It's a real pleasure to have Mr. Candet Yamkela here from UNIDO. He's also chairing a new special group at the request of the High-Level Commission at the request of the Secretary General on Energy. And so I think this is going to be a very interesting conversation. For those of you who don't know, Candet Yamkela is a former minister in the government of Sierra Leone and then has had a distinguished career in the UN system. And I think my UN watchers has perceived as a more than a rising star and arrived star in the UN system. And I think we're very fortunate to have them here with us here at CSIS. And I want to recognize our friends at the UN Foundation who are sponsoring, help with us today this event in honor of UN Day, which was on Monday. So we're calling this sort of UN week. And so we have a little small reception afterwards. So I hope you'll stick around for it. But I think you're going to find this to be a very interesting discussion about energy access in light of the context of Rio Plus 20 and also in light of some of the challenges that are going on in the world in terms of what's going to happen with foreign assistance and also the rise of globalization of foreign direct investment and the role of the private sector in helping to solve the challenges that we're going to be talking about today. So without further ado, I'm going to hand the floor over to Candet Yamkela. And on behalf of Sara Ladislon myself here at CSIS, we're so pleased to have you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to share some ideas with the audience and participants during this energy week. It's been a very busy 48 hours for me here, jumping from one discussion on energy to then discussing food security, spending the day-to-day discussing climate change and sustainable development, so moving back and forth on these issues. I was asked to talk about the role of the UN in promoting prosperity and development. And I was saying to myself, it's very difficult to define these things these days, prosperity and development at a time when the world is still dealing with the debt crisis. And in those of us who live in Europe, you see every day this debt crisis unfolding in more countries being threatened to go under. So what will prosperity mean in that context? Let me try to spend the first 10 minutes of my discussion with you on some of the mega-trends we see and challenges we see the UN will face, the world will face and issues the UN has to address. And I'll spend more time on energy, because central to some of these big challenges we have is the whole issue of how we produce, transmit and use energy and why we see this. And the Secretary General sees this as the issue for the century that we must address. But here are four or five key issues that we will all be challenged with if we're talking about prosperity and development. The first one is still the unfolding debt and financial crisis. This is still causing a lot of volatility, still causing a lot of challenges for advanced countries, but also for poor countries. The context here is, I can tell you, in 2007-2008, I was in meetings in New York where this crisis had just started. It's a financial crisis. And I watched us from month to month, seeing how fast the crisis was moving from a financial crisis on Wall Street to countries where there were not, in fact, any streets that I paid. So it became a global crisis. And we were all in shock and the speed with which it was moving. There was a time in 2008, I was in Cambodia, we were looking at factories in the garment sector and the Cambodian said, it's not here yet. It's mainly in Bangladesh, because the Walmart and others are not buying, because the consumers are not buying. Two months later, it was a different question. It was already in Cambodia. They were looking at laying off people. So this is still unfolding. And we saw how fast it transmitted. So one of the lessons we learned immediately that in the new context, with this interconnection, these things, the contagion effect is fast and wide and goes immediately to affect poor countries. So how do we plan in the context of volatility? How does a poor small country plan its deal with its fiscal and monetary policy when interest rates are changing, exchange rates are changing, where that country has no control? How do you plan even budget support for those countries? And those are issues in 2008 and even now. The World Bank and IMF are looking at it. At that time, we used to talk about the food, fuel and financial crisis, all connected, because energy became an issue immediately as well, high prices of oil. And we had 22 countries on the watch list. And at that time, we used to discuss volatility, vulnerability and viability. Some countries already were having riots, so security issues already kicked in. So that's still unfolding. Second issue, demographics. We see the demographic challenge as being very serious in Africa, the projections. I mean, before I even talk about Africa, next week we will be celebrating or commemorating the birth of the seventh billionth child, we will be seven billion. That child will not be born in America, according to the scientists who were born in an emerging economy. Talk a little bit about demographics later. But in Africa, we're looking at 1.4 billion Africans, 2030, maybe 2 billion or 2.2 billion by 2050. Most of them young, most of them below 25. They need jobs. Remember, the Arab Spring started in North Africa, could spread if there is no economic opportunity. But I'll come back to demographics a little bit later. The third one, resource scarcity. This one I picked out of the World Economic Forum. I serve on the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change. And when we meet as a global council of 701,000 experts, we are asked to mingle in design groups and different groups. The issue of resource scarcity is real, CEOs are looking at this. All kinds of natural resources. Some of you know the literature about approaching planetary boundaries. That's a challenge. It's a serious challenge, increasing population, but limits to the availability of natural resources. And of course, the fourth big one, climate change, the biggest risk multiplier of all that will affect, indeed, food security, water security, and many other developmental issues. The poor will pay the biggest price if we continue business as usual. The fifth I will give you is the illicit economy. We see as states are becoming more vulnerable, particularly the so-called failing states or failed states. They become victims of the underworld. It's easier to go into a country where there is no rule of law and set up shop. So it is of vested interest that we reduce those. If they are at risk because of the financial crisis, you will have more failed states. So you begin to see the connections. And if they are impacted heavily by climate change and they don't have resilience and adaptation capabilities, they become failed states. These are big issues. The UN has to deal with all of those at the same time as we deal with the usual menu of security, stability, improving relationships amongst countries. Go back to demographics. The IMF did a presentation for us, Secretary General and ourselves in March, projecting some of you may have heard me mention this because it's a real issue, that again they were looking at 20 years from now, 25 years from now, what will be the shifts in production systems and consumption patterns and demand centers. And we're looking at this, they see that about two and a half to three billion people will move to the middle class in emerging economies, mainly in Asia, accounting for probably 40% of consumer expenditure. But you know those two, three billion people, they're going to demand more food. They're going to demand more energy and more of everything because they're moving up. Income is going up. And so one key conclusion they have is the days of cheap food are gone. And it's not just any food, they would want protein, that's the normal trend. Your income goes up, you go for more proteins away from starch and others. Now what would be the implication for the poor countries? Can they afford food? Would the food be available? At a time when we're talking about resource constraints or land, water and then climate change would be a risk multiplier and of course energy. There will be a huge demand for energy, which means there could be, not saying there will be, there could be. No emissions, hence more problems with climate change. So you begin to see the interconnections. But a lot of these people will also move into cities, urbanization. So new urban settlements, new additional waste management issues for municipalities. You need new mass transit systems. If they continue the same consumption patterns as you and I have done, we don't have enough space. We don't have enough materials. So we talk in that context about sustainable production consumption. We need a lot of changes given these demographic projections and where the purchasing power would be and what will happen going forward. So we talk a lot within the UN these days about sustainable production and consumption systems and sharing best practices, how we will cope with this. This is not just about climate change. This is the reality of demographics and some of these structural changes we cannot stop. With that, let me transition a little bit to energy. So you ask the key questions, okay, with all of these issues, what kind of global governance systems would we have? What will be the role of the UN? Where do you transact these issues as they now converge? Because they're not isolated anymore. You look at a case of energy when the United States and other OECD countries were industrializing. People have looked at this from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now and they've just tried to average out in the new energy, world energy outlook. Let's say energy price roughly on average for all that period $25 a barrel for you. The developing countries and emerging economies will do their own transformation when oil is $100 a barrel. So the days of cheap oil, what does that mean for them? What does it mean for poor countries when energy hits that level? I put this map up, I don't have my pointer. So as we're going to talk about global governance and what can be done, we chose, and that's part of my leadership within the UN, on behalf of the Secretary General to say fine, let's take one of these issues. And we are convinced that central to the issues we're going to be dealing with on sustainable development is energy. 64 to 70% of emissions come from energy systems, energy production, transmission, and use. So you can't solve climate change without dealing with energy. It will just be a dream. If you look again also at poverty, countries need energy to propel growth in their economies. Should they use the old fossil technologies? If you and I say, they should be holier than thou, then what technologies do they use? Is it affordable? Who finances? There's always an incremental cost when you go to the cleaner technologies. Who pays that incremental cost? So again, growth, poverty, the energy linkage, but more importantly, some argue, Jeremy Rifkin recently in his new book, The Third Industrial Revolution, he argues the real trigger of the financial crisis and the debt crisis is energy. When energy hit $147 a barrel, all of you paid attention in the US. He believes on some other side, that was the real trigger. To show how vulnerable our economy is. And he's predicting that it's a five-year cycle. There is a crisis, demand goes down, prices drop of oil and energy.  