are creating their own societies where they have norms being laid out. They are fine tuning it to the requirements of the state. So but the whole rolling out and the ingredients of that we know a bit of it, but it's not been put across. I have to wait for another week, 20 days. And Karnataka, my state has had similar programs. We have an issue of actually coordinating between existing programs. There are multiple ones out there. And that itself is an exercise that's underway. And then of course to integrate with the Lajo National Initiative. And this also is a continuation and expansion of the Rashtriya, Swasti Abhima, Yojna that was started in our UPA years. So there's a lot of evolution mapping. There is a national health rural vision which is already in existence and the union government is supporting the states with certain programs. We are also having a support regarding this dialysis centers which have come up recently. So there is a coordination that is required between the states and the center that is very, I'm again emphasizing on that because the problem is NHS policy has to be monitored by the sitting MP in the particular districts which sometimes the states are missing on that coordination because of that there's a certain delay in actually the policies being implemented in the states. So in order to curtail the delays in the policies, definitely a better coordination will definitely help in bringing in the endpoint delivery mechanism was the center wants to do. Just a quick follow up on that. I mean, this government came to power, took the decision to abolish the planning commission and instead set up a think tank of sorts called the Niti Ayog which in theory, its mandate was given to serve as a kind of think tank or resource for the states and the center and to offer a way to coordinate things between the center and the states. So we keep coming back to this issue. Would that not be a useful role for that body to play? Anyone up here who wants to take that question? We already had a national development council. The planning commission was also some an organization that would actually interact with every state. Maybe the process by which the planning commission had so much power over the chief ministers may have caused a certain disquiet amongst chief ministers who rose to higher office. But basically the point is there was really no need to just dismantle it without a plan in place, a plan B in place. So we see how the Niti Ayog evolves and how they are gonna be able to actually allocate or ensure some kind of a platform for engaging states and the center. I do agree that yes, the coordination Niti Ayog is doing a lot of coordination. They have identified almost 107 districts which are aspirational districts and which needs the support of the union government in different activities. Not only the health education support, all sustainable development, 20 sustainable development goals they've identified and they're going to provide support. But again, even the Niti Ayog has to coordinate between the union government agencies and the state government to provide that sort of support to the districts. And the state government should also come forward, walk a step forward in developing these backward districts into more aspirational districts. We have a question in the back there. Hi, my name is Marisha Kirtanay and I work at the Women's National Democratic Club. I had a follow-up question to something you had said a little earlier, Mr. Rudi. You were talking about the Rohingya crisis and mentioned that the government was clear that refugees like that were not good for the nation. I'd love to hear a little more about what in particular the government sees as a problem there in terms of that class of refugees and why that would affect the nation. Thanks. Well, we have our one set of problems. We can't have additional people, we can't. We simply are not, like, we don't have so much of resources to take care of. We like to keep them and send them back home. That is our idea. Their home is there. So simple as that. It's not that we can. We are not saying that we already have our own set of problems feeding 1,300 million people. And we cannot have an additional burden because that was not created by us. There is an issue. And if we can talk to the US government to bring them here, we'll be more than happy to send them here. Just because it doesn't happen. We do have refugees from different parts of the world who are at home in India right now. So this is really a policy that can be internally questioned and challenged. And Rohingyas come with not just one religion, but multiple. And so there are, when I talked about Citizenship Act, that would actually provide preferential access to people who are refugees, but except for one religion. So these are complications that are unnecessary in the larger, in our perspective on things. Just like once the Supreme Court made triple talak, another triple talak, there was no need to have a law which just criminalized something that was already unheard by the Supreme Court which had no meaning at all. So these are all issues that I think we were basically saying we would not go down this path. And so just stop at that point. The purpose of legislation on triple talak when the Supreme Court said was that in case anyone became a victim of triple talak, so it had to go back to the Supreme Court again to get that relief. So a legislation had to be brought in so that they are uniformly covered because every violation of a Supreme Court ruling taking place in a village, the police inspector there would not have any authority to take up the case and any appeal had to go up to the Supreme Court which was not possible. So legislation had to be brought in so that everyone gets covered. Otherwise, I think the Supreme Court basically said that you can say talak a million times and it still won't have any effect anymore. And so that's the basic point. They agreed, they didn't have a space to go. Where would it go? If we tried to go to the police station and complain that still he has thrown me out. So that legislation was with that purpose. Let's get Dinesh the Vethi. He's one of the sisters. Now he's getting heated up. Actually, not at all. No, I can only talk about an hour and 15 seconds. No, I appreciate your question. And there is absolutely a debate going on. Our Vedas we caught court all the time. Vasudeva Kutumbakam. So if we talk about the world as a family which we believe in, then we cannot differentiate one religion with another religion and take action accordingly. Then we are