 Good morning everybody, good morning and welcome. My name is Jim McNerney, I am Chairman of the Bowling Company and it's my great pleasure to moderate the next discussion. If things don't go well, it'll be my fault, not Dave Cody's, I'll argue about it forever. Thank you Ambassador Burns, Ashley and the entire CEIP team for organizing this important and very timely event, concurrent with the U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue in the U.S.-India CEO4. Obviously before we dive in, I would like to introduce the panelists here. I think we've got people roughly in order. Where's Michael, Michael Burke, where are you? Michael Burke, Chairman and CEO of AECOM, Chip Kay, Co-CEO Warburg Pincus, he's right here, Kiran Mazumdar Shah, Chairperson and Managing Director, Biocon, to my right, Sunil Bharti Mital, Chairman Bharti Enterprises, right here, Cyrus Mystery, Chairman Tata Group and finally my good friend Dave Cody, Chairman and CEO of Honeywell. We could not assemble a better panel than this one to have this discussion. We're very fortunate. Let me make a few comments to set the stage for our panel discussion and the audience Q&A to follow. I think President Obama's visit to India earlier this year underscored the importance of our bilateral strategic relationship, one that grows closer and more consequential every year. It is a partnership rooted in shared values of democracy, supported by economic cooperation and increasingly shaped by common security interests as well. The 2005 civil nuclear agreement represented a very important milestone that strengthened trust and expanded the depth and breadth of our bilateral ties. Since then, the U.S. has become India's largest trading partner. About $100 billion last year, a figure that is targeted by all to reach half a trillion. The United States also has become one of India's major suppliers of defense systems, but enough about myself. Our industrial cooperation is expanding with the Make in India initiative to include co-production and co-development of cutting edge next generation defense hardware. Prime Minister Modi's upcoming visit to the United States only days away now has the potential to take the relationship to even a higher level. The Prime Minister is pursuing several very ambitious reform initiatives very aggressively to make it easier to do business in India and help India compete more effectively globally. From the perspective of U.S. business, progress in areas relating to investor confidence, for control, tax rates, and related legal issues is necessary to fully realize the growth potential of the Indian economy and the U.S.-India economic partnership. Which brings us to today's panel. We are privileged to have CEOs representing business sectors important to both the United States and India from aerospace and defense, a special interest of mine as well as telecom, biotech, and diverse multinational companies. As moderator, I will do my best to draw from them insights about the business climates in our two countries as well as ways to strengthen our industrial and government ties. I should add that the topics here are particularly timely for me as I will be traveling to India in October to participate in a Boeing sponsored summit on innovation and science and technology leadership. With that, I would like to get the discussion underway. Let's start with the big picture if we may. And I'd like to target Cyrus and Dave Cody, one from the U.S. side, obviously, and then Cyrus of Tata from the Indian side. Maybe, Dave, you could jump in and just give us your take on the state of the bilateral economic relationship between two countries, broad stroke. And then maybe Cyrus could jump in after that. Yeah, I'm encouraged by the potential and a bit encouraged by the progress. And I guess the thing that seems interesting is 20 years ago, there was an opening in India. And it was Mahan Singh as finance minister who created an opening and it actually was beneficial for a long time. Then everything kind of went into a stasis and not much seemed to happen anymore. And it seems like we're on the cusp of another reawakening, which would be wonderful to see for the country. And it seems to me that there's a real opportunity for the U.S. and India to work together to help create that opening. And you only have to do a little bit of work in India to realize the bureaucracy is stultifying. It is, I was joking with Cyrus earlier today and said, it was like India took British bureaucracy, doubled it, and added ten times the people. And it just makes getting anything done almost impossible. And that bureaucracy needs to speed up, needs to become a lot more focused on helping business, helping the people do better and become more decision focused. And I see a lot of the effort of the Indian government focused on trying to make that happen, which is a wonderful thing. It seems to me that from a U.S. business perspective, we can help with that. And we can be talking about here are some of the issues that we're seeing. Here's what needs to happen if you really want to increase the prosperity for your people. And I've been quite encouraged by the energy that I've seen from both governments as Cyrus and I run the U.S. India CEO Forum. I've been quite encouraged by the energy that I see from both governments being applied to the CEO Forum this time. And I've been involved with this effort for ten years now. It's really quite encouraging to see both governments engaging, trying to make things happen on both sides of the world here. So I'm actually pretty bullish about what could happen. I really think we're on the cusp of something that could make India an incredibly productive economy for a long period to come. Thanks, David. Cyrus? I'd echo what Dave said, and that's I think a couple of things. One is India from an economic position as of today has tremendous tailwinds. And I think it's political stability, the strength of the government. The government is very clear and open to thoughts in terms of ease of doing business and I think that's a reflection in the actions that they've taken. These are all positive and moving in the right direction. So from a policy framework, from an economic tailwinds, we are in I would say a very good position. The challenge today for the government in India is implementation. And I think that's something that we need to work together with the government relentlessly and continuously to make sure that that improves. And I think it will improve. It's not going to be one big bang. It's going to be a continuous process and it's going to take some time. From the perspective of the India-US dialogue, I see as Dave does a huge amount of energy whether it's the CEOs on the forum and the government itself. Tremendous amount of energy to make sure things happen. I think we need to make sure that we choose the right areas to focus on and not diffuse ourselves as well. I think that's a challenge because actually there's a lot that needs to be done. I think today it's important that we encourage both governments to take the right steps in the right direction, knowing fully well that there are challenges and issues on both sides. But directionally, clearly, it's for us to encourage that. So realistic but hopeful. I think that's the Dave and Styra's message. A second question, there's a lot of discussion in the press now about how India is overtaking China in terms of growth rate. Truly impressive. I guess the question I would turn it around and maybe I could engage Sunil and