 So, let me make a few sharp points as a collective answer. One, no question the world is more nationalistic than in the past and a lot of that nationalism is economic nationalism and cultural nationalism. Second, I would say where India is concerned, we in a way are a standout, we are an exception. Because in this country you could say, yes we are more nationalistic, but at the same time we don't see a tension between being nationalistic and being international in the sense of dealing more with the world and engaging more with the world. So, the nationalism is not a kind of a negative sentiment directed at the world. In fact, people generally feel if you're going up, you should be doing more things with the world, not less things with the world. Third, in a more multipolar, your word, a nationalistic, my word, world, I think we need, we will see diplomacy take different forms where the old ways of working will now not go away, but be tempered by much more, I would say, creative, innovative ad hoc kind of working arrangements often centering around issues rather than across the board. So, the character of international politics will probably change in many ways. Four, you have, I agree with you, I think a lot of multilateral regimes will come under stress. How they survive will depend on how they respond to that. They will come under stress partly because of this nationalism that I spoke about. To some extent, a lot of them are also being critiqued for how well they work or don't work. So, there's a kind of performance audit on multilateral regimes also going on. Sometimes that can take very unfair directions because if you do a performance audit with a very self-centered nationalistic view, then I'm not sure, I'd agree with the conclusions of that audit. But certainly that too is a factor. So, all in all, I would say more complicated world, definitely a more interesting one, possibly a more difficult one. But where India is concerned, you also made a reference to G2. That's something we have never accepted, we've never been comfortable with. I think partly what would also distinguish us from other countries is that we still have a very strong relationship with countries of the South. And we, in many negotiations, which we would have seen as trade ministers as well, we not only stand for our own interests, to a large extent we voice collective interests of the developing world, G77, for example, certainly when it comes to trade or when it comes to climate change. So, I think that's also a constituency for us. Now, when you look at all of this, you put on the one hand say, okay, it's all getting more difficult, probably true. But you could also say that we are in a very unique position, that today being a market economy, a democracy, socially pluralistic, we have comfort with the West. Being Asian, part of the rise of Asia, we have comfort with a lot of this rebalancing in Asian countries. Having a G77 constituency, working with countries of Africa and Asia, we have a much stronger bonding with those countries. So, I think we could be at the right intersection, a lot of it therefore requires active diplomacy to make sure that those constituencies are all sort of brought together. That's very much the intention of the government. So, what you have seen really definitely over the last five years and you saw recently at the UN, is a willingness today to go out, engage countries, visit more countries and therefore, you can see a new energy in foreign affairs.