 Thank you for joining us on this special panel discussion where we're talking about Indian to Indian How can policymakers corporate India civil society see eye-to-eye on transforming India and find solutions to transform India? We've got a panel of distinguished experts here on this panel Mr. Jyotir Aditya, India Unionist of State for Power with independent charge and one of the most articulate voices of this government. Neelam Chibbar, co-founder of industry, a social enterprise that connects rural producers to urban markets. Mr. N.K. Singh, Member of Parliament of Rajasabha, has held several senior civil service positions in the government of India. Mr. Singh, thank you so much for joining us. Sunil Bharti Mittal, Founder Chairman and Group CEO of Bharti Group, one of the largest teleconglomerates in India. Mr. Mittal, thank you so much for joining us indeed. Policymakers corporate India and civil society, all of us have the same goal, all of us want to see India achieve inclusive growth, see equitable distribution of opportunities, creation of value, upliftment of society. Yet we see so much of conflict and confusion and chaos and not collaboration. How can this topic underlyingly assumes that these three pillars of society are not seeing eye to eye? Mr. Singh, I'll start with you. What can government do to engage with civil society and corporate India better, create a framework where decision making is more participative? Well, I don't agree with your thesis to start with Harsha, because I think not necessary conflict, but in many ways, dissonance has to be the precursor to collaboration. And I think in many ways, there has been a huge collaborative effort on in India, especially with regard to the social sector and social schemes for the last two and a half, three decades in India. Whether you look at the parliamentary process, whether you look at the ministerial process, there is a process of consultation that goes on with regard to any legislation that is brought to parliament, both prior to bringing it to parliament with civil society, with stakeholders, whether it may be industry, whether it may be NGOs across the board, look at a number of acts. My previous ministry, for example, commerce and industry, whether it was FDI and multi-brand retail or single-brand retail that we talked about. The discussion paper goes up on the website. And I think technology has a huge role to play with that, whether it's mobile, the internet, across all spectrums. I think there's been a huge amount of collaboration that's been going on with civil society, with industry, and you're absolutely right that these three pillars are extremely important. And I describe them as the triangle of sustainability to be able to ensure that there's economic growth. But I think a lot of that discourse and a lot of that discussion and collaboration is already on. And I would say that it's on much more in India than anywhere else. And part of being a democracy is to use Amartya Sen's famous phrase, the argumentative Indian. We love discussion. We love discourse. We love being able to voice our views. And it's through that that you actually get the essence of what must be legislated to ensure common good. Sure. Mr. Sindhya believes that this process is on. This process is definitely on. But the rise of civil society groups and the protests on the street reveals a frustration with the system. My question to you, government, governance needs reforms. Reforms means change. Politicians are often the ones who are plotting that change. How do you bring about change in the way government processes are run? Well, I think that the broad drift of Mr. Sindhya's argument I share that the process of governance itself is rather collaborative already. It's collaborative at the states, it's collaborative at the center in which multiple stakeholders in the decision making process do collaborate in conversing with each other. This goes far beyond mere legislations. If we look today, for instance, the role of the voluntary sector, the 10th five year plan and the 11th five year plan, underscored a very important role of the voluntary sector in the formulation of the 12th five year plan itself. The planning commission's consultative process had a special role for consultations with the voluntary sector before finalizing the targets and finalizing the strategy. So to some extent, of course, this is a churning process. Some of the things which have come out in public domain do require perhaps reordering of things. One of the things that we must keep in mind is that civil society has an exceedingly important role to play in terms of not only spreading awareness, carrying out information, but we need to be also mindful of defining the boundaries and limits of what is really responsible for whom. After all, there is in the constitution itself fundamental demarcation of responsibilities between the judiciary, between the executive and the executive and of course the parliament. So I think that when everybody, all the three wings need to respect this. All engagement of civil society has to be within the framework of this broad distribution. And I agree with Mr. Sundia that there is this triangle which you say is very important. But I would say that given the new Right to Information Act, there is now a triangle. Please add media into it. I don't only mean the Bloomberg TV, but I think the media is playing an exceedingly important role in bringing these issues into the domain of public debate. Mr. Mittal, corporate India is at loggerheads with government in different aspects as far as policy making is concerned. Today the government is the biggest litigant. Every sector, every industry is fighting with the government in courts on some policy or the other. My question to you and you have in the past expressed your own concerns over the regulatory environment and so on. My question to you is what do you expect from government? How can you first see eye to eye with government before you actually see eye to eye with civil society? Well again, I would say the way you are projecting that we are at war with the government is not correct. The fact is we have to debate and most of the times these debates are very healthy. And I think government is really like a referee. Most of the time when you see the debates are not with the government. They are within your own paternity. One section of the industry trying to push the government in a particular direction. The other one trying to put them in a different direction. And I think that's where the role of the government becomes very important to be a good referee. And finally come to a very, I would say, qualified and considered judgment on the matter and take a decision. So fierce debates, violent