Kuram here on the Indian side. Are those expectations too high in terms of that kind of sustained growth rate as compared to China? Are there unintended consequences of expecting that much of the Indian economy? Or is it all good? Well, I think India is poised in a very interesting way because of, as you just heard from Cyrus, I think the tale brings us. And I also believe that the macroeconomics globally also play to India's favorable position at the moment. I just also wanted to make a brief reference to the opportunities in some sectors. Health care is one sector of strategic importance, which has been recognized from both sides. And I think here I would say that over the last two decades, there has been an intuitive strategic and symbiotic relationship that has been built between the US and in the pharma space. Where you've seen actually a natural fit and alignment of these two sectors. And both countries are very hugely invested in each other. I think generics have become a very, very important part of the Indian pharma space, which have actually played a very significant role in the global, in the healthcare space in the US. I think it's estimated that India basically contributes to almost 30% by volume of generics. And the US actually has benefited over the last 10 years, almost a trillion dollars in terms of savings to the exchequer to generics. Now, I think we are not talking enough about this very strong partnership that we've built over the years. I think there is job creation on both sides. This is a great make in India story for India, because I think US companies are leveraging the manufacturing base in India to really be globally competitive and to help their own businesses. So I think this is a very poorly told story. I think I'd like to focus on that opportunity like in many other sectors. I think we're not really focusing and sort of showcasing these success stories, which are often mired with the controversy that have blown out of proportion. I think the pharmaceutical sector has always been the target of IP disputes or IP concerns, quality issues. These are all highly amplified by media in both parts of the world. And I think this is something that as a part of the CEO forum, I'd really like to focus on seeing how do we play to each other's strength. And build this as a sector of strategic importance, because we actually have a huge partnership along the continuum, right from pharmaceuticals to software services in health IT, to innovation through many, many aspects of the whole continuum. So I really believe that this is one area that needs to be built in a very strategic way because it has a win-win. It does represent 18% of the US economy and offering both productivity and innovation if we can figure out the partnership. Well, I think you know a company like Divya certainly figured out that partnership. I think they've done extremely well in recognizing the market access. It's an opportunity to meet India. And India also has recognized the value of these kind of partnerships. So I think it's a very- Okay, thank you very much, Sunil, some observations. To your point, will India be sustaining its growth rate? My own view is that 7% for a nation like India with all the strong fundamental factors that they support is given. The question is, can we go quickly to 8% and beyond? And that's the desire of our leadership back home in India. The prime minister, the government and the bureaucracy would want to do that. So I would say the instincts are right. They would like to see higher growth, they get it that we can only take millions of people out of poverty by firing the economic engine and everything that needs to be done from the top is being done. And I do hear Dave's message of some frustration this morning. We heard Secretary Pritzker talk about ease of doing business in India. He said they have lower level on the World Bank report. It is not as low as 186, what she mentioned is 142, but that's nothing to celebrate. The Prime Minister of India would like to get to 15. And I think on one hand that is a very important aspiration to hold. But equally, it is difficult in some aspects as well because they are trying to interest with their legacy issues. The bureaucracy is still very large as Dave mentioned. But I think we need to see the brighter side. Amongst the committee of nations today, China has slowed down. One big massive growth engine of the world has definitely slowed down. But there's no question about that, yeah. Brazil was downgraded last week. Russia, South Africa are both struggling with their currencies. One account of commodities going down. The other is on account of sanctions and other political issues. So India amongst the bricks is clearly standing out. Currency depreciation has been rather modest, 3 to 4%. Growth rates are still at 7.2%. So I would say overall, given the size of the Indian market, it's a continent of consumers. My own frustration and to some extent the question to my American friends is, why is the US not doing more? Yes, I know there are frustrations and a lot of them would want to do more. But I think together we need to keep on pushing the agenda. Indian industry faces the same hurdle. It's not that we have a privileged position in the Indian industry. We get frustrated at this very time, but we need to uniterally push this through. And the number this morning mentioned was $28 billion. But of this $14 billion came in the last 10 years. I think it's hopefully an advocate for a country like the US. Why can't this be $140 billion? And that's the capacity, that's the level of partnership that both countries can have. India actually put 17 billion back at FBI into the US in the same period of the last 10 years. So I would really like US to pick up the advantage of being a natural ally and partner of India, both politically and I would say on the trade side. And we are all here. SIRAS leading the charge of Indian CEOs to push this agenda forward. And I really would encourage people to see the brighter side. We are today in a unique position where besides being a very nice domestic market for all the products that the US would want to sell. Also in an economy which requires absolute fighting up on all cylinders and US concern. So not only an absolute major growth opportunity, but in comparison to other developing countries and even greater distance between India and the others. And it is anomalous that Indian companies are spending more in the US in investment than vice versa. Maybe we could drill down on that question and get Michael Chip and Dave from the US side. The make in India, the skilling India and the digital India initiatives are all designed to sort of increase the level of partnership between the two economies in very real ways. What are the opportunities and what are the challenges in these initiatives? Are they real? Are they making a difference? Chip, maybe you could start and then Michael and Dave. Sure, why did I go something Sunil started to start with saying to start with which is having been an investor many ways on the side of the Indian industry for the last 20 years. The issues while occasionally show up in the context of foreign interests, the issues are largely domestic in nature, right? They're largely as India is coming to grips itself with it's the balancing act between the role of the market versus the role of the state. The degree of engagement that it chooses in the world around trade and the like and whether that sees it as a positive or a negative. And