 The clear violation of the NDI rules with respect to healing is sought to be bypassed by claiming that Walmart, Amazon, FedCard are really in this case, not retaining it, but somehow acting as a meeting place. Now this is a total figment of imagination. It's just, shall we say, a nice legal fiction. Mr. Jankley's department seems to have created that just by changing the language, you convert online retail to nothing but a meeting place. When we know all the practices of NDI are in retail, in fact they are just online retail. So this is a legal violation which is taking place and the government has allowed this to happen only in order to help the so-called online retail sector. The second point I'd like to make is that if we see this as the issue, then I think what we need to talk about is really controlling foreign investments in online retail because increasingly the difference between online and offline retail is going to become more and more thin. So therefore, if we are talking about retail and talk about all the issues of handing over our retail to foreign companies, I think this is not even the thin end of the wedge, it's the thick end of the wedge by which our retail market is being taken over in the name of online retail and we need to therefore focus on the basic issue of NDI in so-called online retail. The second point I'd like to really focus on is if you look at what Prabhak talked about as the employment, well, reality is that Flipkart employed 8,000 permanent workers and about 20,000 part-time workers. This is a transient workforce that creates very few full-time workers. So even in terms of employment, it generates a very, very small fraction of employment compared to the 4 to 5 billion directly employed in retail. So even in terms of due to poverty, you're not really generating anything. It's a double monopoly with Walmart and Amazon both controlling the retail sector. We are going to have a monopoly when it comes to the producers, they are bargaining with monopolies, so maybe they do a monopoly in that sense and then we are also then going to face a monopoly. It's just a double monopoly, both for producers who have to sell to the retailers and for us who have to buy to them. So you get this do a two-part, two-sided monopoly which is what retail really generates. The third point I would like to look at is the kind of conditions that Walmart and Amazon as employers have created. Yes, Walmart drove out all the mom and pop stores in the United States. Small retail dies. That is the first mass, shall we say, closure of retail that took place when Walmart became a monopoly. But their internal practices have been both for Amazon and Walmart, one of the most aggressive in the world. Amazon preferred to provide ambulances to take their workers working under conditions in their warehouses of extreme heat rather than try to control the temperature. They calculated, it's a simple economic calculation, taking them on a heat stroke by an ambulance is cheaper than providing some amount of air conditioning and this is not the only one. Amazon and Walmart have created conditions of employment by which without food stamps and other support that the state provides their workers cannot survive. This is the nature of this, this shall be said, these companies, those who believe that Walmart and Walmart and Amazon will provide high value, large employment is an alternative, this is just not going to happen. So I think we should look at all of this and decide as a country that we recognize that online offline retail is increasingly going to get blurred and therefore the MDI rules for online retail should be not any different from that of offline retail and this distinction must go and the government must act on what the MDI rules in the sector are saying.