disagreements, yes, but only until the point of decision making. Once the government takes a decision, I think all of us need to align ourselves behind the government. And that will not only include the corporate India and I would say civil society, opposition parties, everybody then needs to come together to align with the final decision of the government. Do we get dealt bad hands sometimes? Absolutely yes. But I have built a company in this country from scratch. Obviously there have been good hands that have been dealt as well. One has to play with the hand that is dealt. And finally what comes out of it, you have to make the most out of it for yourself, for your companies. And that's where I would say the corporate India also should start to fully align behind the final decision rather than continue to crib and cry for more. Ilam Chibber, you are in that unique spot where you are engaging both with the government, you are engaging with corporate India in co-creating value. Why is that model working? I completely agree with what Mr. Sindhya, what Mr. Singh and Mr. Mittal have said. At the end of the day, governments don't run economies. Citizens do. And like he said, the government plays a role in getting all the multiple stakeholders doing things in the right direction together. And we're all here, we accept that capitalism is the way forward. I think everybody accepts. So I think everybody generally is talking about an inclusive form of capitalism. And what we've learned in our journey over the years is that capitalism is the way forward. And we have to look at blended capital models. And everybody just needs to see successful models. Achieving it. Like Mr. Mittal has his private foundation, which is doing great work. He's got a company that's doing great work. The government is working hard at enabling policies that help Mr. Mittal. The same with us. We have a social business. So we have an impact investors. So investors who are looking not just at our financial returns, but at our social returns, outside our environmental returns. So we're talking about triple bottom line companies. And so we have investment from Future Group, India's largest retail chain. We have a foundation which works with the government of India to create the production infrastructure. We work very closely with the Office of Ministry of Textiles. We work with the National Skill Development Corporation, skill training. So just blending that certain things private capital does best. And it needs its returns on that. It needs to maximize shareholder value. But at the same time you need other forms of capital, which are also synchronized. So we can go to multilateral agencies. We can go to private donors. So it's possible. So the example that you're citing, it's possible. I'm going to also introduce Mallika Dutt, CEO and president of Breakthrough, a global human rights organization. Mallika, thank you so much for joining in. But I want to ask you, what are your concerns? Are human rights concerns even part of the decision making process as far as government is concerned? Do we engage with corporates at all? I think that the issue of human rights has to be a critical part of any inclusive growth strategy. And I think that we don't pay enough attention to it at all. So for example, if one looks at the corporate space and the way in which even philanthropy and corporate social responsibility operates, there are entire structures that advance human rights, whether it's law enforcement, the police, the judiciary. I mean there's a whole kind of infrastructure on rule of law that never ever falls within the purview of resources that come from anything outside of the government. And those are critical structures to human rights that don't have votes attached to them. So we are functioning with infrastructures around human rights enforcement and those same enforcement structures, not just for human rights, but even around corporate affairs, around regulatory mechanisms, everything, like the judiciary and the police and others, I feel always end up getting short shrift. About 11 years ago I was very involved with working on police reform in India. We talk about these issues and all of the challenges and problems with them, but we never put the kinds of resources and the kind of attention that we need to move those things forward. Similarly, when you look at human rights issues like those that face women, violence against women, or discrimination against various marginalized groups, when you look at philanthropy and when you look at the corporate sector, the CSR world is really focused on issues that sort of align with the profit-making motive. So there's lots of money in education, there's lots of money around health, but the tough issues, the hard issues don't get the kinds of resources that they really need. And I think that we have to get to a place where we are sort of grown up enough about owning a human rights agenda in a much more affirmative and proactive way. Who takes the lead in that? Should it be the role of the corporation or should we lower the government? I think it's got to be a blended approach because I think that even in the corporate world, if you look at the whole business and human rights structures that are emerging out of the United Nations, if you don't incorporate human rights principles and values across the value chain, you're actually not going to accomplish many of the things that we've talked about over here. So it isn't just about sort of human rights being out there, but really understanding that those principles need to permeate and underlie government practice, corporate practice and civil society practice. I'm going to shift this discussion right now on the role of the corporation in society. The role of the corporation today, civil society is often accusing corporate India of being in cahoots with the political class. We've seen a series of scandals and scams that expose this nexus. Somewhere there is a deficit of trust. What can corporate India do to reach out to civil society to say, look, you know, we're all fighting the same battle? You know, there are civil societies and civil societies and there are ones who are overzealous in their approach. My own view is, you know, painting everybody with a broad brush is not correct. There are very good corporations who are doing extremely good work, both within urban and rural pockets. They have built fantastic platforms for employment. They've generated enough fuel in terms of taxes, government tax, income tax, etc. for the government to do their social programs. To my mind, largely, I think the corporations are doing a lot of good, not only economically but also socially. So my own view is that the NGOs need to actually start understanding the