no longer secular. We could be something other than secular one way or the other. So I think it's a debate and certain issues has to be looked from the humanitarian point of view because the democratic values which we talked about, the United States and India. And I'm sure there are many such countries where human values are very, very important. And we just cannot say that, oh, get lost. I think this is the issue which we all have to collectively apply our minds, including the United States, and understand how we sort out the humanitarian issue. Because if we are in public life, which we are, we have got to be very sensitive to every living creature. Why only human beings? So that's what our philosophy is. And I think the chief minister of Bengal has articulated enough on this issue. And I am confident that collectively India and the world at large will come up with some kind of a solution which will be good to humanity. Let's take a few questions and group them together and then maybe do another round. So we have one in the front. Anyone on this side? This side is suspiciously quiet. I think there was a hand back there. And then I think there was one you. OK, so let's take these four. How about that, and then we can? I hope he didn't walk out. No, no, no. I'm just joking. Hello, my name is Ashutosh Bhatnagar, and I came to US about 35 years ago. Now I'm retired. I'm a Canadian citizen and with my wife here. I want to add to a little perspective on I didn't know about universal health care program in India. I just learned here it. And I also realized that the focus of the first implementation is on tertiary. And if my understanding is correct, so she wouldn't mean primary, then specialty, and super-specialty. Super-specialty is the one. So I just want to add a perspective to it that when we came 35 years ago, this country as a graduate student with a two-year-old daughter, the school hasn't started. My primary care physician who was in the university hasn't opened yet the dispensary or the health care center was not open. And the daughter was sick with a fever, high fever. And when we called the doctor, they gave an appointment for 30 days later. We were really shocked. It took us about 10 years to realize that in America, the best health care system, the primary care care was missing. 10 years later, something else happened. Our very good friends who were on a road trip from Boston to New York, 30-year-old, had in a car accident, major, major car accident, both of them close to death. Within minutes, two helicopters arrived on the highway. They were taken care of to a super-specialty center, not in one hospital, and both survived. And that's the lesson time when I learned that in America, there's only one thing. That you can get sick, take care of yourself, but we won't let you die. And the value of life was something which came together to me. And I thought that starting with tertiary care system is going to be probably not the best solution, but probably a good start. Thanks. We had a question over here on the side. Hello. I'm Jagabanta. I'm from the World Bank. And I'm from Manipura as well. So I have a million questions, but I'm going to focus it down to my region. And I wish Mr. Rudy was here because he's from the ruling party. We have another representative of the ruling party here. OK, that sounds good. We can put him on the spot. But my question is, of course, this government has branded and rebranded a lot of policies and catchy names, et cetera. And one such rebranding was the locus policy became the acties policy. And when it happened, someone from the region observed it closely. I thought there would be a lot more action that's going to happen, not infrastructure is going to be the focus, et cetera. Connectivity is going to get a lot of attention. And I've done my research on it, and I understand what all is happening there. But as someone from the region, I don't see enough action still happening. So I would love a little bit more update. Part of the irony I feel is that we don't have Pakistan at our border. We have a Myanmar which is relatively safe. But now we are talking about China and balancing out between China and India and the US. I do certainly see, especially with the one-belt-one road and all of this coming into the region, a room for India to play a little more aggressive and strategic role. The same thing argument about Nepal that was placed earlier about why it's cheaper for Nepal to get shipments through India from the Calcutta port rather than somewhere from China applies to the Northeast. It's possibly cheaper for us to get shipments through Thailand or through Yunnan than through Calcutta via the chicken neck. So what's the action? Not so much the thinking, but what's the action happening on the ground? So two questions right there in the back and then on the aisle. And then we'll let the MPs respond. G, Claire from Institute of Development Studies. I was working in India recently. Wondering about your thoughts on Adhar and India being such a rights-based country, do you believe in the right to privacy, particularly given the recent breach? Thank you. Great. Then this gentleman here on the aisle. Hi, my name is Sharad. Mine is a much lighter question. And I think it's for all the political party representatives here. I recently graduated from Johns Hopkins Science. And one thing which I found surprising was among my American fellow students was that ease with which they can go in and out of a career in government. They could switch between a career in government and then come back to private sector and go back to government. And on a recent trip to India, I was talking to a friend who was an income tax. He said, we're talking about demonetization. He said, we don't even have. It was a well-intended policy, but we don't even have people to manage such a scheme. And I was thinking that I recently read about how 10 joint security posts have been put aside for private sector. But for a country like ours, we need to move fast on front like this. And I wanted to get answer from probably a ruling party and then maybe from Mr. Gouda, so how they think it will pan out in the next five to 10 years. Anuradji, because Rajivji is not here, would you want to take this question on the act east as a representative of the ruling party? Just wait for the mic. Rachel? Yeah. Good evening, everyone. Have a seat. Have a seat. Go back to my seat. Let me first thank you for posing this question. Why after 70 years, we are still thinking about building infrastructure in northeast? It is not that nothing has been