frankly coming to grips with its own sort of demographic profile, which is it's greatest strength and if it's not careful, it's greatest burden. And I think the issues in my view are quite domestic in nature and they're sort of the search for its own soul, the search for its own path that it chooses to take. Well forget India's embrace of economic reform was born of crisis 25 years ago as Dave mentioned. And in many ways I would argue this Prime Minister Modi in this election was sort of the first time it was more of an ideological debate within the country that had a much more pro-development pro-growth message that underlined it. And I think that is sort of what represents the positive spirits and spark that you sort of see having cropped up. The reality is we're 16 months into that or something. So there's still, and this is a decade long process of changing what had been sort of a lot of entrenched bureaucracy and entrenched difficulty of kind of doing business as we've all resonated one way or another. So I actually think campaigns and slogans and concerted efforts that you talked about in a number of those areas is sort of a, in my view, that's the way to kind of create political energy within the space to take on the very entrenched interests and the bureaucratic struggles that go on in the context of trying to kind of take a place and move it in a much more fundamental way. My own view is this is a ten year long exercise. And so we're all trying to carve out these one year report cards and whatever report cards the reality is, it's one of those things that we will all look back in a handful of years and sort of see that it's begun to sort of take off in an accelerated fashion or not. In terms of potential, it's quite clear. If you roamed around the world and say where else do you have that has the potential over a 20 year stretch to create a $10 trillion economy over the next 20 years, this is probably it. And you get growth rates that go up into those high single digits, 10%. You do that for a 20 year stretch, and that's transformational. So I don't think there's any doubt that that potential exists. The world's ready for it, right? I mean, the world, if you looked at low commodity and energy prices, which has always been one of India's Achilles heels. If you look at a world that is struggling to grow, I think the opportunity is right at the moment. But potential, it's that translation of potential into reality that I think we're all sort of commenting on in one shape or another. So the right mix of impatience, but patience as we approach this. Michael, what are your comments? You know, Jim, you mentioned the issue of how India make India, skilling India. I think sometimes people look at this as being more protectionism, and I don't think that's the right way to look at it. From our perspective, if we are going to increase the bilateral engagement between our two countries, it is this skilling of India that our organization is very focused on because our expectation is that we cannot fly in the resources on a consistent basis to create a long-term sustainable organization in that country. And our business is primarily in the infrastructure space. And so the entire skilling of India initiative fits very well with us because our expectation is that we are going to build a solid sustainable platform of Indian expertise, but we're going to layer on a very small number of expats, bringing that global expertise so that we have a long-term sustainable business model that can bring about the change that's necessary in the country. And as we're talking about infrastructure, India is no different than just about any other country that I travel to. We don't go many places that we stand back and say they have too much good quality infrastructure. And India is no different. The need for infrastructure to reduce some of the friction on the economy that we see today. And it's maybe more difficult in India because of the fragmented nature of the democracy in India that doesn't allow a consistent cohesive infrastructure strategy. But starting to see that with the smart city initiatives and our U.S. Commerce Department has been very actively engaged with the Indian counterparts on developing smart cities and taking a much more holistic approach to infrastructure in the country. And as you look at the development of the commerce in India, one of the big holdbacks is the limitation on quality infrastructure, whether it's the more productive use. As that starts to evolve, we start to see a parallel trend of urbanization. And again, not particular to India, but in all the major metro markets in the world, we're seeing a mass urbanization. And in the next 20 years, expected about 600 million people will live in the urban environments in India, putting in an even greater taxation on the infrastructure as it exists. So we're starting to see this skilling of India come together with the need for infrastructure, with the need for smart city engagement. And all of that will contribute to eliminate some of the friction in the economy as we see it today. Thank you, Michael. That's very helpful. David. Yeah, I'm a big fan of the country, as you probably know, because we've gone over the last 13 years from about 500 people there to a little over 13,000. So we're pretty well committed and do believe in the future of it. My concern is going to come back to the bureaucracy, though. And I don't think we can understate the difficulty of doing business in India. And we can talk about how great the growth rate is now, and that's good. But is it going to be sustainable if we don't create a more responsive bureaucracy? And we look at the new, the making India, et cetera. All very good. I'm very supportive of it. But I think it's instructive to go back to the buildup of the software industry in India. And you ask Indians, why was the software industry able to do it and other industries not quite so well? And the answer will be because the industry grew faster than the regulators could grow to control it. And I don't think we should lose sight of that as we start thinking about some of this. But the PM is trying to get done with his team to make a more responsive bureaucracy, to WTO, get a bilateral investment treaty so that we could further open up the country. I think those things are going to be critical if we want the idea of an 8% to 10% constantly growing GDP. And I wouldn't lose sight of that. And we've made a big commitment to the country. It's a very big point, Dave. And I think sometimes us non-Indian CEOs lose sight of the fact that Indian CEOs have been dealing with that bureaucracy a lot longer than we have. So maybe to take Dave's point and Karen and then run through to Sunil and sorry, how do we make real progress there? And can you use us as an excuse to get it done in India? Well, in all fairness, I think we are beginning to see that bureaucracy is becoming very receptive and responsive to various requests and asks from industry. At least I'm seeing that happen in a very graphite way. Because up until now, like Dave said, I think bureaucracy was a deterrent. In many sectors, they were over-regulated, including the health care sector. I can tell you that we are really sort of battling with very, very, very stringent regulations. But I think even there, I find that the bureaucracy is actually seized off this particular issue. I think we have many, many areas in biotechnology that we are trying to deal with. The National Biodiversity Bill being one of them. But