difficulties that the corporations face and need to also align themselves with the national interest. For example, the current debate that is going on on the land acquisition policy. That's very clearly when you're going to displace farmers or people with very limited means. They must be compensated extremely well. They must be taken care of for not only their generation but perhaps for the next few generations. But equally, if you make land acquisition policy so tough that you stop industrialization in this nation, that is going to be a setback to the entire country. I think that's where we need to also tell the social activists, the civil society movements that they need to see the larger national goal as well. The other issue that's brought up, civil society feels that this nexus, it's difficult to break that nexus and you feel that you're not going to get a fair deal. The common man is not getting a fair deal. What can government do to break that perception? To say the government is not only for India Inc. It's not run by India Inc. It's for the common man and civil society is interested in taking care of. Well, I think the best proof of the pudding is in the eating, right? And if you look at legislation in this country over the last decade and you look at the number of going back to your earlier question, the number of innovative service delivery models that have come out over the last 10 years. And when we talk about innovation, for the first time, I think in many governments in South Asia, you have a rights-based delivery mechanism that's actually come in place in a particular country across multiple stakeholders, whether it's the RTI, whether it's right to education, whether it's right to employment in a lot of ways through national rule employment guarantee scheme. So there's been a lot of good work that's happened. Now, going back to Sunil's point, I think one swallow does not summer make. You know, there are bad eggs in any society and we are all for exposing those bad eggs, action being taken against those bad eggs. But please don't forget that along with bad eggs, whether you're talking about the business class or the political class, there are a lot of people who are doing a lot of good work as well. Why is it that today India's flag is flying high? It's because of, I believe, in a huge amount of, in a huge percentage because of the entrepreneurial class. That's actually India's IP, intellectual property. You look at the start of Infosys, you look at the start of so many companies that have started from scratch and are now multi-billion dollar companies displacing what used to be multi-billion dollar companies. So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think there's a lot of good work also that's happening in this country and I think it's important that we recognize that as well. So yes, there is always room for improvement and I don't think in life any of us must feel that we are attaining perfection because I think the slippery slope starts then and we must always strive to better ourselves and sure, there is a lot of dirty linen that needs to come out and be washed. I mean, I have said this many times, I experience this on a daily basis with regard to work in my constituency in rural India where you get fund sanctioned and then you take it down to the grassroot level and the rupee that you've taken down doesn't translate into a rupee of work. So I think the problem in India really is not necessarily funding, financial outlays, any of those things. The real problem in India which we need to tackle is really outcomes. Translation of outlays into outcomes. Execution of projects, execution of schemes, ensuring that people if for example in any REGS you've given a certain amount of corpus for work to be done actually it reaches people's pockets. That is where the action needs to happen. Mr. Singh, you want to come in on this translation of outlays into outcomes, focus on execution. Is the problem with the structure of the government? Is this the problem with the nature of our politics? Well, I think that before I come in on that particular one, I want to make a comment on something that Mr. Mittal said earlier where he felt that the government really has an important, empowering role to play. Sure, I agree with Sunil that government has an important, empowering role to play. But the government's role goes beyond empowering. Government's role must also be a catalyst. It must really foster policies and a regulatory regime which does allow entrepreneurship to flourish. And I agree with Mr. Singh that the entrepreneurial community in this country has done phenomenal work in not only catapulting the India's growth story but in bringing about a decisive change in the life quality of the people in this country. So I think that, and the other point which I want to make, something which you asked Mr. Singh there, is that I think that the Prime Minister is absolutely correct when he said that for a number of years the reform process has been stored in not extending it to factors of production. The reform process which took off in 1991, liberalized industry, liberalized trade, liberalized infrastructure, but I think it stopped short of liberalizing the factors of production. Factors of production being land which Sunil mentioned, it means labor, it means mines, it means spectrum. And I think that the regulatory process really has to be carried much further. We need to also settle some of these debates which are currently going on. For instance, is it the government, should it be the government's obligation entirely only garner revenue without looking at the multiplier effects of what availability of land can do to industry? Or for instance in the case of spectrum, should it only be to really garner revenue overlooking the multiplier effects of what a telecom revolution can bring about in terms of GDP improvement? Or in terms of minerals, should it be priced in a manner which makes for instance the cost of power completely unaffordable? These are questions right now in public domain on which certainly we need to have a final answer to the point which you raised on outlays and outcomes. And certainly I think that the outcomes are more important perhaps than outlays. And I think that the government has made a very good beginning in giving to parliament every year now an outlay outcome budget but regrettably that statement stopped short of not giving the quality of the work. The outcomes are being measured too closely from the viewpoint of reaching financial targets and physical targets not in terms of the sustainability of the activity for which that particular project was started. So better looking at better monitoring of what outcomes are, getting it monitored by a third party