And they believe this cycle will repeat each time and it will go back to over $100 a barrel. And then we'll have problems again. So we picked energy. So let's take energy and see how we take action on this as the UN and the global community. How can we rally the world around energy issues? Looking at availability and equity issues within energy. Looking at climate change and then shared responsibility. I'll show you this map. This is a satellite map from NASA at night. That's Africa, very dark, everywhere else, right? But you see a little bit also. Darkness in Asia, some again in Brazil. That's how it is today. Somebody's gonna flip this for me or there's a, okay, right here. Energy poverty. This is the data, current data from the International Energy Agency. The open circles, the level of energy poverty in different continents, as it stands, Africa, with about 587 million people without access to electricity. Asia, India about 600 million, some say 400 million. And then the field in circles, that's their projection by 2030. Bottom line, their projection, this is 2011, all energy outlook. There will still be 1.3 billion people not connected. Business as usual scenario. In addition, we know today about 2.73 billion. Use biomass for cooking and their primary energy needs. Projection, that number will still be 2.8 billion by that time. Energy poverty, they also happen to be the poorest of the poor. So I said India 400 million in India. Question is, are there new approaches to solve this problem? Because it's also a social problem. We estimate 1.5 to 2 million people die every year. Premature deaths from indoor air pollution, most of them women and children, so it's a social problem. It's more than malaria. The projection for 2030 is that other diseases might drop. But the deaths from indoor air pollution will be more than HIV, and malaria combined. So it is a health and social problem. You can look at some of the work on this indoor air pollution from Kirk Smith, University of Berkeley, he's done a lot of this work with WHO. How do we make energy access a priority in the development discourse? It's not been an issue in the UN. We don't talk much about energy. Typically we attach energy to other issues, sustainable development, climate change. The reason is, each time energy comes up, there is a fight. It's about the geopolitics of energy. Who will control the supply? We change the narrative. Let's talk about energy for development. And that's the narrative we're using here. How do we mobilize action? How can the UN lead action and get countries to rally around it? How do we finance? And then how would we have accountability? And so this is an area where we're going to be, the Secretary-General has made it clear for his second time, sustainable development is the issue. And for sure, energy within that. This again is from the International Energy Agency. Projections of global energy mix, as they said.  I think Fukushima has helped. You can see this period. Fukushima has helped a lot. There's a lot of shifts. Some people are calling this the golden age of gas, as a transition fuel. But this is where we want to go. We want to increase the share of renewables, very small. So to improve this mix, to decarbonize energy systems. How can we promote access? And at the same time, introduce these new technologies. So that more people have access, but at the same time, we solve climate change as well. How do you do all of this and transact and get buy-in? When you have a political system now where they're still made everywhere. Even in the US, you can have an easy discussion on climate change or energy policy here. Again, balancing energy security, energy access, and then dealing with climate change. Secretary-General therefore decided to launch. It's the only new initiative he's introduced at the General Assembly this year. An initiative on sustainable energy for all. He's asked me and also Chad Holiday, Chairman Bank of America, to lead this group. We've set up a very high-powered group, 35 people, most of them from the private sector. Only three of us from the UN. Because the capital we need for this, $48 billion a year, it's not from aid. So again, you have a big debate now. Where do you get the money? Where do you get that $48 billion? It's not from aid money. Aid money is a share, but it's mainly leveraging from the private sector. Hence, this group is heavily dominated by companies that are technology providers, by bankers and others. How do we leverage that cash? And then the R&D support we need to drive down the cost of renewables. Our remit is to develop an action agenda. How do we, can we set some political goals and then develop a strategy and action agenda to achieve those goals and have an accountability framework and then launch that agenda in Rio Plus 20? That's our remit in that group. Already we have defined three goals to achieve universal access to energy by 2030. We wanna double the share of renewable energy in the energy mix. In fact, some of us have a number. We say make it 30% renewables. Now that's easier said than done. And it's very political. And then we say double the rate of improvement of energy efficiency per year. That translates to about 40% improvement in energy efficiency by 2030. That's tough. Our argument is you gotta do all of this. You gotta make poor people have access. That's about equity and growth and their own access to prosperity. But you gotta do these two things if we want to lower emissions. We want to be sustainable. So how do you combine all of this and get the world to rally around? So first of all, we've defined political goals. These are not binding because that's the problem in the negotiations. In climate negotiations, nobody wants binding targets. We're saying fine, let's have aspirational goals. Can we set some key norms and principles as a global community that we should do this? It covers equity. It also covers climate change and sustainability issues. So we have established this and the question is now, how do we achieve them? And that's the job this high level group is gonna do to develop an action agenda. Some people have said to me, well, if you're advocating for more access, you're advocating for more power generation.  Well, again, we went to IEA, we say you do the heavy lifting, do the analysis for us. Without these connecting these 1.4 billion people who have zero access, this will still be your demand globally because these developing countries need energy. Now, what if we were to connect those? Just increases demand by 1.1%. It's negligible, yeah? But what happens to emissions? Without these folks, you still have high emissions because it'll be business as you will. People will build those coal-fired plants. You can't tell them not to have it. If some of us have enjoyed it two, 300 years, others need it too. So you can't stop them. They may use nuclear, they may use something else, but they'll do it anyway. So we say, well, what if we were to say we give these 1.4 billion people existing fossil technologies? By how much will it increase emissions? Negligible. So the whole issue of climate change is not an excuse not to have that equity, not to have these people access energy so they can have prosperity. But we don't want them to use the old technologies if we can avoid it. We want to help them leapfrog. We want them to use those renewable sources, but they're expensive. Who pays the incremental cost? Is the technology available? How do you deploy it to scale, not pilot projects? How do you deploy to scale? Not easy. This is not government aid. This is about business models that will convince private sector to really bring that cash, that 48 billion, but use sustainable sources rather than the traditional sources of energy. Can they leapfrog? Well, if the US cannot easily increase the share of renewables in their own mix, how can we preach that to poor countries? They don't have the technology yet. So what capacity building, what kind of public policies will make that happen? So you saw the three goals. In our action agenda, we already know identifying that in access, finance is gonna be a key issue there. How do we bring in private sector to provide that finance? So we have a group looking at finance and for sure we have Chad Holliday, he's a big banker in this country. And so he will be helping us in that group with some other people from around the world. We wanna do these other, climate related if you will, our goals, the kind of R&D you need, the same issues arise here, the public policy that will incentivize using more energy sources that are less carbon intensive. Some people say the promising one could be a bridging fuel, can be natural gas. We have an aspiration, more renewables, but we need a pathway to go there. Energy systems take several years to design. They take several years to put on the ground to finance. How do we bridge that gap? Some people say natural gas. So I picked one of the simple ones and again I picked these numbers from IEA. So well what about if we say, let's look at clean cooking solutions for that 2.7 billion because we know those technologies. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton in fact is leading that crusade in the clean cookstove alliance. And I'll talk about that a little bit.  The kind of partnerships we're talking about building. If we take providing modern cooking energy solutions to the poor, we need about 74 to 100 billion. Part of that money can go into LPG. Yeah, liquid-fired petroleum gas. We can easily quickly connect 220 million and why that's small? Because we're saying it's more the people in the urban centers that can use this quickly. You can do the distribution systems, but by the time you extend to rural areas, you can have many more. This is not rocket science, it's not. This is done in many countries now, but it's still not available to most other people. And so you can also reduce 2 million premature deaths, possibly because now they have modern cooking facilities. You save women and children 20 hours per week in some countries from collecting firewood. Again, financing. How do you leverage that? What are the business models? Because these are household solutions. How do you incentivize that, that you have the systems in the countries to make it available? So this was my advertisement of the oil and gas group. I say, can you help us? So it's good for your business. It's good for the MDGs, it's good for the climate. But this is where I spend a lot of time. This is where you begin to look at social justice, security, and so on. This is from Foreign Policy Magazine, March 2010. That's a picture they had looking at the Niger Delta. How many of you see young faces here? How many young people have had a Niger Delta in Nigeria? For me, this article in Foreign Policy Magazine begins to connect social justice, energy justice, climate justice. I walked in Nigeria. This is the Niger Delta. See the darkness all around? That's gas flaring. That's about three, four billion dollars a year. Burnt, because it's easier to do it. The kids don't have electricity, so they're playing soccer around the gas flaring. That's been going on for 45 years in that region. When I arrived in Nigeria in 2000 to work there as a UNIDO rep, they were having some rebellion there already. Kids agitating. And I remember sitting with some Nigerian ministers and generals. I say, you know something?  