done in the past years. Many things have been done. And there is a lot of possibility to do far better in that region. When we have seen the West doing so well in India, we wanted East also to do equally well. And for that, you need infrastructure, whether it is highways, roadways, or railways. And I'm glad to say here, more than 70,000 crore piece roads have been sanctioned. When I say this sanction and the work is on, I love that you should come back and I'll take you to a route from Tejpur to Tawang, which leads to Arunachal Pradesh. I'll take you to a couple of more states. It is not that overnight the roads can be built. You need environment clearance. You need land acquisition. You need a lot of resources to put in. And from here, from 12 kilometers per day, we have reached out to 27 kilometers per day of the road, which is the national highways, which has been built. Look at the new airports, which we are keen to open up, especially in the Northeast. We know how the connectivity works, landing at Guwahati, then driving down to most of the places. So this is, you can't see a change in just five years. We have seen a sea change. When others used to say, is it possible? Why do we need a bank account? We have opened more than 310 million bank accounts in seven months' time. When we thought that what will be deposited, only 90,000 crore rupees, which will come close to how many billion dollars? I can't do that math in my head. Don't do that. With the new $1 exchange rate, it's 8 billion. There's quite a lot of money which got into the banks. Mr. Rudy spoke about the distribution of LPG gas cylinders. It may look small today because living in a city like Washington, DC, where you have gas pipelines, the women in rural India suffer first by collecting the firewood. Then there are health issues related to this. We took care of that by distributing close to 50 million LPG gas cylinders, as well as the North East is concerned. If you look at the overall investment, I can say very proudly here that it is many folds more than what it has been done in the past. Every successive government has been very keen to reach out to every part of the India. It is not only us. Yes, our emphasis is far more in the eastern sector, where we see that many things have been lacking. And I can assure you, you will see the difference in the next couple of years. Many highways are under construction. Even railways, which are limited only to certain areas, have got the new sanctions done. Railway construction, the rail track construction in the last five years has been doubled, as well as the national highways. Now coming to the Adhar thing, I can say here, it may look difficult. We may have different views on that. But our subsidy system, whether it is the LPG gas cylinder subsidy, which goes directly into the bank accounts today, whether it is the Manrega scheme, where the money is being paid to each worker directly to their bank accounts today, whether it is the public distribution system, which is being attached with the Adhar, which is a biometric system. If you look at the overall saving of the government of India, that is more than 70,000 crore rupees. It is huge. We believe in transparency and accountability, and we have worked on that in the delivery system. And for the size of India with 1.3 billion people, five years, it's just the beginning. And if I can give you the numbers from bank loans to bank accounts, from LPG distribution, to a new scheme of Ayushman Bharat, where you'll be catering to 500 million Indians, it is not a small thing. I can understand what has been raised earlier. You need a better infrastructure. Yes, but that can happen overnight. We are opening more and more medical colleges. Every three parliamentary constituencies will have a medical college. It never happened before. I'll give you the example of my constituency in Himachal Pradesh. I didn't have even a single big hospital. In one parliamentary constituency, I'll be having Ames, which is the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, with 750 bed capacity, more than 1,500 paramedical staff and the doctors. In another district, in my constituency, I'll have the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, which is the PGI, which we only had in Chandigarh before this. In the third district, I'll have a medical college of 100 seats. Another medical college in Belaspur. So two medical colleges in these two years which never happened in the last 70 years. So it can't happen overnight that the building will be built, will have all the doctors overnight. We are taking the steps in the right direction, investment in the right direction, and I can assure you, when the private sector and the government sector comes in, we'll be able to achieve. I'll give you a small example, William, I'm taking a little more time. We're really at time, and I want to let people go, so we can wrap it up. But I have to come here. I'll show you, I'll tell you a small example. Everyone has to contribute. For example, in my constituency, when I felt that there is shortage of doctors, I started with three mobile medical units. And in less than three months' time, we have 18,000 OPDs reaching out to each panchayat. I've added two more mobile medical units. I'll be adding three more by the end of October, taking it to the eight numbers. And I have set a target of 100,000 OPDs before March 2019. In one of the districts, there's the outbreak of Dengu. Where the government could not reach, I've sent all the mobile medical units there with experts. So I think everyone has to contribute. We all, all of us are doing things differently in our constituencies. Government is doing separately. Coming back to your question, what was your last question? Privacy. Lateral entry, bringing in people from outside of government. See, you could see the reaction. I mean, Mr. Kota will also agree with me. There was reaction from certain sections, whether there should be direct entry into the services. I mean, we are starting with this. If you succeed in that, then this is an open thing. You can take it to any other level. Thanks, Secretary Levin, Dr. Cook. Thanks. We've reached our time. Thanks very much for coming. Please join me in thanking the MPs for being with us tonight. And thanks to Vicky again, and thanks to all of you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you. I want to tell you across the way to Indiaspora. I was out there for a little bit too. You and Tulsi, we were all in that room at the big show. I hope you found that speech interesting. You heard me there. Oh, yeah.