not necessarily by government agencies alone, having a peer group in terms of it, evaluating schemes and expenditure programs from the viewpoint of the quality, that in my view is a challenging task. I'm going to take the point about government lauding over resources i.e. land, spectrum, mines, whatever it be. What should, what do your mind should be the objective of the government? Should it be about garnering greater revenue at the point of missing made or should it be about greater common good? Should it be about long-term solutions? Well, I've always maintained it's got to be a balance. The resources belong to the nation, belongs to the people of the country and there's got to be the right application of those resources. I also think a lot of water has flown under the bridge now. We cannot now go back in time. There's got to be a transparent mechanism by which these resources are delineated from the government hands. That's not happening. No, it is going to happen now. And if you look at the spectrum now, it's set now. It's going to go and be auction. Equally, the Supreme Court has come back with a very clear mandate to the government saying do it in a transparent manner, but auction is not necessarily the only way. It's a fine way to do it, but not the only way. To Mr. Singh's point, therefore, the government will need to balance the needs of the society on one hand. Do you want affordable telecom services or do you want to only fill in the coffers of the government? You need a fine balance. To my mind, we achieved in the last 10, 15 years what nobody in the world has achieved. The most affordable, deepest and widest telecom services in this country, giving a mobile in every hand. To now, perhaps, going to the other extreme of extracting far too much money from the industry. And that is, to my mind, some of the pressures of the activists may have pushed the government into an entirely different area and they may need to balance this going forward. To my mind, have a transparent open auction process for spectrum, but don't set this reserve price too high, because then that becomes an administrative price should the auction not succeed. Sure. You want to comment on this, isn't there? Because even in the issue of coal, which is so critical to the power ministry, you've seen quite a bit of debate and confusion. What should the objective of the government be on this? So when the word balance is used, it's a conundrum. Because on which side of the balance scale are you talking about? And are you telling me that any decision is going to be accepted as the balanced decision? That's the conundrum in India, right? To me, as a public servant, because that's what I prefer describing my vocation as, rather than as a politician, what's extremely important is to identify what are the sectors where, as Sunil said, you need to achieve scale in India. And I'll give you an example, Harsha. I came back from university in 1993 back home to India. And at that point of time, there was not a single mobile phone in India. And we leapfrogged, not analog, none of that stuff. We went straight to GSM, straight to digital. And we've gone from zero to 936 million mobile phones in this country. 20 years, that's the kind of exponential growth that we've had. But today, there is discord, there is debate, there is vociferous dissent about the process of spectrum because it is a national resource. So in many ways, it's kind of like damned if you do and damned if you don't. I firmly believe that the balanced word that Sunil is talking about is very difficult to achieve unless you have a very straight thinking. And what should that thinking be according to me? And I'm no guru, but what seems to me from bottom up, what needs to be done, is until you achieve certain scale, certain penetration, certain public good, there needs to be a certain policy that's followed. Post that, one can look at a switch in that policy. So, for example, when we talk about spectrum, when we're talking about auctioning spectrum now, that once we've achieved certain scale, we talk about coal. When you're actually giving a natural resource to X, Y or Z, that's fine. But at the end of the day, on a comparative tariff-based system, the consumer must get the lowest tariff. If your raw material is being subsidized, then the end consumer must get a subsidized tariff which is comparatively the lowest across the spectrum. I have only two questions to you. One is, sir. No, I share this view that this word at the end of the day, any effort to balance has to be judgment. And you need to exercise a judgment which will stand public scrutiny, that you have balanced really the needs of government exchequer with the multiplier effect that that particular economic activity will have for larger public good. Fair point. I have two questions to you before I get the ladies in Mrs. India. One is, when you're engaging in such decision-making, what are you doing about those companies that are errant, that are breaking the law? I brought the point about building trust. Today a company violates, flouts rules, takes advantage of the system, yet is not penalized. Yes, yet is not pulled up unless the judiciary steps in. That's when civil society is not encouraged to believe that the system is fair. I disagree with you, Harsh. I think that the key fundamental today that we are facing, and I always like taking things back to the base effect. And what is the base effect? The base effect is not big organizations, is not Sunil's organization, is not states, is not central government. The base effect is your family unit. Within your family unit, when your child is errant or any member of your family is errant, and you do not take action and you do not follow that action through, the probability of that person being errant again or other members of the family being errant is much higher and same is in society. So the problem today is that if you have an errant person, organization, institution, whatever you may call it, and at the end of the day action is not taken for a extended period of time, then she will think that why should I not do the same thing? The problem today is that to me justice delayed is justice denied. And today the judicial system to me in this country takes far too long, far too long to clear his name and far too long to take action against me if I have done something wrong. Both ways. So I think, no, I'm not putting the onus anywhere. So please don't put words in my mouth. But I think that at the end of the day when I talk about the word execution, I mean it in its broader sense. I mean it in point of view of projects. I mean it in terms of points of view of action being taken. There has to be, to use corporate terminology, KPAs. Key performance areas, key