I'm glad to see that the Ministry of Environment actually is very seized off this problem. And they're willing to basically work with various stakeholders to see how they can enable industry to basically invest in some of these areas. Similar is the case in health care. I think the prime minister has actually set up an IPR task force in response to certain concerns expressed by various fronts, including the US. And I think here, again, there is a very positive mood that has set into this whole area where there is a huge amount of stakeholder consultation. There is a new IPR policy that is on the anvil. And I think here, again, the government is being extremely proactive and pragmatic about the kind of IPR policy it wants to come out with, which will put India into a much stronger position. Because it does believe in innovation. And it believes that the new IPR policy must encourage and enable innovation. And that itself is going to create a huge partnership opportunity between the US and India. So I think there are a lot of positives going in that direction. But like everyone said, it has to be implemented expeditions. I think if you talk about great ideas and if you talk about all the things happening, moving in the right direction, that's one thing. But we want to see it implemented sooner than later. And I think that's what it's all about. That's encouraging. Sunil, do you share the sense of movement? Yeah, I clearly sense the frustration that you're saying, but I also see the movement. And I think India is trying to approach it in two different directions and trying to get to the same point. One is taking discretion away. I think that, to my mind, is a starting point that you can simplify a lot of things of industry, trade, touch points with the government. Last week itself, the incumbent department has just come out that they will now deal with all the assesses on an electronic method, which means you will not see a face of a tax inspector, which is the case even today. For every assessment, either you or your shadow accountant needs to shift face to face with an inspector on the other side. Now that creates his own problems, corruption, stresses. Now they are saying all of those will shift to via mail. You respond via mail. You don't see a person. When you're not in contact with anyone, I think you take away a lot of issues. On Dave's point on WTO, DFA, Trade Facilitation Agreement, I think India is absolutely committed now. I expect India to ratify its own siding in Nairobi in December when the next 100 WTO happened. Before that, we're trying to work with the government to ensure that when we sign on that day, we have a lot of paperwork on the imports and exports taken away and bring it down to almost best in class. We may not be close to two papers like Singapore, but down from several papers to four or five of the desirable board. So paperwork reduction, taking discretion the way is one side. The other side, we are exorting the bureaucracy to start being more pragmatic, being more supportive of the industry. And last but not the least, large parts of this now are in the stake. There are many state governments which are inviting you like your governor's in the US. If you have land, they'll give you electricity. They'll give you concessions. And it started to happen state by state. Last week, the World Bank's report on ranking for the states came out for the first time ever. And every state, which is on the other end of the table, which is the half, the lower side, are all saying we are going to do something by the next year so that we can very thoroughly jump up. So I think a lot of action is happening. We must, therefore, pick that part up and celebrate the positive side. And hopefully, that will ensure that we prevail over the negative side. That's a very interesting comment about the states, because sometimes American companies have had a view that the states and the federal government pointed each other. And it's almost a shared bureaucracy designed to make it frustrating for you. But you're describing a different dynamic, where the states now feel empowered to set the standard. That's very different. Cyrus, you've had your brushes with the bureaucracy in India. What are some of your comments? So I think what's very important going into the future, that's not only for India, but I think globally, with the level of volatility that we see, it's extremely important that the coordination between industry and government is very strong. And the ability to work nimbly together with trust as a factor and to be able to influence appropriate policy frameworks because of technology moving significantly is going to be very important. And I think the idea is, how do we create those institutional frameworks to actually work together? We in the CEO forum have also suggested something. Dave, maybe you'd like to just touch on what we're talking about in terms of the follow up, the mechanism that we want to talk about and put in place. OK. Go ahead. I think. You're going to see with the recommendations that we make this time, which are quite extensive. But one of the important things is going to be that there has to be some kind of joint management operating system, or MOS, between the two governments to make all these recommendations happen. Because we've done this enough in the past to know that we can get a group of CEOs together. We can make all kinds of recommendations. But it's the governments that actually have to do something. And if we can get some kind of joint management operating system where they hold themselves accountable, they have goals, there's things that need to get done, I think we have a standard real chance of moving the bureaucracies in both countries to really make a difference. Jim, can I comment? We talk about bureaucracy in a very all-encompassing way. But one of the things that I think we should be focused on is to try to pick off some of the low-hanging fruit and be very specific. And one of the areas that certainly in our industry we've had quite a bit of challenges is around dispute resolution. And so when I think of bureaucracy in that context, it's bureaucracy within the judicial system. And if we are going to focus on the improvement of the urban environment, smart cities, infrastructure, the disputes that inevitably arise in the context of construction is just a way of doing business. And so having a dispute resolution system that is a little more streamlined than it exists today in India would not only facilitate the implementation of infrastructure, but more importantly, encourage foreign investment in infrastructure, encourage foreign participation in the necessary infrastructure. And right now you see the average dispute resolution process taking almost five years in India. So bringing a little more certainty to that will encourage more investment, will encourage more foreign participation and implement much more quickly than necessary infrastructure in the country. That is a big deal. You'd rather have bad news in a month and a half than good news five years later. Just by the basis. I think to that, I think the government actually is, as you know, looking at revamping the arbitration and dispute resolution act. And I think that's a very positive move forward. With a time bound approach. I think I couldn't agree with you more. I think that's crucial for not only the infrastructure side, but there's a number of challenges and issues which is blocked up in the legal system and the dispute resolution mechanisms