This little rebellion can lead to a civil war. They say, nah, we are not like you Sierra Leoneans and Liberians. That will never happen. We have a strong army. We'll crush them. Say, really? Fast forward. 10 years later, it's a full blown rebellion. It's about natural resources. But it's more than that. The air is polluted. The water is polluted. The soil is polluted. They don't have electricity. This is being flared, 45 years. In the North Sea, you don't flare gas unless it's technically necessary. In Algeria, you don't flare gas unless it is technically necessary. Or LPG is everywhere, even in the rural communities. But yeah, Sub-Saharan Africa. It's burnt. Not piped to the homes. Not used for power generation. Flared, 45 years. But worst of all, UNEP had a report now this year about the level of pollution. Some of us knew that. Greenpeace, everybody's accounted. The pollution in that area is equal to or more than Exxon Valdez when I was a student here. Rebellion, bad corporate practices, socially injustice, instability. You fast forward. I mentioned this the last time I was visiting here. This year, my representative in Nigeria is sitting here. Well, terrorists bombed the UN office. Remember I told the Nigerians, this thing could spill over? We don't know who did it. Some people say it's the Islamists. Well, just think about it. The poor Islamists in the North combining forces with the poor. This same franchise, those in the South, you have chaos. So again, we begin to link. And yesterday I talked about this with a group. What do you call it? The Future Energy Coalition, right? John Podesta and all of these people were there. There was an admiral in the room. He said, I have better pictures for you. See, because I'm using it with some generals now to talk about development and security. And he has different pictures from mine showing the settlements and so on and where the rebels are in the same region. He said, thank you for raising it. It's an admiral from the US Navy. So again, you begin to see the linkage, energy, poverty, climate change, security, and so on. So what we've tried to do in conclusion, we've picked this. This is risk-taking now.  We're going to lead it. But Chad Holiday is a good businessman. We have CEOs from Vestas, from Vestas, largest wind power company, Sontek, largest solar PV producer in the world. We have Munich Re, going to have somebody from the Department of Energy here, State Department. These are real issues. These are not trivial. If you're talking about food security, you need an energy source to add value. Yesterday, that was the subject of our presentation at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Ah, gender empowerment. It is the women and children who suffer the most when you have lack of energy. It is the women who collect that firewood, who go down to the water to bring the water to the side, to bring the water to the house, to cook. And guess what? Pollute themselves in the process, and many of them die. So you look at the centrality and what we're trying to do now, with the leadership of the secretary general, to lead this, take it to Rio, put the partnerships together, like the clean cookstove alliance. Mrs. Clinton backed it, but you have a number of companies. When they started, I think, what, 20 entities today? It's over 100 pledges. Dow, Corning, you name all these companies. They see it as a social issue. But it's not a gift. We're looking at business. What kind of R&D to make these stoves available? University of Colorado, all of these guys are involved. The best technologies, just to make that simple technology available to women and children, quick in communities. How do you build a market for that? Maintenance, supply, so that it's not charity. People make money in the supply chain. Here again, it's a clever use of aid, combined with private capital and knowledge to create a market for a simple solution that has both social and economic implications. We're going to use the same kind of model. For me, in conclusion, that's the kind of new leadership we're looking for in the United Nations. The problems are too complex. They're converging too fast. You don't have the luxury anymore of saying, I deal with only the rebellion in Darfur. In the same Darfur, you have to take care of the women who are raped when they go to fetch firewood. In the same Darfur, you have to deal with the deforestation that is taking place when refugees move, or if they move over to neighboring countries. These issues are converging. They are not separate. And in a poor country, they don't have that luxury anymore. To choose between climate and poverty? No, it's all at the same time, because climate is affecting poverty at the same time. And the governments have limited budgets. But ODA is shrinking in this debt crisis. How do you leverage private finance? I didn't give you much solutions, but I gave you some ideas of, at least in one case, how we deal with it. There's another group looking at water. There's another group looking at food security. The key is, how do we combine those efforts, because they're all interconnected? But we have groups looking at them. My job is to lead this one, which is perhaps even more difficult and more political difficult to transact. Thank you very much. Candy, thank you very much. That was just tremendous. And I think what I'm taking away from this is about new models of combining development resources, along with leveraging private sector resources to solve these problems. It's not about charity, and it's not about handouts, and that we have to bring the private sector in. But we have to bring the private sector in, not as a charitable player, but as in a way in which they're making money. And we talk a lot about sustainability. We talk a lot about scale in the development business, where if we want to achieve scale, we want to achieve sustainability.  So thank you very much. I'm going to ask my colleague, Sarah Ladislaw, from the Energy Program to respond. And then we're going to open it up for some questions. Sarah. Absolutely. Thank you so much for such wonderful and compelling comments. I think you've touched on what not only a lot of the things that we focus on in the energy program here at CSIS, but what a lot of our colleagues focus on is we were talking before your remarks. We've got groups that focus on food security and water issues and global health issues and demographic issues. And indeed, it's getting more and more complex for us to be able to sort of deal with them as a package. But the thing I wanted to sort of take the opportunity to ask you a question on is, you are in Washington, DC, and we do have sort of a self-absorbed kind of quality to a lot of the discussions we look at even on a global basis. And I thought you did a very good job of couching for a DC audience the idea that even though there's a global economic crisis going on, even though we've got sort of a fiscal austerity and budget discussions going on here, that there is a broader global community that is looking at some of these challenges and that they're looking forward to major events like Rio plus 20 next year, like the Secretary General's Initiative Energy for All of next year. And one of the things that I wanted to ask you to talk a little bit more about, if you could before we open up to questions from the audience, is this idea that we've got prevailing here is that without some sort of globally binding treaty with the failure of global climate change talks and those types of things, that these types of conversations that reducing emissions, that private sector activity to make waves both on the energy poverty side but also on the emissions reductions or the energy efficiency side are really doomed and that we don't necessarily have a path forward for that. How do you see in very concrete terms the outcomes that may or may not come from the end of the climate change negotiations before the end of the Kyoto Protocol at the end of this year and sort of the relationship between what you're trying to tee up from Rio and both in the political sense but also in the practical sense. How do we get folks that feel like we've gotten a one, two punch on being able to deal with these issues effectively over that hurdle and thinking about them in new ways and new ways that help us feel like those goals are achievable? We must support the formal negotiating processes. These processes we are created by member states, not by the UN. Member states defined how they want the UNFCCC to conduct its negotiations in a very inclusive way. So it was their prescription to have 190 something countries around the table. It is up to them to change the format. So my first comment would be, we have to respect and support those processes. And if they're done inclusively, transparently, you get a level playing field and you get commitments from everybody and trust is built. It's not easy to do, but that was the intention. And so we continue to support that and hope that we do get the grand deal that we expect. Meanwhile, some of us are convinced that on energy we don't need to wait. If we say we wait for a grand deal, then it is basically saying to poor people, you perish, we continue to pollute and wait till we get a grand deal. That's not equity. That's not fairness. Because those who are the worst affected, now particularly in Africa, they will pay in all the projections we see, they will pay probably the highest price if we have business as usual. So by not having a deal and telling people to wait till you bring these kinds of solutions, I talk about does not augur well for a secure and safe world. I think that it is in our collective interest to see that these solutions are spread. And that's what we are trying to do, to say fine. As we negotiate, we know there are things we can do now and today. We know the solutions are there. What we wanna do is what new financing models, business models we can do to deploy these solutions to scale. I always say we want to avoid just shining a light on poverty.  