timelines being set for every action being taken. I'll give you a simple example. When my father was minister of railways and I'm talking about 1985, the first rule that he brought in when he took office was that if there is any file on any bureaucrats stable including his own for more than two days, then a written explanation needs to be given as to why that file was on that person's table for more than two days, including his own. So if you actually have a rule based system in place in this country for every single thing, then you will see decisions being taken. You will see action being taken. And that's I think where we need to concentrate. I completely agree and I completely endorse and I just feel that this discussion, I think citizens need to play a big role in this country. And there we talk about civil society. I strongly believe that civil society really needs to educate itself phenomenally well. And this divide of corporate government, civil society goes once the corporate sector understands civil society better. See civil society steps in to plug the gaps which are left by the government. That's why you have a civil society and governments can't do everything. Otherwise you wouldn't have a civil society. So let's just accept that that's the way things are. But it's a question of each sector understanding the other better. It comes back to that. And it comes back to individual dialogue. I mean if he's talking rule based, he's talking about the family unit, it's true. So even if it's someone from the civil society, they need to understand what are the weaknesses in their way of functioning. Why has capitalism risen? Because it's delivery oriented. So and again we come back to blended capital. Again we come back to blended values. Why doesn't government, which is talking about a rule based system, which is talking about KPAs, which was in the realm of corporate. So it is essentially talking about a certain set of basic values that all three sectors must share for better delivery. We can't just say that the corporate sector has to have more values or the government should get more discipline. Even civil society has to look at the delivery models of the corporate sector and etc. So I mean everyone needs to wear this hat of self-assessment first, before constantly pointing fingers at everybody else. That's where I would come from personally. So I think that really what we're looking at in the 21st century, you're calling it a blended way of approaching things. Others are calling it the fourth sector and that is where there's a convergence across all of these different arenas. Because really none of the three can operate without the other. And if you're really going to come up with lasting solutions for India or any part of the world for that matter, we have to take into account this fourth sector approach of figuring out how these parts work together. So when people from civil society or human rights advocates like myself raise issues around the need for having rule of law or a judicial system that works or a police system that works, I think that it's also important to be able to hear those conversations about not pointing fingers and not sort of jumping up and down and saying you're terrible, but saying really if we don't create systems and structures that work that ensure rights for everybody, then a lot of the issues that we're talking about are really not going to get resolved. I mean in my own organization, we break through, you know, our belbejao campaign on domestic violence has certainly taken this blended approach. We've partnered with Ogilvy to create the campaign. We've partnered with the Ministry of Women and Child Development to disseminate the campaign. We have a number of corporates on word. We work with panchayats at the community level. We work with local organizations and we work with family members because ultimately violence against women happens in the family. So certainly if you really want to have effective outcomes of any sort, you have to work across all of these different areas. But I think that where we sometimes get stuck today is that 21st century challenges require 21st century solutions. Absolutely. Sometimes we carry on coming up with solutions that are 19th century or even 20th century. We're not sort of getting ahead of the problem. We're not taking a leadership role with some of the challenges. We're still trying to react to them. So if we take say the question of digital penetration in this country and phones, you know, maybe really a huge amount of resources should go into delivery systems becoming digitized, technology becoming an incredibly critical role in how they're delivered because then we deal with the corruption. But isn't that happening? You know, it's happening but it's always like in these sort of fits and starts and bits and finger pointing. I just feel like there's got to be a way in which we kind of get on the other side in a much more solution oriented way and a much more robust partnership kind of way. Just two points I think to Nilamji's and Malikaji's points. I think A, I not only endorse what she's saying but I think the flavor today in our country and I think it's incumbent on all of us to actually change that as well. What is the flavor today? Your government, here's a list of things that are wrong with you. You represent the corporate sector, here are the things that are wrong with you. Your civil society, here are the 15 things that are wrong with you. No one talks about the things that are right with her, right with him or right with him. That attitude has to change in our country because there's a lot of things that she's doing right and so is he and so is he, but no one talks about it. Why? Because, and I don't want to point a finger, because TRPs will go down if you talk about good things. Don't shoot the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. So, the nation wants to know, correct? But that is an issue today, right? So, when I go to forums as a spectator, the things that I want to come out listening to that forum is, wow, that was a great idea. Hey, listen, I need to implement this. Why don't I look at it from this point of view? But when I go to so many forums as a spectator, all I hear about is, you know, they've done this and they've done that wrong and this needs to be read on and I come back thinking, you know, why did I even attend that forum? Right? So, I think the spirit of positivity is what we need to come out with. Point number one. To Malikaji's point also and I completely agree with what she said in terms of building that consensus and leapfrogging. She's absolutely right. But India is a complex country and why is India a complex country? Because in many ways, we have decentralized government