that we have. The government again has taken on board to bring on the bankruptcy act, which again has a lot of assets locked into the system. So I think what we're seeing is the government looking at setting up and looking at the plumbing. They're putting these things in place. So there's an element of doing something fast and there's an element of setting up some of the institutional framework which would actually help us move much better into the future. Very good, Chip. Do you want to weigh in before we change? I was actually gonna come back quickly to something Sunil said, which is to ask sort of, so why is it that the opportunity hasn't grown more? And I think we've talked about some of it. The reality as Dave sort of said, I mean a lot of people, their discovery of India was sort of a decade ago. There was sort of a run up in the market. There were these iconic successes that came out of the Indian IT industry. Sunil's great success, others in the room here. And then there was sort of this stasis period of time that kind of wasn't terrible, but it sort of meandered for some period of time. And it feels like we're at that point again where we kind of need to go find some of that iconic success. I think the challenge to some degree is that the nature of some of that opportunity is a little different. So take infrastructure as an example, which we were talking a little bit about. I think sometimes there's this expectation that from the US government side that that's where the opportunity lies. And US government doesn't really do infrastructure as we've all kind of learned much less domestically, but it's a private sector activity. So we don't do well at these government to government sort of broad show up with kind of a vendor and a large financing package. And we're gonna build the rail infrastructure from point A to point B. Rather I think it is more that entrepreneurial private sector collaboration that's much more at play. And I think the other point that was just mentioned I think is dead right is I think a lot of times in the past India sort of enjoyed bureaucratic interpretation as a way to kind of get the system to work. And I think for most people from the US perspective it's that clarity and certainty that they look for as opposed to that bureaucratic interpretation that scares them off. And so I think the more that they can migrate things to a place where there's clarity, tax is sort of the classic example. I think the examples that I was giving is exactly probably no US company that does business there that hasn't experienced some form of a tax inquiry, multiple times and that's the kind of thing that kind of saps the strength of an organization that's sort of looking to make bigger and broader commitments. I think the one thing I'm taking away from what you're all saying is the potential is almost limitless if some of these doing business in India issues can be addressed. Whether it's IP, whether it's tax, whether it's dispute resolution, whether it's some making some more common sense out of some offset obligations, a whole series of things that can double, triple, quadruple the amount of investment. And that's what it's going to take to get to that half a trillion dollars in trade. Let's flip it around now. Maybe I could start with the Indian CEOs. Maybe you, Karan, the investing in the US. Even though Indian firms have done a little bit better and maybe Dave and Cyrus are gonna weigh in on this one too with their report. But what are the impediments? We tend to be pretty preachy about everybody else a friendly place to invest, but we're not always the most friendly ourselves. Do you have any comments on some areas where we could prioritize our advocacy of our government to facilitate further investment from your side? Well, I think there are issues at least in sectors like ours where I think there are regulatory barriers of entry many times there are certain company formation issues which often are difficult to comply with. So I think these are some of the things but it's nothing unsurmountable. I would say that Indian companies are very committed to investing in the US. I think again, tax is the double taxation treaty and those are the kind of issues that also need to be resolved in a very clear, succinct way because that's what makes it difficult for companies on investments in this part of the world. But other than that, I think Indian industry is very committed because the US is our biggest market. So I think we are very heavily invested in the US. Creating a large number of jobs as well, local jobs and again, it's manufacturing jobs and of course, the pharmaceutical sector is largely in manufacturing in the US apart from a few jobs in marketing but I think that's the strength of this relationship because it's a two-way investment where US companies have also invested hugely in the make in India opportunity that plays to their advantage. Sunil, do you have any comments coming back this way? You know, I'm going to invest here myself but I will pick up points from my other colleagues and whatever happens in the US. One issue that is amazing is the visa. I think that's a big issue when you set up companies here because of the big talent from India that is still considerably restricted. Yeah, more than rewardable. That's a debate which can go on endlessly because immigration is becoming a very touchy point across the globe. The fact is that the 20 to 25 million jobs will be shot in the Western world and they will come from somewhere in the world and I personally believe there are only three places that can come from Africa, Saudi Arabia, or India. I mean, they are the young populations which can migrate easily. Africa doesn't have enough skill sets to manage their own affairs and they don't have enough talent in the fight. Saudi are less mobile, I would say, they're well off at home, they earn decent salary. India is a country where people are going to move, they have a global workforce, they have a better skill and easily integrate wherever they go. So I personally believe the Western world, including the US, needs to be more pragmatic in opening up the visa for the right skills that the country would need. And the second is I think a long draw issue of totalization of deductions that have those migrant workers who are coming back to work. When their pension and other deductions take care of them they'll never get back to place where they go. That's a long outstanding issue that is there. There are two points I'd like to ask. Okay, Sunil, thank you very much. Cyrus, do you have a... I think both Kiran and Sunil have captured it very well. I think personally, I think the US itself is relatively a much easier place to work than most other countries and hence you start off from a better base. I think skill mobility is something which is key for a fundamental tenant and the trade-in services. So we always talk about manufacturing, but the trade-in services is crucially important I think in becoming a larger and larger part of every country's GDP going into the future. So I think these are an important challenges but at the same point in time, I think a strong one. So what I'm hearing in order to meet the half a trillion dollar objective, there's more of a fulcrum in India than there is here. I think that's also opportunities where we maybe need to leverage from the US side which we haven't enough of yet. And I think one of them is actually on the intellectual property side in terms of from our educational institutions