 Thank you. And now, MK, I should, by the way, congratulate you on the performance of the Indian cricket team, because I know you're a keen fan of cricket. We have devastated Australia and England. Well, I'm afraid England have played terribly in the World Cup. We were the champions, but no longer. India, you know, I think you will be the next champion. So congratulations. The floor now is yours. Seven minutes. Maybe a couple of minutes more, if you don't mind. Okay, thank you. I think it's left for this opportunity to present an Indian perspective on Indo-Pacific security concerns. I apologize at the beginning for being a mere practitioner of security, rather than being an expert like the other members of this panel. But I do hope you will still give me a worthwhile listening. I begin by making a controversial statement that notwithstanding the conflict in Ukraine and the war in Gaza, the Indo-Pacific, I believe, is the pivotal theater of interstate contestation. And it is important that we realize and recognize the fact. Listening to the debate, the previous debate, one got the impression that the war between Ukraine and Russia is a centerpiece of world history. I dare say that it's important. It's critical. All nations are important. But I think it's important for us to recognize that the Indo-Pacific has to be maintained in a manner that this area does not become a part of China's back borders. Because China is the emerging power in the region and is able to do a great deal, notwithstanding some temporary hiccups that they're facing today. I would begin by saying that there's another controversial statement. I mean, with apologies to the Japanese. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a statement regarding the quadrilateral of the Indian parliament in November 2007. And I think it caught on. It was held on. I feel proud that I was present on that occasion. So with your permission, may I set the record straight about that? But more to the point, I think there's a great deal of controversy that surrounds what is India's role in what is India's degree of support to the Indo-Pacific. When you see India's partnership in the quadrilateral security dialogue, which goes by the acronym QUAD, as indicative of India's willingness to be part of a military pact to contain and checkmate China. It definitely as far as the Pacific is concerned. I do think that this would be reading too much into India's intentions. India has joined the quad, but I think its intention is not that it would be a dedicated partner in a military confrontation with China. A dedicated partner along with the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, France and Japan in a military confrontation with China. I think it's important to stress this point at the very outset that there is any misreading of where India stands. I know that many non-nation countries find it difficult to comprehend India's stance. Or its unwillingness to be part of any anti-China military and defence pact. I do say this because, as I was explaining a little while ago to John, I've been around for a very long time. And the history of Sino-Indian tensions and conflicts has a long one. But nevertheless, while we have occasionally shooting wars, I would regard them as skirmishes. Both countries believe that their war or conflict is civilizational rather than territorial. We have an undeniable border and therefore there are skirmishes. But I think that we don't have any major conflict, etc. There's this struggle for influence rather than a struggle for territory. I think that's important and people don't understand why are we not part of the quad or why if Aukus is willing to include us, why are you not part of Aukus? Because there is this basic issue. I know this is changing to some extent because China had confined itself basically to the Pacific and India basically to the Indian Ocean. India's interests were always in the Indian Ocean area and the Indian Ocean little while as China was in the Pacific. Lately, China has started intruding into the Indian Ocean but it has not yet altered India's perspective. Whether India would change that perspective in the days to come, I cannot say. But at the moment, I think it's important to set the record straight that India does not believe in a military confrontation with China on the seas as of now. Yet I agree that there are many, many, what should I say, and differing interpretations on how we should achieve the objective of containing China to some extent and not allow it to run riot if I might say so in the Indo-Pacific. But I temper all that by one particular reason, saying that there is a tendency of, you know, when you talk of China, to talk of extreme competition with China, I mean this or not, this or nothing sort of thing. I think that is something for which I think India certainly, but I'm aware that many Asian nations do not quite believe that this is the answer to how we should go about dealing with China. As I said, India needs a strategy to contain China along with other Asian nations, but we do not see that the only way to achieve this is through an anti-China military pact. There's a lot of debate, but there's a great deal of sober realisation as well that a war could have disastrous consequences, both for China and India. China will not provoke a war with India because its target of 2049 becoming the world's number one power will go up in smoke. India cannot also afford a war with China because we've just heard how the rest of the world, I mean, if Samsung is coming to India, we have the world's granary today, etc., all that will also go up in smoke if we have a conflict with China. So both China and India have reserves of strength and also reserves of belief as to what we need to do. So India is now strengthening its relationship with many of the Asian countries, particularly those who are part of the Indian Ocean, but more so with Vietnam, Indonesia and Japan for instance. Japan and India have now ties of friendship which are almost like a military relationship, but short of being called a military pact. So I think that we will collaborate with the United States. We will avoid a military sort of a pact with the United States or with other countries on that or with the other countries of the West, but we will be in that sense anti-China. But if you are expecting that India will join forces to wage a war against China, I think we should be careful. Give me a few more minutes, I want to spend the order. In this context, I would say, and given the state of disorder that exists in the world of India, I mean, in the discussions that are taking place in India, I am not part of the mainstream today, but I still have reasons, I mean, ways and means of knowing what's going on, that many Asian countries are not very comfortable with the idea, concept of, if I might say it was in quotes, righteousness. I mean, which is becoming part of, I would say, the foreign policy particularly of the United States, which involves a mixture of strong moral feelings coupled with great power. We are doing the right thing. We need to go to the kind of stuff. I don't think that has been the history of international relations the world over. We believe, therefore, that it would be a mistake, not only for us but also for the viewers in the West to think that they can extract concessions from China by using military pressure tactics. We live in close proximity to China and we are well aware of China's perfidious designs. China wants to be, first, the number one power in Asia and that's the only country that can withstand, or whether it's standing between that and is India, so they will try to belittle or sort of reduce India's layer of influence. But we see in China not as a dangerous adversary so much as an imminent threat to which we have to face. The presumption of permanent hostility or adherence to a belief that China must be confronted forcefully on every issue is something that we find it difficult to adjust to. I would like to end by, sorry, yesterday I was struck by the forcefulness with the ethi liong spoke about Taiwan. I know that Taiwan is, like Bangkok's ghost, all the time we keep talking about Taiwan. Taiwan is a problem, there's no mistaking the fact that it's a problem, but there is no immediate solution to Taiwan. I think we need to recognize and I think this problem we can discuss it. I believe, and I think when I say I am not only mine but amongst the discussions we have in the security community in India, time is perhaps the best option to arrive at a formula which means maintaining the status quo for some more years. Any attempt to change the status quo through force would not only upset the global equity agreement and could have, it would have disastrous consequences of the world. Our understanding is that China can live with the present position with equanimity for quite some more time. And I would like to say please listen, we can debate it later on in this. Finally, this might be a very personal, again one more, I'm used to controversy. I've lived by my wits most of the time. I'd say that Asia, especially East Asia, needs to avoid the kind of situation that exists in Europe today where Russia has a paranoid feeling of danger and of a threat from Europe and the US while the West sees Russia as a threat that needs to be eliminated. You know, two sets of people in major conflict. Dealing with China is going to be very complicated but I think patience is important. We need to avoid the threat of a war on Taiwan and we should be careful as to how go about it. Finding desirable means to achieve a modest way of ending Taiwan is perhaps the best way to foster stability in the region. Sorry if I sound too controversial. Thank you very much.