 Whenever you have a shift from a derogious economic strategy to neoliberalism, you also have a change in the structure of the state. This is true in the African countries, for instance. I mean Julius Nyerere had a planning commission. Lots of African countries, after decolonization, had their own planning commissions, but they were all dismantled. In fact, the introduction of neoliberalism over lots of third world countries takes the form of, first of all, making the finance ministry a super ministry, which actually has a supervisory hegemonic role over the other ministries, and then appointing to the decision-making positions in the finance ministry people from the Bretton Woods institutions, XIMF, X World Bank employees who are only X in the sense that they no longer are such employees, but who migrate back to their parent organizations whenever there's a change in government or whatever. So the direct control over the state structure by the Bretton Woods institutions under the neoliberal economic strategy is something which is exercised through a change in the state structure, and that is something which in India had not happened. Let's be very clear that in the Nehruvian period, for instance, if you were an employee of the World Bank or the IMF, you were not supposed to occupy a position in the government of India. That changed only in 1973. Prior to that, you couldn't just migrate from the bank and the fund to ministries positions in the JNU, I mean, sorry, in the country, or to JNU. So there is a change which has taken place. This change has occurred in other third world countries earlier, but this change finally has occurred in the Indian government as well. Now, I think that is really symptomatic of the fact that this government more than any other preceding government, all of which had adopted neoliberal strategies, is unthinkingly neoliberal, and it's actually unthinkingly neoliberal plus a few macho things like demonetization and so on, which really do not go against the grain of neoliberalism in any sense. Now, as a result, the real crisis that is staring us today is that in the world when neoliberalism has really reached a dead end, in a world in which really there is a massive crisis, in which even people like, I mean, American economists like Larry Summers are talking about capitalism having run into a chronic and permanent stagnation. And people like Larry Summers, president of Harvard, you know, kind of really a Wall Street economist is talking about capitalism has having run into a chronic stagnation when there's a real crisis of neoliberalism. We have here a state which is so unthinkingly neoliberal that the crisis is not only being imported into this country, but the country has absolutely no idea how to combat it. This is manifest in the fact that actually currently the economy is in very dire straits. Now, I shall use only government figures because I know that they don't mean much, but even they tell you how badly the state of the economy currently is, or we just talked about the fact that we had two bad consecutive bad harvest years, but let's forget them. Let's take the good harvest year, which is 2016-17. You compare the three years of the Modi government, compare 2016-17, which is a good harvest year, with 2013-14, which is prior to when Modi came to power. And you find that over these three years per capita grows domestic product at factor cost originating in agriculture in current prices, which is nothing else but roughly the per capita income of the agriculture dependent population has gone up in current price terms of about 16%. When you actually look at the consumer price index number for rural India that has gone up by 16.8, roughly 17%, that means the per capita real income of the agriculture dependent population over this three year period has actually marginally declined. It certainly has not gone up. It has marginally declined. And let's be very clear, we are talking about half the population of the country because we have 50% roughly of the workforce engaged in agriculture. And if you assume that the workforce population ratio is roughly the same in agriculture as elsewhere, then we are talking about half the population of the country. Half the population of the country has witnessed over this three year period not only no increase in their real per capita incomes, but even a marginal decline. And this is quite independent of the interim years of drought because I'm really comparing point to point. When it comes to the non-agricultural sector, what happens in the non-agricultural sector is roughly dependent upon the level of demand. In other words, agriculture is not a demand constrained sector, but non-agriculture industry, what happens in the industrial or the services sectors roughly depends upon what the level of demand is. Now, of course, a lot of the demand for these sectors products are generated by the incomes of these sectors themselves. That is, they're endogenously determined. But obviously that is, as it were, a second order effect. Fundamentally, if you want to see what is happening in these sectors, then you have to look at the autonomous components of demand. What are the autonomous components of demand? One of the obvious autonomous components of demand is agricultural incomes. And we have seen that agricultural incomes are not increasing. If anything per capita, they're actually declining. So that autonomous element of demand is something which is not providing a stimulus to the for the rest of the economy. And incidentally, the fact of agricultural incomes declining over this period is part of the general anti petty production bias of neoliberal economic strategy, which is quite well known and I did not labor the point. The other element of autonomous demand for the non agricultural sector would arise from net exports to the world economy. And we know that in the world economy, because of the crisis, the possibilities of net exports have dried up. Currently, we find that the world economic crisis being imported to the Chinese economy being imported to the Indian economy. And of course, the magnitude of this import would be greater to the extent that Donald Trump pursues beggar my neighbor policies to generate employment in the United States. Such beggar my neighbor policies basically amount to exporting unemployment to other countries because you protect your own economy to the extent that the overall slowing down of the world demand is compounded by Donald Trump's policies of exporting unemployment to other economies. We find that that as a source of autonomous demand for the Indian economy is actually now drying up quite seriously. The third major source of autonomous demand for any economy is of course government expenditure. Typically, what you find is when the other autonomous sources of demand are drying up, government expenditure should be increasing. That is what a thinking government should be doing rather than an unthinking one. Let's look at what has been happening in India. Purely in nominal terms, let's just look at central government expenditures, the percentage increase year by year. In 2014-15, which is the first year of Modi government, total central government expenditure increased nominally by 6.7%. The second Modi year, it increased again by about 6%. The third Modi year because of the fact that that was the pay commission reports recommendations being implemented, it increased by about 12.5%. And we know that in the 2017-18 budget estimates again is supposed to increase by about 6%. Now, 6% nominal increase in a situation where the nominal GDP is increasing by about 10-11% implies that there is a contraction of central government expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Therefore, far from there being an autonomous demand coming from the government, stimulating the economy, we actually find a contraction when it comes to the government's autonomous demand. And as a result, what is happening is that really the impact of neoliberalism in shrinking, contracting, affecting adversely the economy of this country, far from being combated by a thinking government pursuing intelligent counteracting strategies, you find just the opposite because the government precisely in this period has decided to be fiscally conservative because that is what the Bretton Woods institutions have forever been preaching. And this government takes more seriously than any previous government, the preachings of the Bretton Woods institutions about what is good for the economy. And as a result, we actually have cyclical policies of the kind of pro-cyclical in the sense that in a period of contraction, the contraction is being worsened and what Atul was saying in terms of the reduction in employment, which is quite dramatic. In fact, currently the additional number of jobs being created in the organized sector is roughly about a quarter of what was happening about six, seven years ago. So we have a remarkable contraction as far as employment generation is concerned. We have a decline as far as the per capita income of half the population of this country is concerned. And of course, all this is going to get further compounded because in the United States we find from the latest data that the economic crisis is actually getting accentuated. Everybody was talking about the U.S. economy reviving that has been shown to be untrue. In fact, in the U.S. once more, you have a kind of revival of the crisis and accentuation of the crisis. And this directly and Trump's policies in response to it are going to affect the Indian economy very badly. And unfortunately at this point we actually have a government that unthinkingly follows neoliberalism and that would therefore only worsen the impact of all these factors on the Indian economy. Thank you.