and decentralized democracy right up till the panchayat level. So, it's like Sunil Mittal running 35 different businesses with 35 different CEOs and 35 different people underneath those CEOs who he has very limited control over. So, what's going to happen? You're going to get and it's going to be reflective of a participative democracy. You're going to get differential results. You'll have some states that are doing an amazing job with a scheme that he has implemented through his ministry. And then you'll have some states that are actually not doing a great job at all. But that is a necessary result out of a federal system. Unless, going back to the point that Nilamji said made, you have a rule-based system where then he starts taking punitive action against those states that are not delivering those results. And if he starts doing that, then you'll have civil society along with her rising up in arms saying this is against federalism and I must get my bit no matter how I execute it. So, these are the complexities that we have to deal with in India. I think first of all, I entirely agree with Mr. Sindhya that we need to move the discourse into the positive territory. And you as media will have to take a bigger responsibility and load on yourself to change the discourse. So, you're getting it from all sides now? Absolutely. No, honestly, there is far too much negativity and all the goodness that is happening in our society, economy, government is being missed out. Second point I would like to make from what Malika mentioned was, why is there not a master plan at work? I think India has been a great success because of collection of a lot of small successes. And if you really look at it, we did not build a Singapore type of story or a Korea type of story. Or when you look at digital issue, I say it on the broadband commission of United Nations. And there are master plans at work in different countries. Europe is now stitching together a broadband master plan. We don't have one here in India. But we will get there because we will have those five, six, seven, eight corporations, government companies, building those successes. By the end of the day, to Mr. Sindhya who represents the government here, I would say there is still a need of a common thread here. We need to get some of those vital legislations through. And for which we need the opposition party support as well. Right. So GST needs to go through. We need to have very clear policy on national resources, very clear support on that, foreign investments, land policy. And on these matters, I think those small successes will depend very heavily upon. And I think the government must deliver to us not a big master plan, but some of these enabling provisions so that those small, medium successes can once again put India on the grandstand of the world. Mr. Singh, I want to talk about the role of the civil society groups as well. One of the issues that come up quite every time you evaluate the way civil society is engaged in public discourse is that no one checks what they are doing. You can't have civil society groups running government. You can't have them writing laws. The job of the government, governance is with the government, isn't it? You see, I think that, you know, going back to the discussion which we had a few minutes ago, one must not only enlarge the area of congruity in terms of the different roles with different entities and organizations play and enlarge really the positive work which is being done. But I think that our fiscal federal model is entirely based on the very broad premise of checks and balances, checks and balances between different entities, checks and balances between different organizations. And this, I think, is what lends our fiscal federal model, a degree of dynamism which really few other fiscal federal models in the world have been able to replicate. Now, I think that to going to your question on the civil society, sure, civil society is, the work of civil society is currently being certainly monitored wherever government funds are involved. They are subject to the audit scrutiny of the control and auditor general of India, wherever the voluntary sector has an important role to play in the implementation of our planned projects. They are subjected to the same kind of scrutiny to which public outlets are being subjected to. So I think that it is not fair to say that they are not really being monitored at all. It's a different matter that going back to an earlier discussion is whether the boundaries of demarcation are getting obliterated in a manner which was not considered quite consistent with the constitutional framework. That is a larger issue of, as I said, in the broad demarcation of functions between the executive, the legislature and really, if you ask me, the judiciary, whether these boundaries and those which flow out of it are being respected or the boundaries are being transgressed. On that, the jury is out on whether there is a degree of overreach by any of these entities in performing obligations and functions enshrined in the basic spirit of our constitution. Neelam, is there a case of overreach? Are NGOs trying to exceed themselves by trying to tell government what needs to be done? I think we are in an era where we need a lot of improved thought leadership. I think the tools of thinking we are using are last century. It's exactly like she said, the coming century, I'll talk about my education system and my son's education system. In our education system, we were taught to be competitive. We had to come first in class. We had to beat all the others. We had to leave everybody behind. That's the way we were educated. And I love the fact that he brought the family unit thing up because that makes it easy for everyone to understand. My kids, if I said who came first in your class, they'd laugh at me. They said, Ma, why does it matter? They have been educated in a completely collaborative approach. It's all about teamwork in the future. It's about collaboration. Ask our corporate leaders if they have a team and the people who rise in their company are people who can manage teams better. So the future is about that and whether you're in civil society, whether you're in government or whether you're in corporate. And I'll take this conversation back to the two issues I think which are really going to be very critical for India where China has managed to kind of override and get things through because land acquisition and natural resources. You can only achieve this through dialogue. It's all about dialogue. It's about teamwork. It's about collaboration. It's something which all stakeholders must feel is fair, transparent and appropriate for larger public good. And it can actually be done very simply. It's