working together. I think that's an area which we've nearly not done enough on and I think that's a huge opportunity which exists. Thank you, Cyrus. Chip, did you want to say something? I just want to make two quick points. One is I think, not to get off the point. Sometimes we have a habit of create our own list and then when there's sort of something back the other way, we sort of say, well, that's politically difficult. Visas and totalization being sort of the classic example where the analyst runs, well, that's sort of the third rail we can't get at that. So take that off the list. Not exactly kind of fair. Two, I'd say one big opportunity that probably you and Dave were probably better served to talk about is sort of what may come out of defense cooperation as a big unexploited opportunity to debate to date as a result of some fundamental change that's gone on unrelated, but at the same time I would say this is all on the commercial economic side. There is a national security set of issues to have talked about and US policy in the region and what happens as we withdraw out of Afghanistan and what's happening in Pakistan, big issues that we should not underestimate the potential for those to sort of undermine what might be good progress on the commercial and economic side and misinterpreting at this very moment where I think there may be some pretty serious misunderstanding. And last really quick point I make is a lot of this, I always tend to find that people from India have a much deeper, richer perspective on life in the US than many the other way around. One stat I saw recently, it was fascinating to me was, and the number probably undercounts it, but there's something more than 100,000 Indian students in US universities because there's many more that would be ethnically Indian but don't carry Indian passports. I think the US number in India is less than 4,000 which would rank just behind Argentina and half there in Costa Rica. So perhaps some opportunity to think about it. I think we're nearing the end of our time, but just one, I'd like to return to one theme and this is sort of ad hoc, we have the same theme in our political environment which is if we could run the country like we run a state and Texas is always the one that is cited in the United States, perhaps Gujarat is the one that is currently cited in India. If we could run our country like we run a state or if you're Donald Trump, if you could run a company, the world would be perfect, of course. That covers that sort of wallpapers over a lot of complexity, but there is as we look at it on the American side, sort of we think it is constructed that Prime Minister comes from Gujarat after a long run of wealth creation for the population and for the state. How much of that really is transportable? You see the pace and the sense of urgency being transported, but can we really get at some of these issues that Dave started with and to cut through some of the bureaucratic environment or will it just end up being the states and the federal government pointing fingers at each other again? Seems to me it's more constructed than that, but I'm just interested in a real on-the-ground view for us, some of the Americans here. Maybe Sunil Kastard and then Cyrus and then Kieran. My personal experience is I think it's, and I think Sunil touched on it. I think it's effectively creating an extremely interesting dynamic that what the PM has done and having these user business stats out is creating an extremely good level of competition amongst the states. And I think the last elections did something which I think is also crucially important. It actually was people voted for development. I think that's a fundamental change which has actually happened 18 months ago, 15 months ago. And I think people need to realize that. So the first time actually governments are induced to show their report card out on development and not only on socialistic parameters. So I think that's, I think a fundamental change that India has gone through with the last elections in India. And you're seeing that now play itself out in many of these aspects. That's a very fundamental change. Sunil, do you have anything to add? No, I'm just re-intrigued what I already mentioned. Now you are seeing that competition developing. I was in a very large African-Western visiting a particular state in South India. And I can tell you by the time we landed there the two neighboring states, both the Chief Minister, Secretary of the United States, why are you not visiting us? And on the way back, we were diverted to another state in the middle of India. I had to land and meet the Chief Minister and his entire bureaucracy. And they said, tell us what you want. And we want you to come into our state as well. So there is a sense of urgency amongst the Chief Ministers. And I think the competition is healthy. Thank you, Chief Minister. Interesting. So I think, yes, just to sort of build on what Cyrus and Sunil have said, I think every state government is now holding these mega global investor meets. I think everyone is trying to project themselves as a state which has the best ease of doing business climate. And each state actually is trying to play to its strength because I know that, for instance, Karnataka is trying to play to its IT and tech strength and it's set up a startup council and it's focusing on this whole innovation startup ecosystem. It is playing to its tech strength in terms of manufacturing and high-end innovation. You've got Rajasthan playing to the energy and renewable energy aspect. So every state is actually trying to focus on investing in these kind of critical areas which case to its strength. And in that, I see that there's a huge amount of competitiveness amongst all these state governments to, you know, who investment. So I think it is going to make a big difference. And I think the bureaucracy at the state level I can certainly see is much more, you know, agile and responsive and ready to take on these kind of challenges to address things like ease of doing business and through self-heterization, through doing away with a large number of regulatory requirements. So I think what, you know- The center and what Modi is talking about in terms of minimum government, maximum governance. I think it's something that all the government- The states of being too. That's good. That's good. David, did you want to jump in? Yeah, it's always appealing. I think- We always get the real view from David. Well, you'll certainly get my view. Yeah. It's always appealing if you're in business to say, why can't government run more like a business? And it's always appealing if you're in government to say, geez, how come companies can't run more like a democracy and whether it's proxy contests or whatever else. I've always thought both of those really missed an important point. And that is what we're trying to achieve with both of them are very different. With government, you're trying to get sustainability and you're generally willing to tolerate some productivity loss in order to have sustainability because you want it there 200 years from now just like it's there today. In business, it's the other way around. You want to encourage productivity because that's where standard of living comes from. And you're willing to tolerate a company not being here 30 years from now that was there before. All that being said, there's room for government to be one hell of a lot more responsive in almost every country in the world. And that includes the two