That's not enough. We want energy that changes their lives. Their productive capacities. Expands economic prosperity for them. Otherwise, we are all not safe. What do you do with all these people? We're waiting for the negotiations to finish. Meanwhile, the populations are growing, moving into cities. You will have instability. And that was the connection with failed states. When you have failed states, nobody's safe. So our message is negotiate, respect the processes, but you know something, let that not be the excuse of not taking action. But the question is, what action? Can we show some? We are trying to show that in the energy space. You can show that in the food security space. Because part of that demographic figure suggests that we need to increase food production by 50% by 2030. I think 70% by 2050. We gotta feed those people. So yesterday we spent time on agribusiness. Again, there are solutions in the United States that we've used in other places that can help answer that question as well. If you look at agribusiness, food security, job creation, value addition, and wealth creation in an economy. As you have done here, success. We have some microphones here. I'm gonna collect questions world bank style. And so we'll gather a couple of questions and I'll ask people to identify themselves. And if you can frame your question in the form of a short question, that would be ideal. So I'm gonna start with my friend Tony Carroll up front here. If there are others, if they'd raised their hand so I can see if you have other questions. I didn't know what to expect when I came here and congratulations on a terrific presentation. My name is Tony Carroll and I am a partner in Manchester trade but I also teach at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. And I've been reading with great interest in the last year or two the work of Michelle Severino. And he talks about, articulates quite a bit on this urban migration issue in Africa. And some of his conclusions are different than yours. He thinks that urban migration will allow for more efficient delivery of services including energy. That depopulating rural areas will allow for the first time increase in scale of agricultural production. That in effect there will be a green revolution but it will part because of greater ability of being able to produce scale agriculture. And thirdly, he thinks that there will be social upliftment because of the more concentration of service delivery mechanisms apart from just energy. And lastly, if you go back to Professor Lewis and the idea of surplus labor, that Africa's moment has come. That this is Africa's time because nowhere else has it achieved such a surplus of labor. And that will endure to the benefit of Africa's potential as an industrialization and other productive economy. So slightly different than your thesis here but there are elements there that touch upon your predictions. And I just sort of like to get your comment upon those. Yes, my comment is I am sure he gives some provisals because I fully agree with him. It could be a demographic dividend. That's what they call it in Vietnam and in India. They're looking at those demographic transitions as a dividend. Conditions are the following. Provided they are skilled. Then it's a benefit. Provided you have the infrastructure in place. Ah, provided you have an area, a sector that will have some. The problem with Africa that rural urban migration and those demographics are preceding structural change. That's the crisis point and lack of skills. Unskilled, poor, illiterate people packed in the city, not enough water, not enough light. Ah, but you don't also have the supply structure to supply the food. I was a minister before. Trade and industry dealing with rice, petroleum, flour and all the essential products. Let me tell you, when you know the riots will begin tomorrow morning, you import food immediately. You don't wait. But that kills local production. So this, for Africa, the challenge is that this is happening too fast, too soon, before you have the structural change in the economy and the infrastructure and skills base to absorb that label. In Vietnam, in India, they're looking at it. In fact, the former trade and industry minister of India was a friend of mine. He wrote a book. He said, India's time. And he's counting on that demographic transition that we will have the skilled labor force to be the powerhouse of industry. So let's educate those Africans with the right skills. Zen, I agree with Sivirino, he's a good friend of mine. Gentlemen back there. Hi, thank you for your talk. My name is Andrew Gisselquist. I do a little bit of electricity consulting here in town for a firm called Boston Pacific Company. And I also do some consulting for a firm, Ian Coe, who's done for about the last 20 years investing in small-scale entrepreneurs around the world and helping, investing in them and then training them for business skills so they can then promote clean energy in their communities. And so I was very interested to hear you talk about financing these initiatives. And I'd just like to get a little more detail from you about what sorts of energy projects you're looking to finance or focusing on finance. And are you talking more about grid-scale, larger projects, whether they be fossil-fueled or renewable energy? You mentioned Vestis as a partner, the big wind turbine developer. Or are you talking more maybe smaller-scale, small-medium enterprises, local entrepreneurs, just if you could give some sort of direction there. Thanks. It's good to know that you work for Christine Epsinger. She's in the group. She's supposed to help us with some of those bottom-up solutions. In fact, I was just grilled heavily at State Department about those models. Is it just top-down grid-based or will we look at decentralized bottom-up solutions as well? It's both. Countries need both. And so Christine, we're working very closely with Christine to look at these bottom-up solutions that you guys have worked on. Congratulations. We know some of your models. She'll be in however. Again, when you're looking at scale. For you to get the kind of, I mean in Africa, we have a target adopted two months ago in South Africa by the African Ministers of Energy to add another 40 gigawatts in the next five to six years. If you're looking at that level of scale, you need a clear top-down solution. You need a plan that gives confidence the companies to come in for independent power production. They need confidence that you have a reform of your power distribution systems. Some of those utilities are money wasters or money draining institution. So you need a whole sector reform to get that confidence to come in. But what we are advocating in the group, and that's why we have Christine and others in the group, to have an integrated solution top-down bottom-up because the challenge is, if you say you wait till you have the plan ready, sometimes it takes three, four years. Meanwhile, there are these models we know that you can do some things now with bottom-up solutions, mini grid, one megawatt in a community. They can pump water. They have solar panels. And so we're saying we don't wait till the plan is finished and we find the 300 million. We have solutions now that are worth only three million and we can do it. So bottom-up top-down. And so I was challenged at state now, so Candia, when will you have a template ready? I don't know. So I'm putting the experts together and integrating these because the communities are also separate. The big utility guys want the grid-based solutions. But you have others saying, hey, there are other ways to do this. So my job is to bring them together and say, okay, give us an integrated plan that does not leave people out while they wait. Because even to do those plans based on what we know from the World Bank, to design some of those systems, you need five, 20 million dollars. Just to get the plan done and do the environmental impact assessments and then the financial package, three, four years minimum, before you even begin. Should people wait? I've been the front here. Thank you very much. I've been senior advisor to four different parts of the UN over my career, so I won't ask you the question in my heart, which is how can we get this kind of dynamism throughout the system. But the question I will ask you with this, you pointed to the need for more complex approaches like the Peace Building Commission for areas like Darfur and so forth. So I wonder if you could spell out a little bit what you'd like to see happen in the more political and development nexus in the way of more complex and more systemic solutions guided by the UN. Thank you. Wow, that's the soft and difficult part of the UN. I was looking today, somebody says the purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations amongst nations, promote social progress, better living standards and human rights. Holy cow, all of that. Tough, easier said than done. And then I saw somebody else describing it to say, well, the UN was not created to take us to heaven.  Climate pollution and if the catastrophic scenarios are true, that's climate hell. How can the UN save you and me from doing wrong things because we do have a proclivity to do the easy and the wrong ones? My dear friend, I dodged that part of the UN, I like the technology side of it. How many economists?  With technology, it's cause and effect. So I spend more time there, however, however. That is perhaps the most important part of the UN, keeping the peace. So keep this, you need trust, you need confidence building, you need dialogue. When people feel left out of any system and they lose hope and dignity, you get chaos. How you maintain that? In the context I described before, with financial crisis, money not flowing anymore. With other grievances that I imagine, it's very tough in this context. We have to finance a number of activities. How do you create the dialogue in an atmosphere where the world has disappointed poor countries by not finishing Doha? Remember we had a slogan, trade your way out of poverty. For six years, we cannot even agree on a trade deal. And in the middle of that, now we've come with a climate deal. Well, my dear friends, if you have been polluting for so long and you cannot even help me trade my way out of poverty, how can I trust you now to help us save ourselves from climate health? Very tough. We know you need more dialogue. We know excluding people from dialogue is not the answer. Churchill used to say, let's draw, draw, let's not war, war. Tough to do, takes time to transact, 192. But again, we do believe that we begin to see mechanisms evolving. When the financial crisis hit, G20. Let's face it, it worked. They stopped the crisis. Ah, but it's for that period. But you don't just solve the problem for two years. As we see now, it continues to unravel. How do you institutionalize and begin to implement some of the principles? You should see some of the key principles in the Pittsburgh meeting of the G20, enunciated by these countries of what the responsibility we all have. The role of the UN is to bring those kinds of principles back into the system. To say, can we as an international community, a community of nations, can we agree on certain norms? You need it in peace, you need it in human rights, but you know you also need it in natural resource exploitation. We cannot afford for part of the world to say, we continue to consume as we do. We continue to pollute as we do. You solve your own problem, but we're not changing lifestyle. If you slow yours down, then it's okay. You need a place to transact that. I don't know anywhere else. You can have other mechanisms to implement faster. You can have other mechanisms to find the solutions quick, but it's good you bring it back to the community of nations. We all need to take them up as solutions. Some people prefer to say, well, let's do bilateral. In the case of pollution, it's transboundary. Carbon has no passport or nationality. It's carbon. Same with other pollutants. So I guess I dodged your question. It's difficult, but that's one of the key important work of the UN. We're looking at it. We have the Human Rights Commission. We're building these kinds of institutions, but we all have to agree to the same norms and standards. That's where it begins from, defining those values that we all hold dear and will promote around the world. So equity, fairness, human rights, and transparency, and no double standards. Ended there because we have a reception in the back, and so I'd like you all to join me in thanking