a very simple solution. Don't think competition. Don't think who wins all the time. Everybody has to win. Those poor tribals, it's their land. So I mean, let's talk about how you can be shareholders in my mining company. We have shares for artisans in our company. They get shares at par. They can buy a share for 100 rupees. But I've just sold my shares to a social investor for 3000 rupees. But artisan can get it for 100 rupees because it's his intellectual property. He is carrying this craft down for centuries. So we need to value that. So similarly, you can solve every problem that this country faces if everybody just sits down and talks and respects the other person. And you know, you'll create far better shareholder value that way. Point taken. Last round of questioning. Malika, I'll start with you. We were talking about solutions to transform India. If these three pillars of society have to come together, who takes the lead? Who takes the lead? I mean, I think to the point that she just made, I don't know that there has to be anybody that takes the lead. I think that the bigger challenge for us as Indians is that there's sort of a maturity process. We've sort of entered the world stage. We're starting to occupy global public space in a way that's very, very different than in the past. But we still carry with us some of the colonial kind of chips on our shoulder. So there's one part of our identity that's very much about leadership and innovation and taking charge. And then there's another part of our identity that's don't tell me what to do. Or if you talk about human rights, it's like, you know, you get really pissed off or you're being criticized. And there's this sort of schizophrenia that goes on that I see in a lot of conversations. And you know, I happen to be part of the Indian diaspora, which I also think is an absolutely critical part of this whole puzzle. There's amazing things happening with the Indian diaspora. And I think we really need to pull together the resource talent that we have around the world to move these agendas forward. I think it's time for us to grow up, if you will, and be like, you know what? We can take leadership on all the good stuff and on all the bad stuff. Why can't India emerge as a global human rights champion? Why can't we be confident enough in our own leadership and our own values and the constitution that we've developed and the independence movement that we came out of to take our role at the Security Council at the United Nations and be like, you know what, we're going to be the new champions of human rights. I think that's the kind of head shift that I would love to see happen because I think once that happened, there's no stopping us. Closing comments, Mr. Mithal. Going on to the same point, to my mind, all three pillars, perhaps fourth media included, need to come a bit closer, get into the positive territory, but at the same time not get too close. We have to hold each other accountable. And I think that's the job of each one of the pillars of our society, that we hold each other accountable. And in terms of who will lead this entire game, it has to be led by the political leadership. There is no doubt in my mind. The only people who can lead this charge is political leadership because they know the ground realities. They are much more connected to what's happening across spectrum, whether it's the most affluent part of the world or the most poverty-stricken part of the world. They know the best. And finally, I tell you, there is no bigger canvas than government which can shape the destiny of nations. And to my mind, therefore, it's very clear the political leadership needs to lead it. We need to align our own work with the larger roles of the government, and the society and media need to hold both of us accountable. Mr Singh? Well, I think that going back to something which I said earlier, that the theme must be congruity and balance. That each of these three, and I added, not because Bloomberg is doing this, I added media as the fourth component, each one really striving for a degree of congruity for public purpose, at the same time within the broad framework of a degree of balance. Who should take the lead? Each one of these entities in their own respective sphere must take the lead with the larger public good and with the larger aim of congruity and balance. But I agree with Sunil that since in any democratic framework, the obligation to govern rests with the government. There is an obligation, and governance here, of course, means governance in the larger sense of the term. It doesn't only mean the executive. It certainly means the parliament. It certainly means state governments. State legislatures have an important role to play. So the fabric of governance has to really find the role of being a catalyst for a better India and playing the kind of leadership role with the people of India expect all governance fabrics to play. I think we need to get a quick best practice things out there, models. It's like he said, if someone sees something great has been done successfully through a blended approach, you have three or four models out there quickly. It can be extremely transformational. Password with you, Mr. India. You said your question was who should lead it. That's right. I assume that your end goal is that it should be successful. I assume so too. Now, if that is the case and my hypothesis is correct, then the person who has to lead it has to be the one who's the most passionate about it. Because passion equals, in most cases, success. So whether that passion emanates from civil society, from government or from industry. Having said that, I think the person who leads that, who has the most passion about it, must go into it with a clear thinking that he or she doesn't have the answer to everything. Humility is paramount, right? And with that thought, with that passion, with that feeling, get all the stakeholders on board. And the role that that leader has to play is not one of authoritarian role, but more of a role of being a facilitator. Right? Here are the thoughts that are on the table. Now from these thoughts on the table, how do we move our path forward if that has to be our end goal? Right? So the role has to be one of a facilitator. And I believe that only those models are successful where the leader, in many ways, even though he or she occupies center stage, is sitting in the back rows and allowing the team to do the work and getting that process forward. Because then only do you achieve all the things that we've talked about. Consensus, buying, commitment, transparency, accountability. And I think that the passions, which really the compulsions of that passion, in my view, are the ingredients of what would make the