that we're talking about today, the US and India. And all you have to do is go spend some time in Singapore. And all of us here, we do business in the US, we do business in India, we probably do business in Singapore. And you just have to spend some time there to say, so this is what it can be like. And I think it's worth keeping that in mind as we talk about kind of the progress that we've made, whether it's in the US or India, it can seem really encouraging. And I just think there's a much better way to do this than how we do it today that doesn't lose that sustainability aspect of government while at the same time enabling business to be as productive as it can be and drive that standard of living that both of our countries want to have. That's why I'm heartened and Cyrus made the point. This pro-development, actual grassroots pro-development bias is very new and the political dynamic tends to favor the other side. Maybe there's enough middle class people in the country now that there's a tipping point politically so you don't always end up in that trap where you make a little progress and then you get caught out by the have-nots in some respect or not. That's a very encouraging development in India where people, and the fact that the leader of a state is now the leader of a country, all of that sort of lines up. The question is, can he win? Can these initiatives cut through it? Because we've all lived through fast-track initiatives in India where the bureaucrats eventually got even with the guys who were sponsoring the fast-track initiative. But Cyrus said, I'd like to keep pulling on this thread because it's very important for investment. So I think it's extremely important also therefore we make it successful. Because the worst thing that can actually happen for India is this pro-development movement and the level of communication around it doesn't fructify in reality because that would be a totally retrograde step for India in totality. And I think therefore there's a time, there has to be some time limits where we show some positive moves on the ground or else we have a risk of moving back one step. I think that's, in my mind, the biggest risk that India faces today. I think a lot of American companies are willing to take that leap of faith. I think there's a lot of, I mean you look at the numbers that David talked about for Honeywell in terms of the number of people, the amount of investment. I know a number of American companies who are willing to take that step with that mix of patients and inpatients that Chip talks about, and which I think will prevent the early death of these initiatives. I think there's a lot. I'd say one of the really quick thing, which is we've all talked about sort of this pro-growth, pro-development message. The other part I'd make is, you know, he's laid it down a political fact. Sorry, sorry. He's laid it down a political- Well, these guys have business today. He's laid it down. Thank you both for joining us. It was terrific to have both of you. We'll continue on for another five or 10 minutes and engage the audience and some questions here. I was just gonna make the point that he's played it in a political perspective. He gives you hope that he's a possible that he can sustain for a longer period of time that'll sort of overcome the inevitable potholes and difficulties inside Rampson. That to me sort of is the positive here, is that you've not only had someone who's articulated this pro-growth, pro-development message, but he's done it in a way that seems to have the touch and feel of local politics in a way that is unusual. And if you put those two together and sustained it for a period of time, that may be kind of the best hope you could have had given a place that really had never really ideologically committed itself to this path before. So, we've been asking ourselves questions up here for the last 45, 50 minutes. Are there any questions that, but there was one in the back who raised his hand first, that we'll move forward. Yes, the gentleman standing there. Thank you. My name is Ken Silverman. I'm head of North America for SonomaS4 Consulting. We're a natural firm that brings corporations, universities and nonprofits into India. Particularly, we have a large clientele of SMEs. So my question, by definition, the CEO panel are very, very significant companies, as you mentioned, with thousands of employees in India. But relative to US SMEs coming into India, I assume that you have smaller companies, American companies that supply you in India, but could a couple of you perhaps talk about what you see as the opportunities for smaller and mid-sized American companies in India? Who wants to take that one on? Michael, you wanna get this one? Yeah, listen, there's, in the largest projects, the kind of projects certainly we're involved with, there's a wide array of subcontractors that participate in this, whether it's the technology providers, whether it's equipment providers, or there'd be service providers. And I think, historically, some of the smaller companies have had challenges going into India because we've heard about the bureaucracy, you've heard about the contractual challenges. And some of the smaller companies have had a very difficult time dealing with that. They don't have their own corporate infrastructure that allows them to deal with that level of complexity. And so what I know the US Commerce Department has been engaged to try to bring some of these smaller enterprises together with the large entities that are going into the country and pair them up in, call it a joint venture, call it an alliance. And I know the US Commerce Department is very active on that front. And I think that's what's going to be required for the smaller companies to, or middle-sized companies to make their first foray into the country. Not an easy issue. Yes, young lady here on the right. Hello, I'm Rudra Capillo from... Why don't you stand up, yes. Hi, I'm Rudra Capillo from the University of Edinburgh. And my question to the panel is regarding, in the past, the private sector was not allowed to lead in R&D and technology innovation in India. And I was just curious if you see that this trend has changed under Modi being in the helm. And do you see that the private sector will actually kind of start leading the way and possibly set a standard for private R&D in India? Thank you. Well, we have two of the most successful innovators in India sitting here, and you want to try? Yeah, so I think R&D is certainly, as I mentioned to you, is a very big focus for this government. And I think they have set up various mechanisms to enable and make sure that private sector plays a very big part in leading in R&D. So, for instance, at least in the biotech space, there is a special cell set up called BIRAC, which is the Biotech Innovation Research Advancement Program. And under that, I think there is a lot of focus on investing in private sector R&D and in the startups to really sort of pave the way for innovation. So I think today there is a recognition that... I think private sector has to play a very important role in R&D. Government, of course, continues to encourage the research laboratories funded in the public sector to forge linkages with industry. And I think what is also important today is that they're actually encouraging incubators and accelerators to tie in with the private sector in terms of innovation and R&D. So I think today the policy in R&D innovation is very different to what it looked like a few years ago. So I personally believe that things are moving in the right way. Sunil? Yeah, I think there's no restriction on private sector getting into fundamental research, but you have to go back into the decades of history. There are two issues here. One is India has generally been a very good copycat culture. So we picked up things from the world, replicated them at a very low cost. There's been a lot of through-bill innovation around that. So I think India has done a great job of it. On the fundamental research, when you are looking at setting up labs and research, the demand of the industry generally has been for much larger tax reliefs for the investment that is made in the fundamental research. That's been an issue of a long debate. Government from time to time has enhanced those limits, but they're still very, very small. And the main reason for government not coming out, massively in support of allowing those subsidies or cuts or tax relief, is the abuse of the system. Because a lot of people don't actually do that much work in the private sector, and then there are claims which are being contested and all that. But as Kaleen said, environment is getting better. I think there is encouragement by the government to participate in the public sector institution, and also if you would like to set up your own life, firstly believe the government will welcome them. I think what's really encouraging is the leader of the government recognizes that. Yeah, we have time for two more questions. Let's go right here, gentleman on the side. I'm sorry we won't be able to get there for these questions. Hi, Dave Thomas with Inside US Trade. Thank you for taking my question. During the previous panel, it did not seem like Minister Siddharaman believed that the bilateral investment treaty talks between the US and India could be restarted without addressing some other issues. I was wondering if you share that view and I was wondering if you share that view and how will the US India CEO Forum kind of address the bid talks? Will you recommend a restart of those investment treaty talks or perhaps addressing these other issues first? Thank you. Listen, I think the government to government relationship has to prioritize things based on how governments view it. I think the crowd you're looking at up here is looking to prioritize things that encourage investment on both sides, encourage transparency regulatory, streamlining all the things we've been talking about and a bid treaty can get at a lot of that and because we'd really like to find that half a trillion dollars in trade between the two countries sooner rather than later. But I don't wanna speak for our government. I don't think our Indian colleagues wanna speak for their government either but I think that dialogue sooner rather than later I think would be encouraged. Are there any different views up here? No, they're only gonna add to it. I sort of alluded to it earlier. I think India needs to come to grips with sort of what it wants its role to be within the global trading system. I see Fred Berksman sitting back there. I think it's about to come up and he'll talk more about it but I think there's a fundamental question at the moment that's being placed before India in the context of whether it's access ultimately to TPP or through or whatever other series of other sort of regional dialogues at the moment not to steal the thunder but I think it's a fundamental question that he's gotta come to grips with and it's not clear what its answer is. Okay, one more question. Yes, gentlemen right here. Thank you. My name is Jim Greenberg. I'm chairman of Grameen Capital India. It's a group of three companies that bring financing to the social enterprise, secretary and microfinance institutions throughout India. I went through 40 years of seeing regulatory change and attempted regulatory change in the Middle East and despite the greatest desires and objectives of senior level government officials things tend to get bogged down in the weeds especially when you come to the integration across ministries and across silos and the bureaucracy that requires an integrated approach to really make effective reform. Further complicate in India because you got almost an autonomous state government apparatus in addition to the federal government. Is there any entity within the India government that's being set up that has sufficient power to address these blockages from whether they come from vested interest or just a lack of knowledge, bureaucratic obstinacy to try to break through those so you can put through the effectiveness that you need for arbitration, commercial law, taxation and so forth. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sunil and then maybe. During the previous dispensation because the process was rather constitutive and you're right, there are a lot of issues that sit in different buckets of the government of India and various ministries get involved. In the past, there was something called group of ministers and the ministers from various ministries depending on their interest or their interventional requirement for pulling together with one of the senior ministers in the chair and they would resolve something and recommend to the cabinet for approval. I think in this particular government, I think that role has been played by the prime minister's office and the prime minister's office is ensuring that they pull in together most of the ministries, get a group of secretaries to quickly talk about some of the issues. And in some of the cases where the investments could be very large, for example, in Japan, they were dedicated desk now within the PMO dealing with all Japanese issues with a single point of issue resolution. So I think there will be issues. I mean, I will not say there will not be inter-ministry issues to be sorted out. Inevitably, there will be. Finance ministry almost gets into everything because there are finance implications in many of the decisions. And some of the other ministries also have some overlaps in all that. But prime minister's office is really the focal point here. Do you have anything to add or is that? No, I think what Sunil said is absolutely right. I think it's quite effective because you've got a very laser focus on these kind of issues and this resolution of these kind of issues. And I think the prime minister's office is actually very effective in doing that. Yeah, I think that's the change I see. I mean, someone alluded to the Mahan Mahan Singh era, which was another attempt to rejuvenate the economy, I think, and he was very effective in many ways. But I think Modi himself is becoming an organizing principle. And that's a little different. It has some political risks. You see him having to be a droit in the way he handles the domestic political environment. But he seems unwavering in his support, and that will encourage, I think, the organizing focal points to have faith underneath him. And it's easy to stop having faith in a country that has that history. So that, to me, is what gives me faith, quite frankly. Listen, our time is up. I think it was a good blend of aspirational and real up here, I think, and that's what we were challenged to do. Thank you, Ashley, and thank you, everybody who organized the event. And I think I speak on behalf of the panelists, including our two leaders who had to run off to the CEO. Thank you for your participation. And we all have great hopes for the relationship, and we intend to put our money where our mouth is over time. Thank you.