You're watching FJTN, the Federal Judicial Television Network. The courts are the watchdog of our rights. They resolve disputes that can't otherwise be resolved. They protect the community. They enforce the Constitution and the laws of the land. What higher task can there be? What greater contribution can be made? And so being part of a system that does that, and being part of a mechanism that is indispensable and invaluable in your community and in your country is a very special thing. The judicial branch, in my opinion, is the most important branch of government. I really firmly believe that what we do is the most important function of our government. And so why is that? We are, I think the phrase that really resonates with me is that we're the fulcrum of democracy, that if you don't have a free and independent judiciary preserving and protecting the rights of our citizens, then our society, our government, our way of life goes down the tubes. In order to achieve that goal or that function within our society, we have to have a well-trained and educated workforce who are knowledgeable about what they do, who are knowledgeable about why we're here, what the courts are supposed to be up to, what the judges are trying to accomplish, so that we can have that fair and effective judiciary. That third branch of government, although we're third, I think we're the most important. Judge Marshall, Judge Pro, what do you think makes the judiciary and the employees and the judiciary so special in the federal government? Well, I think just being a part of the administration of justice and, of course, all who work in the federal courts realize that. And I think that we, of course, try to impress upon them that the machinery can't work. We can't accomplish what we hope to accomplish without them and that everybody plays a role in that. The courts play such an important role in our society as places to resolve conflicts fully and fairly. And we depend mightily on those employees at every level to help the judges and others that are in the courtroom do their jobs. So it's an awfully important responsibility that everyone holds as part of the court system. A judge without a competent and supportive staff is not unlike, perhaps, a pilot without aircraft or a firefighter without equipment. They're ill-equipped to do the job. The staff provides the judge with the work product that he or she needs to get the job done and get it done well. So employees should understand that they're not just valuable. They're indispensable. What I think makes the judiciary and its employees special is, number one, the courts are mentioned specifically in the Constitution. And you certainly can't say the same thing about the IRS and the Social Security Administration. So I think that gives us a very special place to start. Next, I think the fact that what we do has an impact across the entire spectrum of people's lives, the decisions that are made by the judges, the work that the staff does, touches people in so many different ways, in so many very personal ways. Working for the federal courts is different than any other job I've had or what other people I've known have had. Because at the end of the day, you can have the feeling you've done something good for someone. You can have the feeling that you are been part of a system, that you've moved it forward, and that you're proud of the system. And that's a rare feeling in many other jobs. What makes us special as court employees is that, unlike employees that work for, say, private sector industries, we are actually for the citizenry, the embodiment of democracy. We are the people who demonstrate democracy by the way we handle papers over the counter to prosalit against, the way we counsel offenders when we have to gather information for them, the way we sit in courtrooms taking down the record. The independence of the court, to me, is the most important part. We aren't working for a corporation. We're not interested about profit. The basis of the court is the Constitution. So unlike other jobs, it is a much bigger picture. It's the fundamental of what America is all about, is our Constitution, and the court is actually the protector of that. I think the federal judiciary is, as an employer, very much different place than working for a private sector firm like Kmart or Intel. First of all, the judiciary is a permanent institution in our society, unlike private sector firms, which are here today and often gone tomorrow. And the judiciary serves a decidedly important function in our society. It is the embodiment of the rule of law. How does the work of the individual court units, whether probation, pretrial, or clerk's office, help to support and protect the rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution? Well, if one were to come into the federal courthouse and we were to take you on a tour so that you start with the clerk's office where the complain is filed that starts the process, you could see from that person who's at the window receiving that complaint and file stamping it to the judge who ultimately are the jury, who ultimately is going to resolve the issues in the case. And all along the way, there will be people involved with that process. And all of them are needed in order for us to accomplish the final goal, which is to make sure that justice is done, that people get a fair trial, that they get their day in court. Everyone is familiar with Brown versus the Board of Education.  And that's a good example of how our court system has worked to protect the rights of people in this country. But that case began with the filing of a lawsuit. And somebody had to process that from filing through docketing and so forth. They may not have been one of the nine justices in the US Supreme Court, but along the way, as Judge Marshall said, people played a very important part. And they have a piece of that. And that's reflective of cases that are maybe not as important or as famous as Brown versus the Board of Education. But every one of those cases is very important to the litigants that are involved. I think the work of our employees helps to further the mission of the federal judiciary, primarily, I would say, through making the federal judiciary more accessible. And that can take a variety of forms, whether it's good customer service that encourages people to use our services or disseminating information which enables people to navigate the federal courts more easily. Government is about service. And the federal judiciary and its employees are about problem-solving service. In the federal courts, we have a direction under the civil rules to resolve and apply the civil rules with a rule that we are bespeeding, that we be inexpensive, and that we be just. And the whole purpose of the judiciary and its employees from at every level is to bring about those results. From the small things that we do to the large things, our individual efforts, even though they may seem trivial, these things all contribute to something that's important to our citizenry and important to the Constitution of the United States. People come to the courts to resolve disputes and very important issues in our lives, wide-ranging issues involving our civil liberties, our responsibilities as citizens, the role of the government. And our role in the federal courts is to protect those rights and to ensure that people have a say and that the different issues are presented in a fair way. If you take a look at the, back at our Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, it's interesting to note how that intersects with our jobs. The First Amendment of the Constitution, talking about freedom and guaranteeing freedom and the fact that if a citizen feels wrong, that they have a voice, a right to redress the government for any grievances, that everybody has a voice. The Fifth Amendment, nor shall any person be subject to the same offense twice, nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It's starting to come a little closer to home, isn't it? Without due process of law. And you are in the front lines of helping make those decisions of providing facts, of working with people, working with the community on issues of life, liberty, and property. One time when I was a new probation officer, I was driving home from work and listening to the news and heard that there had been a Supreme Court case that had been decided just that day that had impact on a case that I was working on right at that time. And that really struck home for me that I'm part of the national system, and that Supreme Court decision affects what I write tomorrow in the office. And this report that I'm writing today could go to the Fourth Circuit for review, could even go to the Supreme Court. And someday there could be a news piece on a decision that was the result of the case that I'd worked on. The Sixth Amendment talks about to a right to a public trial and speedy trial by an impartial jury. You're constantly fighting the clock, as you are in doing pre-sentence investigations to help guarantee that speedy trial and also that notion of impartiality. And of course last but not least is the Eighth Amendment. This says, excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted. We hope you leave this week with the essence of pride in knowing the importance of the work that you are doing, the importance of the work in justice, and that justice is up to just us working together, helping each other. We have unique attributes. I mentioned judicial independence as something as being very important for the judiciary. That goes to different aspects. Yes, you probably heard about you wanna protect the judges from ex parte communication. You shouldn't have one side on a case talking to the judge or somehow interfering with the case without the other side being present. So we have a very unique function within the judicial branch that doesn't exist in other branches of government really, that we have duties and obligations that are unique to the judiciary. A second unique aspect of us, it's not unique in the concept, but it's unique in its application, is the code of conduct. I mean, if anybody can tell me what other branch of government or what other private entity has a higher degree standard of care, a standard of conduct than the judiciary and its employees in terms of our ethics and what we are supposed to uphold, I'd like to hear about it, especially in the government arena. I do not think that there's any other higher standard of care than what we have to do with our code of conduct, and so that's unique. That's different. That's a challenge for us within the judiciary to make sure that our staff is well versed in the code of conduct, that we adhere to the code of conduct and the ethics that are contained in the code and that we are ever vigilant on that. I've had several deputy clerks and clerks in probation free trial mention that when they became aware of the code of conduct and how specific it was to the judiciary, it gave them a different sense of the work that they do. Have you found this to be true in your units? I think that that is true, and as we were talking earlier, during the season when people would normally be exchanging gifts, and of course, those who have taken advantage of the service of the courts, the lawyers mainly, want to reward the clerks and others who've been involved in the process, and of course that code of conduct would not permit them to receive any gifts, and the clerks will bring it to our attention and talk about the fact that there is that code of conduct, and it also protects them, and it's their answer when someone wants to give a gift of some type that the code does not permit them to do so, and often you'll hear them say, this is my job, I love doing it, I'm doing it because that's what I want to do and I'm supposed to do, so it's not like you have to reward me for the job that I've done. That's an awfully important point. Taking pride in the work that you do is so important to having whatever our jobs are, that we do it well and take pride in it, but that code of conduct does a couple of things that I think are awfully important. When you focus on matters of conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety, it kind of drives home to every employee that they are part of the judiciary. What they do matters, how they appear, I don't just mean in a physical sense, but how they conduct themselves really does matter and because they are an extension of not just an individual judge, but of the court of an important third branch in our constitutional democracy and I hope that reinforces some of those values with each employee. To inspire new employees, we go into the courtroom, I talk to them about the oath, I explain of course that they're not enlisting in the military, but it's similar and that it's a very serious matter to be a deputy clerk and that by taking the oath, I want them to think about it and we talk a lot about customer service because at bottom we serve the bench, we serve the bar and we serve the public and we can never lose sight of that. I take a personal responsibility in every new employee that comes into the court, into our office, that they should understand what their role is in the big picture. They may have what may seem to be an unimportant part of the process, but if they understand where they fit in the whole system, they feel a sense of worth, a sense of importance that what they're doing is crucial to the process. We hold a special ceremony that is part of the oath of office taking process. We have a reception, we have a special room and a foyer that's decorated with the American flag and a picture of the Constitution and our circuit executive, Greg Walters, administers the oath of office and at the same time, he reminds people of the importance of serving for the United States courts and indeed, why it is a special responsibility. We take them to court right away because to me, that's where you actually can feel the whole system come together. The minute you walk into one of our courtrooms, you get the solemnity of the entire process right there and you realize that what you're doing is a very serious part of the job. I meet with each employee within their first oh, six or eight weeks of being appointed. I tell them about the functions of the judiciary, its organization, how judges are appointed and then I always attempt to tell them some stories about roles the federal courts have served over time. I characteristically draw upon the civil rights movement era and the important role that federal judges were uniquely able to play at that time because they had life tenure and were insulated from political forces at that time and this seems to make a tremendous impression on them. When I talk to jurors at the end of a trial and I always talk to the jurors, not about the merits of the case, but just to learn from them if there's something we could do at the courthouse that would make their job a little bit easier. Invariably, I receive from those jurors compliments on the professionalism of the staff. Now it could be the courtroom deputy, the court reporter or court recorder or the technician that comes into the courtroom to assist or other people that they may have encountered during the jury selection process and so forth and that goes back to something you mentioned earlier I think in terms of each employee being an ambassador. They really are an ambassador to the public and they're the face of our court and they're the people that the litigating public or the jurors or their attorneys come into contact with and the way they conduct themselves, the way they do their jobs and do them well makes a real difference I think in how the public views and appreciates the court system.


Right, so those were some of the films that we played over the last two days and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank each one of our sponsors and we're very grateful for the collaboration that we have had with them. Therefore I would like you personally thank our presenting sponsor Kalyan Jewelers. We would also like to extend our heartfelt thanks to co-sponsor Facebook, R.P. Sanjeev Goenka Group, Wave, the entire conclave that has been driven by Hyundai, partner Hindustan Power, Twitter mirror sponsor Aditya Billa Group, Knowledge Partner, Jain University, Airline Partner, Qatar Airways, Style Partner, Raymond, Insurance Partner, LIC, Conclave Associate, Namami Ganga, Celebration Partner, Diageo, Partner, Da Milano. It's been wonderful to collaborate with each one of you. We have been showcasing all of the sessions on Ajthak and Indiaturay Television and our digital partner, Indiaturay.in as well. So we're just waiting for the final information of the Prime Minister's arrival in the interim. What we'll do is we'll play out all the videos of our sponsors as well. Thank you so much for your patience. It means a lot to us and thank you for your participation as well. I hope you have enjoyed the last two days. Oh, come on. You can do better. Wonderful. Thank you. That's very sweet of you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Great. So we'll just play those videos and once again you can tweet on hashtag let'sconclave19 as well. It all started about 100 years ago when India was fighting the British. One of the forefathers started what was the first textile mill in Kerala. From the textile mill the group entered textile retailing and from there on into jewelry retailing in the year 1993 with the first jewelry store in Trishur, Kerala. When we entered this industry we realized one thing either we should change our principles or evolutionize the industry to keep up with the principles and ethics of our forefathers. He differentiated for Kalyan Jewelers with our big format stores and high level of stock. Kalyan Jewelers is all set to tread new horizons. The R.P. Sanjeev Goenka group has interests across diverse business sectors, power and natural resources, carbon black, IT and education, retail, media and entertainment, infrastructure and sports. Spread across six business sectors the group has 20 companies, more than 45,000 employees, an asset strength of more than 42,000 crore rupees and more than three lakh shareholders. And educate the future leading lights of industry. We build safe homes to make you feel comfortable and offices that transform the way you work. Approximately a hundred million of India's population suffers from mental and physical disorders. Today, NBCN is managed by the socially committed Pante Chhada Foundation, a charitable trust actively involved in various social development programs. NBCN is an institution that is committed towards the rehabilitation of children with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism and multiple disabilities. NBCN is the hope. We make the sugar that sweetens your tea and paper to deliver the news every morning and educate the future leading lights of industry. We build safe homes to make you feel comfortable and offices that transform the way you work. We bottle the drinks that keep you refreshed every day and those reserved for special occasion and amazing experiences to keep you entertained. Imagine a world-class school with a world-class infrastructure.  Imagine having 21 sports to choose from. A place where opportunities are boundless. We are Genesis Global School. Ladies and gentlemen, I request you to be seated please. The Prime Minister is here now. We'll begin immediately. If you could just kindly take your seats please. Can we all settle down? And like I said, it's the grand finale. We're finally here for the most eagerly awaited session of India Today Conclave 2019. Let me hear from a wonderful audience right here. A huge round of applause. Let's have the energy in the room now. Wonderful. Thank you so much. And may I please now call on stage the Vice Chairperson of the India Today Group, Kalipuri, to deliver the vote of thanks. Let's hear it for Kalipuri. A big round of applause. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome her. I hope you're having a hard time choosing your best moment from the conclave. It's been quite a conclave. Mine is right here, right now. I cannot describe to you the feeling of this moment. The last session of a two-day conclave, a hall bursting with beautiful people and the Prime Minister in the waiting lounge. This is pure unadulterated joy and I'm really enjoying the moment. No hard choices here. No matter which date we pick for the conclave, history is always an uninvited but special guest. In its 17th year, the India Today Conclave has kept its record intact as you see the India Park tensions at a record high. The news environment is fully charged and everybody has an opinion to share. What better time to gather to ideate and debate. A nation is defined by its conversation. The more open, frank, lively, informed it is, the more a nation thrives. That's where we come in. We in the newsroom on a good day, our conversation starters. On an average day, we are moderators. It's our job to present to you many views, but a single set of facts. Because though everyone is entitled to their own private opinion, nobody gets to choose their own private facts. We have a newsroom full of journalists who are out on the field and in the ground wanting to get you the information firsthand. So nothing is lost in translation. Truth must be well told and it's best told when it is told by somebody who's watching it unfold. I cannot tell you the number of India Today group journalists who put their hand up to go into the danger zone of the LOC and they are out there now and they will put their hand up again. The role of legitimate media is to give you the most amount of information so you can make the hard choices. Its role is not to make a choice and tell you how great that choice is. That's propaganda. In election season, when your choice is going to define the collective destiny of all of us for the next five years, be very choosy who you listen to. Be informed, not influenced. Thank you for choosing the India Today group today to spend your evening and a very big thank you to our sponsors. Kalyan Jewelers, RPG group, Wave, Facebook, Hyundai, Hindustan Powers, Aditya Birla group and Jain University for choosing us. Great choice guys and now how's the Josh in this room because next up is Josh in chief, Prime Minister Narendra Modi. May I please request on stage editor in chief of the India Today group, Arun Puri and Prime Minister Modi to begin our finale. Mr. Narendra Modi, ladies and gentlemen good evening and a very warm welcome to all of you. It's a privilege to have the Prime Minister here with us today at such a critical juncture of our country. I'm particularly grateful to you sir for sparing your time when there must be so much so many demands on your time. Thank you again sir for coming being here. Let me also congratulate you for getting our brave pilot Abhinandan back. The nation, the nation is relieved and grateful. Prime Minister Modi, you had come to the conclave as a keynote speaker in 2013. The country was full of anticipation then 2014 and your landslide victory was around the corner. So you could say we are your lucky charm so I suggest you don't go to any other conclaves or conferences after this. It's befitting sir that you're here with us again at the end of your first term and with elections a few months away. We're in the midst of a very sobering situation that is still playing itself out. Earlier this week you made the difficult and unprecedented decision to sanction strikes by the Indian Air Force on Pakistan territory in response to the Pulwama attack. Ladies and gentlemen let's applaud the Prime Minister for that and for our brave hearts who guide us, guard us. No one can deny Prime Ministers Modi's decisive disposition and singular capacity to break the mold. He's his own man, he's a man who will take a call and ride with what comes with it. This has been his hallmark in everything he has done. From the first time he became Chief Minister of Gujarat to his term now as Prime Minister. From the controversial but bold move to demonetize India's currency the implementation of the GST, the passing of the bankruptcy law and the firm message to defaulting businessmen that they can't duck their debts anymore. He's an architect himself of the new India. He's unleashed a range of audacious schemes to tackle the long neglected issues of the development of this country. He's brought the broom to many cobwebs and turned on the ignition key to many engines at the same time. These range from the Ayushman Bharat, the world's largest health insurance schemes to building toilets for all under the Swach Bharat Abiyan. Ninety million toilets have been built since the scheme was launched. I think that needs an applause to providing free cooking gas cylinders under the Ujwala scheme, building affordable housing under the PM Awas Ayurjana scheme, opening bank accounts for the unbanked millions under the Jandhan scheme, electrifying all villages in the country and building roads and highways at top speed. These schemes possibly don't affect the people sitting in this room but they have changed the lives of millions of people in India. While many of the schemes are in various stages of implementation, there is no doubt that these have been triggered, have triggered an unmistakable sense of movement in the country. Mr Modi has been a fearless warrior against corruption. He harnessed digital technology to plug the enormous leakages in government spending and then employed the JAM Trinity, that is Jandhan, Adhar and mobile networks. For better or worse, the destinies of nations are shaped not so much by the collective but by action, temperament and vision of individual leaders. They are called as history's catalysts. There are very few leaders who are able to claim to that title. Undeniably, PM Modi is one such. He has left his footprint on India regardless of what 2019 holds for him. Prime Minister, you have travelled the world tirelessly and built a network of relationships with the world leaders which has held India in good stead. We have seen how this helped us in this present situation with Pakistan. You have always believed that India should talk from a position of strength and you have done that. Your speeches as Prime Minister have been both inspirational and path-breaking. But for a powerful orator, your silence sometimes were puzzling. A lot has been achieved. Much remains to be done. These are critical issues like providing more jobs for the unemployed, addressing the widespread rural distress through a gradient reform, cutting down bureaucratic sloths and addressing the issues of social equity and harmony. No leader is given the opportunity to accomplish everything at one time or mortally promised. Your term as Prime Minister, Mr Modi, will be discussed, debated, lavishly praised, vociferously criticized and heatedly argued in the run-up to the general election. But that is the hallmark of our great democracy. India's 600 million people will soon decide whether they are satisfied with you and your government performance. The definition of leadership is hard choices, which has been the theme of the India Today Conclave. India will be keen to understand what has driven your choices these past five years. How have you negotiated the varying demands between constitution and constituency? In your own eyes, what do you feel most proud of achieving? What are you sorry that you could not do? And what would you do differently if you got another term? Also, all of us would like to hear from you the secret or your inexhaustible energy. As I said, Prime Minister, it's a privilege to have you here at the threshold of the momentous choice the country is about to make. You often like to coin acronyms. So I'm going to give you one. You are the ABCD Prime Minister. A for authoritative, B for bold, C for charismatic, and D for development. Ladies and gentlemen, I now give you the Prime Minister of India. Please, sir. My friends, I have been told that while controlling the country, what did I get to learn? Share your experiences with you. When I came to Delhi after the election of 2014, I did not have the experience of the Central Government. I did not have the experience of what the Central Government is doing, what the system is, what the system is. And I believe that it proved to be a blessing for me. If I had been a part of the old system, then after the election, it would have been a blessing for me. But that did not happen. My friends, I remember that before 2014, there used to be discussions in your studios about what the Modi system was like, what was going on in the world. The Modi did not understand what was going on. There was no experience. In such a situation, what would have happened to our foreign policy? There were issues. And it was selfish. I do not believe that it was wrong. Because for a person who has been working in a state for a long time, the issues are very selfish. And no, I had such a family background that people would trust and say, yes, these six people were their family, they would do that too. It was not like that. So the issues were very selfish. But during the past few days, you must have been shown that what is the effect of the foreign policy of India today. Did you show it or not? Let's go. You have accepted it. Friends, today's India is a new India. It is a changed India. For us, the blood of each and every brave man in the world is precious. What used to happen before, no matter how many people were killed, everyone in the world was martyred, but maybe there was a big event. But now no one can dare to show the eyes of India. Our government is responsible for taking every decision in the country. India is going on a new policy and policy. And today the entire world is starting to understand India. Friends, today's new India is a leader, a leader, a leader, and a leader. Because today, with the support of 1,500 million Indians, the country is moving forward. India has created a fear within and outside of the country, within and outside of the country. Today, I would like to say that this fear is good. When there is fear of the invasion of India in the enemy, then this fear is good. Now, in the minds of the terrorists, the fear of the terror of the terrorists is good. When there is fear of the law and the wealth of the terrorists, then this fear is good. When a big family is besieged by uncle's words, then this fear is also good. When the leaders of the party are afraid of going to jail, then this fear is good. When there is fear of the law and the wealth of the terrorists, then this fear is good. Friends, in the minds of the terrorists, the country has created a lot of things. Now, a new India is moving ahead by trusting its citizens, its citizens, its citizens. It is trying to reduce its fundamental weaknesses, its challenges. But, my friends, before this India, there is another challenge. This is the challenge of the resistance of our own country and the destruction of our own country and the destruction of the peace and happiness of our country. I am impressed that today, when the whole country is standing with our army, some people suspect the army. On the one hand, the whole world is supporting India in fighting against terrorists. On the other hand, So, on the other hand, some parties are doubting our fight against terrorism. These are the people whose statements, whose articles are being used as proof against India on the Pakistani radio and television channels. These people have come down against India as soon as they oppose Modi. The country is facing a loss. Today, I would like to ask all these people whether you believe in our army or doubt. I would like to know whether you believe in our army or do you believe in those people who are increasing terrorism on our planet? Brothers and sisters, I would like to tell all the people and parties that Modi will come and go. But the country will be dying today. The people of India. And that is why I would like to ask them, Krupaya, for the sake of your political interests, for the sake of your religious pride, stop playing with the security of the country. Stop weakening India. Friends, these two are having a lot of discussions. And there is a sound. Today, the country has felt the lack of Rafale. Today, India is saying in a sound that if we had Rafale today, the result would have been something different. And we should understand this clearly. Before Rafale, selfishness was the reason for it. And now, because of politics, the country is facing a lot of losses. I would like to tell these people that if you want to oppose Modi, then do it. Take out the losses in our plans. What is affecting them? What is not happening? Don't hesitate to oppose the government. You are always welcome. But don't oppose the security of the country. Keep in mind that in the fight against Modi, the terrorists like Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, the terrorists should not be supported. They should not be strengthened. Friends, those who ruled the nation for many, many years had interest in two things, doles and deals. The culture of doles and deals harmed our nation's development journey greatly. Do you know the biggest sufferers of this approach? Our Jamans and Kishan. Let me talk about the defense sector first. Why is it that those who ruled the nation for so many years have so many defense camps in their era? They began with jeeps and later graduated to weapons, submarines, helicopters. In the process, the defense sector suffered. If a deal could not happen, defense modernization could not happen. Who is every dealmaker close to? Who is every middleman close to? The entire nation knows. And Lutians really surely knows. Friends, it is common knowledge that one of the things our armed forces regularly need are bulletproof jackets. In 2009, our force made a request for 186,000 bulletproof jackets. In 2009, you would be ashamed to know that not one bulletproof jacket was obtained from 2009 to 2014. In our tenure, we brought 230,000 bulletproof jackets. In our tenure, the corridors of power are also free from middlemen because they know this government will never tolerate any corruption. Now, let me talk about those in power loved giving those. These doles were not aimed at empowering the poor. These doles were given so that the poor remain poor and remain hate the mercy of the political class. The best example of this is the farm loan waivers. No economist or policy expert will ever say farm loan waivers can solve our agrarian issues. It is a temporary bomb at best. Every ten years, UPA came out with a farm loan waiver idea. They did nothing in their full tenure, but at the eleventh hour offered a farm loan. There is nothing tangible in their waivers. It benefits less than 20% of the farmers. Yet they love to fight polls on farm loans. We have taken a different approach. The PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, a comprehensive scheme for farmers welfare. No dole, no deal, only good deed. 6,000 rupees in three parts to 12 crore farmers of India. The scheme was announced on 1st February and launched on 24th February. We worked 24 hours nonstop and launched it in 24 days. Previously, this much time would be taken to decide a very important question. After which member of the family should we name the scheme? And unlike waivers, PM Kisan Samman Nidhi is a long-term and long-lasting assistance. Our other schemes are like these two. Be it soil health cards, PM Kisan Jai Yojana, ENEM, they are not doles. They are concrete long-term measures to increase farmers' income by 2022. It was the NDA government that had the honour of bringing a historic hike in MSP for farmers. When the previous government was in power, a file for MSP was kept in cold storage for almost 7 years. Thus, while they work for 10% commission, we work with 100% mission. And when a government works with a strong mission, all ground development becomes possible. Friends, our 55 months and the 55 years of the others have given two contrasting approaches to governance. They had a token approach. We have a total approach. For everything they had a token to offer, let me elaborate. India had been battling poverty, but they gave a token slogan, Garib Hatao. How to achieve that was not specified and neither did they make any effort to remove poverty. But they went place to place saying Garib Hatao, Garib Hatao, Garib Hatao. It was known that India needed to work on financial inclusion. For that, they gave a token bank nationalisation. They did this in the name of the poor, but none of them bothered to check if the doors of banks are open for the poor or not. Take the case of one rank, one pension. A 40-year-old demand was left hanging, but during their last budget in 2014, a token amount of 500 crore rupees was added. They knew very well that this was not even close to the amount needed, but then again token. And the election that they were approaching before 2014, what was their poll plank? Increased gas cylinder from 9 to 12. Imagine such a large national party with years in government is reduced to fighting a poll on 9 to 12 cylinders. This way of giving tokens is not acceptable to us. If work has to be done, it has to be in totality, not with tokenism. That is why all our initiatives aim for 100%. Jandan, financial inclusion and banking for all, housing for all, a house for every Indian by 2022, and we are making remarkable progress in this direction. 1.5 crore homes have already been created compared to 25 less homes made by UPA. Health care for all. Aishman Bharat, no Indian must be deprived of good and affordable health care. 50 crore Indians will benefit from this scheme. One rank, one pension, compare their 500 crore to the 35,000 crore that was eventually given by the India government as a part of OROP. Ujwala Yojana, while they were busy between 9 and 12 cylinders, we have worked to give smoke free kitchens to crores of families. Power for all. Every village and every household should have electricity. The 18,000 villages in darkness for 17 long years have now been electrified and now the focus is on household electrification. So you can see, we are working with both speed and scale. Everything has to be for all, not a slight few. Enough of tokenism. The time has come for a total transformation where the fruits of development reach each and every citizen. Friends, until today, I want to ask you a good question. But today, I too want to ask you a question from the heart of today. I believe that my question will force you to think. Why do millions of people have to think openly? Until today, the government was not in contact with the deviant. Till today, the water of Ganga was so polluted. Till today, the North has been expected. Till today, the national war memorial was not there for the soldiers of our country's army. Till today, the national war memorial was not there for our brave and courageous police officers. The country does not know. After the independence, more than 35,000 police officers have been martyred. There was no memorial. Till today, in the memory of the free army, why was the flag not thrown in the red fort? Till today, if I move forward with the questions of this generation, then it can become a special bulletin of the hours. Whether you say hello on these questions or not, whether you make or not the story of the generation but the truth is that the poor, poor and poor people of this country did not try to connect with the system. But I have only come here to ask a question. I would like to give an answer. And without your permission, what we have achieved and what we are achieving, you all tell yourself the fastest. And your tagline is, the fastest. So I thought that even I will tell you about myself and my government about how fast we are. Today, we are moving away from India with the fastest speed. Today, we are moving away from India with the fastest speed. In 1991, if you look at it from 1991, in the last five years, we have increased GDP growth with the fastest speed. Today, we are progressing from the fastest speed to the corner恢lo- pues. We are going to go up the streets with the fastest speed. That is going to be a bad time in gymnastic. But there is one thing. My country by the way, down to the bottom the speed. As Indonesia fumes on its reputation, cutting the distribution, or even urban development as they promiseイndia your tagline. So in the same way, our government has the highest lifeline. Brothers and sisters, when I came here in 2013, I told you a story of two friends. One story was that once two friends go out into the jungle. They were scared to go out into the jungle, so they kept a gun close to them. If they find a scarecrow, they can save their lives. They wanted to go to the jungle, so they went into the jungle. Then suddenly a lion came in front of them. What to do now? The gun was in the car. They left it there. It was a big problem. How to deal with this situation? If they run away, where should they go? But one of them took out the gun license from his pocket and showed the lion that he had the gun license. Friends, at that time, when I told you this story, I had the same thought in my mind that the government was in the same state at that time. The previous government made a lot of actions, but there was no action in it. Now after coming into the government, how did we accept the action along with the act? What is the difference between then and now? I would like to give some more examples of that. Friends, the unlawful law was passed in 1988. But it was never passed. That means the act was never passed in action. Our government did a lot of work to make it happen. And the unlawful money was spent on thousands of crores of rupees. In the previous government, you must have seen the condition of the Food Security Act. It was passed in a very good manner. But when my government came to you, you were shocked to see that only eleven states were allowed to do so.  And we were sure that the people would benefit from it. Even before, this was the government's right. This was the result. This is the right option. But what was the result? You all know. Today, we have made a lot of actions. And look at the progress in the country. Friends, since 2014 to 2019, Kaalkhan has been five years old. But when you run on the path of development and do the work of our government, you will feel that you have returned by traveling many tens of miles of development. And after that, when I say it in full, our government's five years of difficult trials and the blessings of 1,500 crores of Indians are extremely fortunate. From 2014 to 2019, it was time to fulfill the needs. From 2014 to 2019, it was time to make the fundamental needs more accessible to every household. From 2014 to 2019, it was time to meet the одну and welcome waves. From 2014 to 2019, it was time to meet the two and welcome waves. And the journey ahead from 2019 is a story of dreams that have changed. It is a story of reaching the destination of hope with the state of hope. It is a story of taking the truth from the heart. Friends, I have read a lot in books that the 21st century will be of India. Over the past five years of hard work and struggle, we have worked to strengthen the nation's policy. This policy will lead to the development of a new India. Today, I say with complete faith that the 21st century will be of India. With complete faith, I finish my speech. You invited me to the India Today Conference. You gave me the opportunity to keep my speech. I thank all of you very much for this. And once again, I would like to thank Arun Ji again. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for your speech. I think that if this audience was your electorate, you would win the next election. But I really like what you said about no deals and no doles. I don't think India will progress that if we do no deals and no doles. Also, you laid out your vision for Naya India, Naya Bharat. I think that that is something which has excited everybody. You have changed the way India functions. Of course, there's a lot to do. And we wish you well in the coming elections. And I would like to thank you for saying Aaj Tak so many times. And also like to thank you that you adopted our slogan, So thank you so much for coming and being a delightful experience listening to you. Thank you.