catalyst for a better change. All right. On that note, I'm going to throw this open to the audience. Anyone who has a question, please raise your hand. If you can pass a few mics around. The gentleman there, please. The far extreme right. That's right. Thank you very much. Mine is actually a comment. Can I proceed? Yes. I wanted to take on Minister Cindy's point about highlighting the successes that India has choked. And I'm impressed that, coming from Africa, we've always already been working with Indian institutions, including Earth Health, for instance, around the issue of counterfeit medicines, where we are working with them to promote the use of mobile technology to identify fake medicines, not only in India, but also in Africa, where the exporters of pharmaceuticals from this country to Africa are not able to secure their medicines, preventing the 30% of medicines that are being counterfeited from killing more people. That's a clear example. Wonderful. Sir. Invariably in such debates, we hear about democracy and the constraints of democracy. Sometimes I get a feel that are we using this argument too much to kind of put a wall and defend our poor governance and ineffective leadership? Do you want to do that? Well, I don't think, first of all, I think democracy is probably, in my opinion, my humble opinion, the best form of government. And I think that the more you discuss debate and have discord or consensus, the more healthy schemes, legislation processes are over the long term. Sure. And I really don't buy your argument that we have ineffective governance and ineffective leadership. I'll give you many examples of states where we have enlightened governments and enlightened leadership. So again, I urge you, I beseech you that for all the ill that surrounds us today in this country, there are many people, political leaders, civil society, industry, activists, that are doing a lot of good things. And our country has a very bright future. Our country has tremendous potential on the world stage. Talk about that and have that attitude, even if you may be seeing so much of despair around you. Have a positive attitude because with your positive attitude, you will infect five others with positivity. And that's what we need in this country. Mr. General, right here please. Yeah, right in front. On what Sunil said, I'd just like to underscore, double underscore. I run a company which manufactures power plant equipment and rail equipment. It's Alstom. I can tell you that in my 40 year work history, never before in India has so much been invested on the ground in bricks and mortar, that India I can declare has the capability from the year 2014 to manufacture and deliver everything you need end to end in anything you need in power generation and almost everything in the rail sector. It's happened quietly under the radar screen. It's happened so fast, you guys haven't noticed it, the media. Back to the media. Yes, ma'am. This is Preeti Kumar. Since the session is Indian to Indian, I wanted to make a statement that in a heterogeneous society that we have today and we cherish our diversity, I think there's a crying need to understand what is our national vision. What if when you talk about passion, Mr. Sindhya, how do I become passionate about India? What is our vision? What do we stand for? What do we want to be known for? I don't have answers. Okay, that's a very important question and I'm going to respond to you as a citizen, right? What do I think that my country represents the world? I think we represent the most fabulous presentation of a combination of hard power. So economics, which the gentleman at the back talked about, Sunil represents, along with soft power. And sometimes we forget about our strength of soft power, what you talked about, the issue of diversity. You'd name me one other country in the world that has the diversity of my country. In terms of caste, in terms of religions and we exist as one, we co-habit and live together as one. There is no other society. We have the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia and yet I'm proud to say that not a single Indian Muslim has been part of any terrorist network in the world. How many other countries can talk about that? So we have that exposition of soft power and hard power. Thanks to people like him, thanks partially and I would say very slightly to probably government and people like Mr. N.K. Singh who've had long innings in bureaucracy and given a huge lot to their country. Thanks to civil society and activists like Nilamji who have pioneered a new model. You don't have that diversity anywhere in the world and I stand proud whenever I go abroad because I believe that my country has the capability of not being on the center stage as Malikaji said but actually leading the world in terms of the path forward in the next century. But the big question is, that's our capability. Will we be able to rise to it? And that's the challenge that people like you and I face in this country today. I have time for one final question. Yes sir, gentleman here. The nature of decision making around dialogue and getting all stakeholders, is there a risk of getting the lowest common denominator? And if I were to go back to the base unit that Mr. Sindhya articulated and that time the mom decides that the younger kid is going to get the hand-me-down of the older kid because it's in the optimum interest of the family. It might not be fair from the younger kid's lens. Now that's leadership and that's the lens of saying it's good for the family. It might not be equally fair but eventually the family will benefit. And sometimes when I look at decision making in our country, it appears that we don't have leaders who can take such decisions, which is good for the country, may be slightly difficult for a few sections of the society to handle. And how do we really think about this? Well, I think that my first response is that you cannot get the highest common denominator by eliminating the lowest common denominator, because they have both to be part of the same matrix. And I think that as far as leadership is concerned, I would say that this country must be proud of the leadership in its post-independence period in having kept a cohesive social order, given India rapid economic growth, catapulted the India's growth story in a manner where the world has begun to set up and I see that in the next 20 years there is no way that India will not succeed to being an important catalyst, not only for improving the life quality of people, but being an important contributor to global prosperity. All right. On that note, ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for joining us on this panel discussion. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks.