Welcome to the fourth and final panel in USIP series on the troubling spate of coups around the world. I'm Billy Ford, program officer on USIP's Myanmar team. And I'll be monitoring our discussion today, which will explore the factors that precipitated the latest coup in Myanmar. We'll dig into the implications of the coup and the role of civil society and international actors in restoring a federal democracy. Let me begin by introducing our esteemed panel. I'm excited and honored to be a part of this event since these are some of the most important voices on Myanmar, who I've followed for many years and whose contributions have become all the more important since the coup. The other day that czar is a doctoral candidate in global studies at the University of Massachusetts. She has held numerous research positions, including at Oxford University. Her research focuses on subnational parliaments and federalism, ethnic and identity politics and social media and social change. Kim San is a specialist in human rights and conflict in kitchen state. He's the president of kitchen alliance a DC based human rights organization. He also serves as the spokesperson and secretary of the kitchen political interim coordination team, which is an organization composed of representatives from across kitchen civil society, religious institutions political parties and others that aim to promote human rights and the coordinates with others within the anti coup movement to bring about the restoration of a federal democracy. So John unit is the joint secretary or joint general secretary of the Sean nationally for democracy, one of the largest political parties in Myanmar. He's also a member of the committee for Sean State unity and he is a leader of the people's representative committee for federalism, an anti coup alliance of organizations that seeks the establishment of a federal democratic union. In addition to his political work he's a historian of policy analyst and a peace builder who has held numerous senior positions in civil society and research organizations. Kim Omar is a prominent human rights activists and founder of the human rights organization progressive voice. She was a student activist during the 88 revolution and since then she's served in numerous capacities, including as a founding member of the women's League of Burma, and a Burma partnership. She's received numerous awards for her activism including the Anna Lynch prize and the vital voices, global leadership award for human rights. Thank you all so much for being here today calling it from across numerous time zones at odd hours we really appreciate your presence. I should note that the insights from this conversation will be incorporated into two policy papers. One will be a short commentary piece that focuses exclusively on Myanmar. The other will be a longer report about the spike in coups around the world. These papers will also complement the forthcoming report of the US IP led Myanmar study group, which is an informal group of former diplomats and specialists on Myanmar who have met regularly since May to discuss how the US can respond to the coup. The study groups discussions have culminated in a paper that will include a number of recommendations support to support us policy towards Myanmar, and that paper should be released early in the new year. Before jumping into the conversation with our panel let me offer one minute of context for those who haven't closely followed developments in Myanmar over the past 10 months, and then I'll turn to our panel for the main event. So in November 2020 the onsensual she led National League for Democracy won its second consecutive election in a landslide. On February 1, the day before the newly elected government was set to take its seat seats that the Myanmar military detained leaders of the elected government and took power. Since then a diverse anti coup movement has used violent and non violent means to prevent the military from consolidating its control of the country.  All of this in an attempt to pacify a population that is demonstrably unwilling to return to the military rule that it experienced from 1962 until 2011. The opposition movement has multiple components it includes a nationwide and ongoing non violent movement of civil disobedience and public protests, but also includes an armed opposition movement led by ethnic armed organizations and new militia groups called and it includes a range of political actors including representatives from the deposed civilian government, as well as representatives from other political constituencies, such as political parties civil society, activist networks and others. These groups share a common hatred for the military but have struggled to fully unify for reasons that I hope we'll get into today. The blogs between these political groups, which virtually all of our panelists are involved with in one way or another, are ongoing and will be crucial to the movement success. Okay, so I'll leave it there for now and turn to our experts to dig into the causes and the consequences of the coup, and what can be done to restore a federal democracy. Hi then, me out there. First to you I'd like to start with sort of a general question to help us understand the causes and the enabling factors that led to the coup. Very few people predicted that the military would take such drastic action, especially when they had so much political power and the two under the 2008 Constitution. So what were we missing. What were some of the factors that made me am are vulnerable to a coup. Thank you Billy and thank you very much for inviting me and I'm really glad to be here. So I think it's important to reflect the rule and authority in the space of the military or tomato. So through all the history and until at present, you know, terminal traditionally see itself in a very significant role like the architect of the country's independence and the guardian of the state, etc. So given that construct, it always try like to maintain its power and influence to have the largest share in the political space and the decision making. As we all know that the military or all also like prepare very systematically through 2008 Constitution, as he said, for its dominant political position in the traditional politics and has maintained its role and authority, even in the national and national legislatures and executive and administrative system as well. But why the transition was gaining a momentum, the military fund is shrinking authority in an ongoing power struggle with the National League for democracy and now the. So, so it's land and also the landslide defeat of the US DP at the like 2020 elections. So the military is the military back at party. So, is that sort of like things is confirmed, such an alarming situation for the military. So another like threat I want to like threat for the military is that the trial at the International Code of Justice ICJ for the alleged genocidal crime against Rohingyas. So in that aspect, the military became independent, like became dependent on NLDs, like particularly our societies plan and strategy for the game, and the good will as well. So such condition actually pushed military, especially is top leader like may ally toward a highly insecure position. So as, like I said, the immediate cause is the 2020 elections where NLD obtained landslide victory whereas the US DP the military back at party faced with the landslide loss. NLD's motive for the coup was getting stronger and its calculation began. So like who is going to be on its side or not on the side of NLD. And at that time, NLD's like national reconciliation approach to what ethnic minorities were in the dead block. So we can see like some of these good example that the peace dialogue through the 21st century Penlong was in a stalemate and ethnic minorities has been losing trust with NLD and its latest like even the latest attempt of NLD toward like the formation of national unity government in the aftermath of the 2020 elections were also filled, like even like a midst of all of these rumors about the possibility of the military coup. So I perceived some of these situations actually influenced the military making miscalculation that minority minority leaders would not stand with NLD if it staged the coup. Yes, the military's calculation is right to some extent the military leaders that the minority leaders and almost all ethnic resistant armies did not stand for NLD, but they just stand against this and righteousness that military coup, and that the brutal lawless crackdown against the peaceful demonstration of the people across the country. So this is the background situation that I want to highlight. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Hello, and over to you. I wonder if you could frame this coup in a broader history because it's not the first in Myanmar. But I wonder how, if at all was this coup different from previous coups in Myanmar, particularly in terms of its causes. Yeah, hi. Actually, my answer to you to your question is no, and also yes in some point. So looking back to our history, Union Obama was formed in 1948. After the panel agreement, in which Robert Palmer, Shang, Chen, and Chen leaders signed an agreement in February 12, 1947, aiming to form the Federal Union later on. 1947 constitution was adopted and adopted. But the constitution failed to currently and implement some fight or provision in the panel agreement. The 1947 constitution was exercised till 1961, and then ethnic leaders realized that constitution should be amended. In June 1961, ethnic nationality conference was held in Daoji, Shem state. The 1947 constitutional amendment proposal, which include the federal principle was discussed and adopted unanimously in that conference. And second, 1962, General Nehwin, stage a coup, claiming it was necessary to prevent the country from falling apart. He claimed that ethnic nationality conference, aim to amend and improve the 1947 constitution through federal principle was destroying the union. He also spread the false information about federalism, including cessation, which is the promises of Robert Palmer to the panel in the panel agreement. To the disintegration of the union. After that, almost all of the parties in the conference were arrested and many died in prison. From 1962 to 1974, the military regime ruled the country without any constitution. 1974 constitution, which recognized and allow only a single party to rule was adopted and exercise. In August 8 1988, a nationwide people are pricing erupted all over the country, demanding democracy and freedom for all. The people were met with violent crackdown that led to many killed and arrested.   It's meant to shot directly to the bucket. Many student leaders were sentenced to many years in prison, including our sense to G, who was put under house arrest. In September 1988, another coup was staged by another general claiming it was necessary to rescue the country at two inches away from the falling off the cliff. To summarize that the cost and context of the military coup in Yama may vary from one another, but I see one thing in common. In the constitutional amendment, proposed adopted in ethnic nationality conference in 1961 was implemented. The country will become federal country in which all ethnic nationality in Palmer will govern the country in collective leadership where there's no room for authoritarian. In 1988 democracy movement succeeded and was not cracked down by military coup. The country will transform into democracy country where the military have no room in political leadership role at all. So we can say that the reason the military coup happened was just only to protect the individual and organizational interests of the military. Even though they may claim that it's about saving the country from falling back, destroying the integrity of the country, rescuing the democracy of protecting the Constitution, whatever they say. Thank you. That's a fascinating and helpful history to help frame the current moment. Ken Omar, I'd like to bring you in. I wonder what you think are some of the sort of we've looked domestically I wonder what you think of the international kind of external factors that may have made Myanmar more vulnerable to a coup did the erosion of democracy in the region, for example, or the weakening of international institutions today somehow increase the likelihood of a coup in Myanmar what were some of the external factors. Thank you. Thanks Billy for having me here. I actually would like to stress the issue of external actors people I actually discuss on the external factors, if I may, the external actors such as like you know, international think tanks policy advisors consultants there was so many of them in the past 10 years. Many of them also brought in formulas and equations of quick fixes to Myanmar's 60 plus year long conflict, without really digesting or taking time to really try to understand the local context in depth, or the root causes of the human rights violations and atrocity crimes in our country for decades, or listening to the people on the ground. And that's a big miss, listening to the people on the ground really deeply was such a big miss and lack for the past decade that I see that a lot of tick boxes also from the international community. This made so much of impact and damage on the ground, especially those external actors that don't uphold the principles of human rights and justice and accountability in their approach to conflict resolution and peace building in the name of peace building. And then, and it became quite problematic in my observation, while they impose the principles of neutrality and impartiality on our civil society actors. In reality, it was rather supporting the one sided peace, so called peace agenda of the military, rather than staying neutral, you know. There were no real equal leverage or equal terms for the other parties in conflict, and also for the civil society to have a seat at the table. In many cases, the ceasefire agreements signatures were bought out with the incentives of development projects, rather than any meaningful willingness to broker peace. And as we saw during the so called democratic transition of the last decade, the military continue to wage war in ethnic areas committing horrific atrocity crimes with unbridled impunity. In fact, these international actors kept domestic actors within a status quo, in turn, that I see is allowing the military to retain the upper hand and further embolden them to continue enjoying impunity, staying above the law, above everyone and everything. And of course that really made Myanmar to be vulnerable for another crew like this. The peace process. There were a lot of window dressing. In my opinion, series of and resolve episodes, despite of the ethnic communities or ethnic nationalities efforts all along, leaving especially leaving the justice and accountability issue, as well as the issue of human rights protection on to one side, like for example, genocide against the Rohingya in 2017. The international community turned a blind eye on conflict related businesses, especially in the ethnic areas that the military was largely benefiting from. All of these gave the military opportunity to wield their power broadly, or in other words, allow or created the conditions that partly make Myanmar vulnerable to and this attempted coup of the past 10 months. And now I want to take the next step on the, this other external factors or the erosion of democracy and erosion of democracy around the world. So I want to talk about the erosion of democracy around the world and I see yes, yes, you're right, it has played some role, as well as you know, as well in this situation. For example, the world's largest democracies, when they reengaged with Myanmar in the last 10 years, they gave businesses priority over the protection of human rights, and they're not addressing the root causes or the issues of the justice and accountability, and these democratic countries were comfortable to get in bed, go to get into bed with the military and contact businesses with the military and save like you know everything is now done right, and that was another another major mistake that I see, you know from the external factors. The multinational corporations from democratic countries like, you know, Canada, US, EU, Japan, Korea, Australia, while they've been been rolling the military against the UN guiding principles on human rights, and against the recommendations from the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar. So these are also the external factors that really, you know, weigh in on what led to this, this military's attempted coup. The other external factor in this attempted coup by the military is the role of Russia and China. These two countries, these two countries governments being anti-democracy, anti-human rights, protecting the Myanmar military for all the decades, past decades, they have always been one of the major stemming blocks for our country's democracy. Even now with the situation on the ground has reached to a breaking point, as this military hunter really intensified its violent attacks across the country. The Burma currently ranks top wars in September and October in UN Security Council agenda. And yet, you see, we are nowhere near to see any concrete actions from the UN Security Council, because of these two countries governments as the big five, you know, but there are two of the big fives and vetoes.  Thank you. That's, that's really helpful. Yeah, so it sounds as if you're saying that the democracy support or peacebuilding efforts during the transition period didn't actually lead to any structural changes, but they actually may have provided the structures that enabled the military to thrive. And then it's not only Russia and China that are causing these issues but that the democratic nations, and we're even seeing now with India and others who are kind of financing or providing technical or technological support to the junta, it's not only Russia and China but also democratic nations that are failing to fulfill their role. So, just one more question coming back to you can Omar. How does this democracy movement differ from past movements in Myanmar. And what does kind of the nature of this movement particularly its, its strength its diversity its sustainability what does it say about the populations experience with democracy over the past decade. Thank you very much for your question Billy. I was one of those student activist activist back in 1988 democracy uprising, and I compare between the two movements, very different. Now we are in a total new landscape, and also with a very clear vision of how everybody wants to, you know, build a country or live in a country. This, this very strong popular resistance to the past 10 months of the military's attempted coup really shows the people of Burma's experience with the democracy. Not only over the past decade that you know when they were able to enjoy or experience limited freedom, but also even under the previous military regimes times, they keep struggling. So this past 10 years in particular that I see is already grounded or rooted in spite of that military's continuing control over the country. And now everybody refused to go back to the status quo of the past 10 years facade of democracy, where they are aspirations of genuine democracy were held hostage under the military's 2008 Constitution. So, actually the people have been in a long struggle for democracy as you already know, and, and we have to take a note that by passing the generations, people of Burma from different generations they are not naive of the shortfalls and and authenticity of some of the some of the politicians in the past 10 years, at the same time also the flaws of the, the so called democratic transition. But especially the I will say the rights based civil society, who really work hard for the human rights protections and those who work for the, you know, like flourishing of democracy, you know, like electoral education and and those organizations including our colleagues you know, like a similar method this as research organization for example, they have laid the foundations of the cornerstones of democracy and they kept walking so hard to ensure more opening of the democratic space. But see like one comes to the national level policy matters when National League for Democracy took power in last 10 years. There are so many in post self censorship, and I don't sense with these leadership, letting her take the lead. Well, many of them actually knew there are flaws and shortfalls and problematic approaches. For example, when it came to the national reconciliation, don't sense to G and National League for Democracy link towards the military, while they themselves continue to be insensitive to the needs of the number my ethnic nationalities, or in some instances, and even practice in the barmanization policy of the successive military regimes in their approach towards the Nenbama ethnic nationalities. They're not given due recognition to the ethnic nationalities historical heritage and role as founders and equal partners of this union. But see, regardless of those dynamics, people to people community to community engagement and inter intra ethnic solidarity have been built and strengthened father in the last 10 years, and civil society play a very instrumental role in that.  And with clear and collective vision for a country they want to build and live in that is free from the military's tyranny or any kind of leadership. So there is a really, like I said, in the beginning it's really a total totally different landscape in Burma now that they are not going back to state as cool before February attempted cool that's for sure. Thank you, Kenomar that's encouraging. I'd like to turn to you now I mean, pulling on one thread that Kenomar mentioned, since the coup the regime has met regularly with its sort of shrinking number of supporters, but the nature of its relationships with these governments, especially it's more important ones like Russia and China. I mean, Russia is very much transactional at times rather than a durable partnership. I mean Russia is making good revenue I think on arms sales to the regime right now and the relationship between men online and China is often contentious. I mean, what, what is your, your take on the role of these non democratic governments in supporting the military's effort to consolidate power. Thank you for being here to be invited. My assessment is that they play a very, very integral role in consulting power, very important indeed. As you know, the dear role in these multilateral form or international form except, especially United Nation. As you see as our previous Kenoma said, they were, they intervene many times in United Nations, especially in the Security Council in finding proper response mechanism for the country. They, they reward these as in the past is offering a massive concessions that even would jeopardize the interests of the nation security interests of the nation. In the past we've seen myths on them. Now there's I see Russia and Burma's relations beyond just a transactional issue or transactional. I see it as a people may think that it's just Burma viewed Russia as a weapon shop, but I see it more as a strategic becoming of a strategic partner where Russia has a great interest in the region as well. So it's not one way street. It has, it paves beneficial relationship of both parties. Russia's presence in in Burma, or even dominance in Burma will play a very significant role in regional. In, in regional politics. That's my assessment. And also, as you have pointed out, foreign governments, especially our neighbors to neighbors play a very significant role in Burma's domestic politics, since our independence. With peace efforts in, in the country, especially during the fighting with the kitchens in the past. I mean, renew of tension or civil war in kitchen in the past 10 years. We know China's significant role in in trying to make ways for the army, especially the military. It's transactional in some sense, but on the other sense, it's able to take a lot of its leverage increase its leverage increase its dominance in the Burmese politics inch by inch. It's able to advance its power or methods. Yeah, methods power over these years. So China's role in Burma has increased in many, many falls within this past two decades. And that's true as well for Russia. And, you know, we can talk about authoritarian regime, facilitating to consolidate power of the military, but we also have cannot ignore the fact that democracies were also silent in trying to prevent these power by authoritarian regimes. So when K pick was founded, it was largely founded on the principle to end the authoritarianism in the country, not just a military authoritarianism, but also any sort of big power type of dynamic within our country. Because it's insurrection began. Not during that, not during the military era. We have to remind ourselves that a lot of ethnic revolutions began during the parliamentarian era as well. So, and foreign governments have played in many roles. I mean the most important thing of all is the psyche of the military it emboldens and empowers the psyche of the military that you can get away. You can put people in power by using obscene violence, something that they've seen in in like minded countries that you can put people, thousands and thousands of people in concentration camps and still get away with it. If you are a good friend with them. And, you know, sort of this wager violence through to power, and that's, that's exactly what they're doing and they're banking on it and they were successful in the past. And they're hoping that they'll be successful at this time, because we have lived through as a young age through 1988, and also through 96 and also seen what's happened in saffron. The scale, the magnitude and the atrocity, the quality of brutality have have gone to a to large scale. It's not even comparable. It's just an incident. The, the savagery of these incidents have just has just balloon to the level that we've never witnessed. And some of them are violence that we've seen in other authoritarian countries. And I think it's like mindedness of their fellow, these brutal dictatorship brutal authoritarian regimes that this current men online army is trying is greatly inspired by, and we have to ensure it's the most. It's the responsibility of the, of the, of the powerful powerful democracy to standards to, to its ideals. So that's my sense and thanks. Thank you. I kind of like to stay with you actually for one more question. I mentioned the kind of that some of the atrocities that the military has been conducting since the coup or not new. I think maybe, maybe what is new is the, the fact that those atrocities are now being conducted in the Vermont heartland and in urban areas, I mean, the UN estimated 41,000 people have been displaced since the guy and 11,000 of way areas that haven't really experienced the types of violence that kitchen communities or Sean communities have experienced historically. So I'm curious what you think in terms of, what are the consequences of that in terms of inter ethnic relations and he does the fact that there's a now a shared experience of common suffering. Somehow, help to create an opportunity for reconciliation and unity between different ethnic nationalities. Yes, to a certain degree. Yes, so for example what happened in Rangoon last night. I've seen a lot of ethnic people also shared those across various social media platform. To us, it's only prove that this regime or this, these people to do not serve the interests of anybody. So called even the optic of bermanization. A lot of people, they maybe have some constituent that's ascribed to those ideas of, you know, or, or support for this bermanization at the end of the day it's not even about the bermanization to be truthful. It's about one click of people that wants to retain its power through any means. No, but largely through violence, obviously, as any other institution, but for inter ethnic relations. I see the greater enhancement of inter ethnic relations. And how NLD handles its handle its power during interim period. They were not full control of the government, but they were very very to be truthful. And they're in their sincerity with relations to ethnic groups, because these rhetoric, this is not the first time that we have witnessed these rhetoric to be honest. We have witnessed this rhetoric that you know, federalism first, I mean we have to make this fight first. Even, you know, prior to 2015 as well. So in the, these rhetoric, we hear these rhetoric again it's it's it's quite funny but on the other hand it's a serious thing but we see this atrocities that's unfolding in the heartland does give a pause to a lot of people and I think our relationship. has become this, you know, forge in this really really terrible times. And it, you know, I think a lot of ethnic understands that realize that Burmese people began to understand the pain and the suffering and the, our stories are actually as told, truthfully, be even with Rohingya, who would have thought that NLD members would talk and speak out against Rohingya of course it's a to certain extent it's a political convenience, you know, but we rather want this to be a virtuous pathway for them as well. And truth to reconciliation that should be started from those who really were not truthful in the past. So, such on your kind of curious your thoughts on this as well I think there have been numerous efforts to unify the opposition movements, including the NCC and the PRCF among smaller efforts. What are some of the main barriers to achieving the unity. I mean, just mentioned some of them in terms of historical grievances and unaddressed misunderstanding and those sorts of or lack of sympathy or empathy. But I wonder what what you perceive to be the main barriers to building unity among those who are fighting against the military now including on these platforms like PRCF and NCC and others and generally. So, such on those for you. Sorry. So sorry, we really I'm not quite. I lost a little bit and can you repeat my question. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I'm just curious. What are some of the main barriers to achieving unity among the organizations that are fighting against the military right now. We've seen the NCC is kind of a more inclusive platform the PRCF is another inclusive platform for dialogue among the opposition actors. I wonder what are the main barriers to building a more unified movement that's fighting against the military. Yes. As you know that there are so many. Groups Alliance initiating any movement like NCC. Yeah, and also PRCF people representative for federal. And also some other alliances. They are cooperating each other. And also sometime. Yeah, we're reading within the group. Fine for the electrification of the military dictatorship. But you know we have to somehow distinguish between the different the differences between unity and uniformity. Unity in diversity is not the same thing as uniformity unity in diversity is about common core. Maybe this different action. We all have common core of defeating this military director. I think that we all have the common core of preventing not only cool in the future but also all form of authoritarianism. In addition, I also like to believe that we have all. We all have a strong commitment to the establishment of federal democratic union that enshrine human right equality and sub determination for all member states. And I do not believe it's predator nor strategic to pursue this goal with only one action, one platform, or one front. You must all do what we can, where we can and when we can in our own way to achieve this common goal. The organization like yes IP also should somehow continue to support all form of diverse group. Yeah. So, so actually the hindrance. Now is that in any CC point of stand. Most of the new CC member. You know NLV or somehow pro NLV. So, even we are talking about authoritarian and majority, you know, somehow harmonization, you know, actually in new CC also that, you know, most of the member of anything that did you repower the representative from good option election.  And then you know, somehow, not quite genuine. I don't know exactly to coordinate or walk with the other group. So actually, even though they are saying that this is the combination of did you read power and effect to power, but actually in any CC meeting. So we see some, some, some lack of, you know, or some lack of joint collective dealerships. And actually, you know, in the hindrance is not, you know, it's not the substand, but it's just the one say the political world and also, you know, the concept. You know, even those person won't know understand won't understand exactly what's in their mind, but they are automatically somehow, you know, doing somehow like harmonization or you know, majoritarian concept. So that's the main thing. So, so if we can collect it up and then you know walk as in the value, you know, it as we mentioned in the federal democracy charter collective leadership and other other value if they hold firmly on that. I think, you know, they can overcome and also in some way, we can join together.  So, but like PRCF group like us, we are still trying to stay still on the ground, legally. So that's why, as I mentioned that maybe we have same comment go. I mean, I was action, different action. Yeah. Thank you for that. That's, that's really interesting and, and a major issue of course for opposition movements around the world is trying to build unity, but not necessarily uniformity as you've mentioned I don't know whether yet they are kind of Mark Wilson. Do you have any thoughts on that question. Otherwise we can move to another section. Any thoughts on the question of opposition unity or major hindrances to to building unity. I have a few. Yeah, I mean if I may share my thoughts on it on this issue. Just because of the home bomber came about, and also this long baggages of deficit of trust issue. I prefer to use solidarity rather than unity.  Because we need to actually, you know, like, really like acknowledge the, the, the, the big the beginning or the, the birth of this nation and some signed the penguin agreement but some, some didn't. I'm never even a part of you know any of that, that grouping in back then by political means. So I think you know just like, like really putting the record straight of this history is important. And if we are going to do that, if we can do that sincerely. I think unity is something that can come later. And talking about the unity when we don't have trust. I don't see a point of even saying that. So to me, I'm allergic to the word unity, but then I see this. The past 10 months, give the most opportune time for this country to move forward if everybody is still wanting to move forward together. But I think what I see is also, I mean, I hear a science and you're talking about like, you know, the NCC not being legal, whereas the PRCF being the PRCF being the legal. I think the question to me is what to me is when I when I heard is legal by whom. Legal status by whom I think we have to question that. Well, of course, you know, like respecting the, the assistance and role of the political entities or the political actress in the country, but then legal by whom I think that's a question that I will raise. I think if we can overcome some of these ideas true, we are going towards one direction. And yet also, if we cannot synergize the different approach, while respecting and recognizing also each other's role. I think it will still be challenging regardless of we call unity or solidarity for this, you know, one direction that we think that we are, but I'm not so sure in that I'm not so sure that we will be able to do that. But I think it's important also to question about this legality because to me, first, this military is not a legal entity. They are not lawful. The attempted coup for the last 10 months, in fact, is failing. They are not successful. So when they are the one, like, when they are the one issuing the directives or amending the existing laws or even making the new laws. So when it comes to the other entities in the country is, are we going to accept that coming from this illegal entity, which in fact is nothing more than a criminal gang and terrorist organization. So I think that's a question. I'll throw it back to the political actors in the country. Thanks Billy. Did you want to comment on this? Yeah, so I think for the ethnic it's most came to realize that this conflict had, you know, most people realize that we're playing Russian roulette with our lives for the army to stay in power. It's a matter of time, you know, it's a matter of whose time it is to be the victim. And that realization is what's emboldened people to take a much bolder stand that they have done in the past and understand and forging of solidarity as Ken Omar said. Unity is based on trust and trust issue is obviously it's a very troubling or hard subject, because the country after all was founded on an uneven union, right. It was a very uneven society, since its founding. And it has also actually avoided participation of many other people, especially religious minority or foreign born nationals. And we, to be frank, those are really essential part of, I mean, should be the part of the building blocks of the nation. But so we see that this conflict of this use of patient of power by in online is as an opportunity to take a chance on on on the promises of founding fathers. And that's one of the principal reason why the chins are very adamant or very supportive of the current current opposition. We've done it in the past, and it'd be really not unwise to repeat the failures of the past. But, but at the end of the day, we're still in this one family together. So we have to make it work. And under those principle, and just, we can't, we can't let violence win. And that's the sentiment of majority of our people to join this revolution. That's just one thing that as Kim was said, you know, illegal legal is not. Yeah, actually, I didn't want to emphasize the one it, because we as an army in never, you know, joined the SAC, for instance, the UEC election committee or any of the activity. What I'd like to emphasize is that we are stand still in the country in my home, actually, I'm in my home. So the way we are doing and the way the other group are doing the same. I mean, just the way the different action just I just want to emphasize upon it. But anyhow, we are trying our best to, you know, searching the way to cooperate each other. And the federal democracy charter, part one is provided by SNAV, proposed by SNAV. So, so I just mean that, yeah, we may have a different way of doing, but we will seek to be unity and also we may seek the way to root to our discrimination. I just want to highlight on it. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I think a common set of objectives, different methods and trying to find complementarity is critical. Just shifting gears a little bit and I'd like to turn back to you now thinking a little bit about prevention for a minute and then we'll turn to a conversation about response and what should be done. Yeah, what do you think, what can the US and other democracies do to prevent coups like this from taking place in the future at the end Myanmar as well as in other contexts I think the opposition needs to be thinking maybe about, even if there is a restoration of democracy, how to build resilience to another military takeover. So I wonder what you think the international community can do to prevent coups like this from taking place. And Ken Omar already mentioned some of the failures from democracies and others around the world but I wonder your thoughts and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future. Thank you, Billy. I actually like for these sort of like a response and then I actually want to highlight actually the rule of the civil society organizations playing because it's really important that to understand, you know, the role and also their contributions right now, you know, so it's actually like one of the, you know, the, you know, the forces that currently and also the previously have been serving as that, you know, a check and balance role and then like, maybe some people said that watch talk rose, you know, but currently like the civil society organizations they have been contributing in this sort of like a new like a like political platforms like and like like and you see the National Consultative Council, and so they have been gaining this sort of like the role and also the contribution like technically and also like politically, you know, that they never ever have obtained like a previous like like political eras like.  This is actually very good, like, moment.  They don't actually, they have this sort of like us with the spirit. And actually, they have been trying to actually responding in a different, like, meaningful ways, you know, so it's really important to understand different factors role and then the civil society, the, the role of the civil society is really important, you know. So, this is one thing and another thing is that I mean, not, we can say that not every, you know, like, like who, you know, leads to a long lasting like authoritarianism, but the case of Myanmar is very obvious and no doubt at all that if this time this resistance against military Hunter Phil, the country is very likely to stay like under the military dictatorship for several more decades. It's going to be like 20 years, 30 years, or maybe endless for us to stay under this brutal dictatorship. Right. So the US and the democratic international community should take a decisive approach in supporting anti coup and approach democracy, like, like revolution. Here I just like even want to use the term revolution, because we are not merely in this in the like anti coup movements, but in revolutions. So we need this destructive reconstruction, like first to end the deep rooted military authoritarian culture, and then to start a genuine like inclusive democratic society. So, so, so maybe like some of these people like observers or international community thinks that this approaches idealistic. Not the history has full of like examples that give us enough confidence that such a distract destructive reconstruction would end would render a better society and political system that we all like, especially the, the minorities, like has been longing for throughout the history. So, even like the history of the United States alone and serve is enough case for us to refer right. So I would recommend a decisive support for anti to democratic forces here. Like, and then we should at this point like we should not limit with that energy and and you see in considering like a key democratic actors, but we also need to to understand the position and strategies of different actors, like including PSCF and then, and also the, also the position of the minorities within the minorities right this, like, like, between like ethnic groups for like both the politics of like ethnic minorities is also important to understand So, so this is really important, you know, and I also want to make like, is like another point is that that Nehma military like Nehma authoritarianism or whatever we call militarism or state like a driven like conflicts always go hand in hand with like a stream of nationalistic sentiment. And, and then here like the military is also very good at using that the, that like nationalistic nationalism cart, you know, so in this, like current context, context, as part of the divide and rule strategy, it has been like the military has been weaponizing the ultra nationalistic group called like the Pusotti or you know like Mahbatha at the community level. So this sort of extremist group that we can even call them and civil society, you know, which is the opposite of the civil society are not empower and rising with even with the leather weapons, like provided by the military. So we have an alarming situation that the level of the mistrust among community members are growing with like a huge potential of leading to endless bloodshed among civilian like a community. So this is time now that we need a decisive support from democratic like international community in in ending this military hunter and rebuilding the country. Thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah, the trust deficit at the community level seems to have potentially insidious effects. I wanted to come back to you in terms of thinking about multilateral institutions and prevention. We've seen some symbolic action from ASEAN recently by excluding them online from a few summits and the UN chose not to recognize the military's appointee to the General Assembly. The multilaterals have really done little substance and you spoke at the UN Security Council, an institution that has failed to act. I'm curious what you see as the role of multilateral institutions and mitigating the harms potentially also from a humanitarian standpoint, but also trying to bring about a return to a federal democracy. Yeah. So the challenge that we've witnessed is that no nation is willing to stand up for, I mean, restoring of democracy or restoring justice in the country. I mean, let alone the multinational forgery. So the challenge that we also see is that people nations are prioritizing their national interest. So even the Burmese people majority of beginning to understand think that all these large nationals on large nations of global powers are there to just make bucks or for the self interest. And even the MOGE itself is a testament that even the, you know, the greatest democracy in the world is not willing to stand up for, for, you know, money. I mean, I mean, against with it's it's very easy to take a hard stand against the oil and gas in the country. Right. People willing to testize themselves to, I mean, willing to forgo your pay willing to suffer in in jungles across the corners of the country. Just to prove that they're, they reject this military. Right. I think international community to can take a much hard, much stronger than principles then we're not asking them to just help us. But just standing on principle or the whatever that the charter that they describe to, right, to even stand up to those would be, I think it's, it would be a support to the Burmese people. So, it is important that it's also testing times for it's not only in Burma that we've witnessed this, we've witnessed this in many other countries, many other conflict in a global conflict. So it's important that international community commits to its charter, even the UN charter or ASEAN as well. It can't be just a forum where networking forum for nations, you can't just serve those interests. Because at the end of the day, that's what they're banking on the military is banking on that these international community will just be self serving, and that the best response that they could. The best response from the democracies or civilized nations would be to issue statements right and issue solidarity, because at the end of the day it's 10 months already and nothing really substantial have changed. Burmese people have changed dramatically. But I don't think the international community is committed to change yet. That's what's prolonging this rule. We're talking earlier question about what authoritarian regime regime had done to pop up or to consolidate this with the middle line militaries and has done everything that they could at this time to ensure that he's in power. Right. What does he need, he needs a weapon, and they're going to help them. I mean, the sophistication level of military army is unfathomable for Burmese community, meaning we would not have thought in our day and age that they will be able to use night vision, you know, night vision attack helicopters in this generation and they're able to do that. They're able to secure any military or weaponry that they need to ensure that they can, they would come out a win and a violence against its own unknown civilians right. And so, I think, beyond asking what they could do. The question would be if they could even commit that the principle that they ascribe to that they subscribe to in these international forum. So, that's my best response that I could offer. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not asking for anything special just adhering to the stated principles of the organization. And just with last night or with over the weekend the videos of Talmudov vehicles driving through peaceful protesters it's like, it's all, you know, it's out there for us all to see you know it's like, and burning down the villages and chin state or entire cities. But what level is the atrocity adequate to justify kind of more concrete actions that would change the calculations of the time it's kind of baffling but I don't know can Omar if you had any thoughts on that the role of multilateral institutions. Yeah, I can very quickly see that of both a modular modular organizations, and of course those are comprised of the governments, and particularly the democracy governments. I just want to follow on what I said, I think it's really distressed for me to see that how the erosion of democracy. Yeah, because we're seeing the leaders of democracy. keeping up with their promises or practice what they teach. I think that is the key. I know we really need to if we really want to prevent the coups or even to stop the current military's ongoing attempted coup. How do we do that. It's really important now, the US government also really stuff up with the very concrete actions that we're not seeing. Yes, of course they have some actions been taken up such as like you know, like sanctioned me to military governments and may lie in a few of the generals, but that's not enough right so like said we really need to see more actions. I mean also, the reality is like, if we cannot ensure the protection of the human rights, gender equality, inclusiveness pluralism, how can we have democracy, and without rule of law, justice accountability, and then the infinity will be entrenched that we have seen in Myanmar, Burma already. So any of the countries with that will always be vulnerable to a coup. Of course, you know, like the democracies of the world cannot always be the saviour or like you know, like go out and save, because the reality is we should be able to build the foundation for democracy and really take that then like a stock in it in the democracy building and like really put the foundation on the ground. And in Myanmar people have proved far more enough, more than they can ever of how much they deserve of their desire for the aspiration of democracy. So I think, you know, what else do they, what, what does the world wants from the people of Burma, I don't understand anymore, what does the Burma people, you know, like what does the US government need from the Burma people to really prove democracy and you know they're sacrificing everything that they have really. So my recommendation to the US and other democracy is, they really need to believe in the democracy from Burma people, and any other, you know, like people in other countries who are really sacrificing everything that they have to, you know, like really have democracy, and they actually deserve nothing less, no less than the people in US or Canada, really. These democracy countries themselves, they need to believe in our people, as much as they believe in their own democracy. Otherwise, in the name of democracy, dictators will enjoy impunity and destroy democracy. I mean, just my last point. The Myanmar military, again, I will say, is the root cause of the immense suffering of our people.  The US government must treat them as one. That's what we need. Yeah. Thank you, Ken Omar. Yeah, that segues into the last question as we're coming to time here. I was just going to ask each of you three kind of top priorities or concrete actions that you would recommend to the US government to help with, you know, with the mitigation of the suffering that's resulted from the coup or efforts to kind of bring about a restoration of civilian-led democracy. Ken Omar, you've mentioned a few points there. I don't know if you had any other specific recommendations that you would like to make at this point. Yes, very quickly. The Burma Act 2021 is right there in Washington DC. We need that Burma Act 2021 pass ASAP. And make sure that because this bill actually has many very, it's quite comprehensive. I've never seen that this comprehensive bill before. And if that is passed, there are many things that we can do because, you know, in our approach, we are actually applying full cuts strategy to stop this military. We need to cut the finance. So if the bill is passed, then we can really cut the finance going to the military by sanctioning the MOG. Then we need to also cut the arms and ammunition, then that bill will allow the US mission in New York to take further steps to to maximize their efforts within the UN Secretary, I mean UN Security Council. We also need that, not only the global arms embargo, but also we need the impunity cut. And we would like for the US government to actually call the spade as bait, which is the, what happened to the range of people in 2017 is a genocide. So just call it, but also in joining us in our efforts to address this longstanding impunity of the military by really like supporting us our call at the Security Council to reform your mind to the ICC or US government can exercise universal jurisdiction and make sure, you know, they're like form their allies and correlation to hold this military leaders to account by international law international criminal law. Thank you. Thank you, Ken Omar. Goomsen, how about you three recommendations for the US government at this point. Yes, so the first is definitely destination of genocide for the India. Second is cutting off the funding for the military. And the third is, you know, I was an independence hall in Philadelphia last night. And it reminds me of the importance of significance, the foreign powers have played as well for the US Revolution, NERI war. Had there not been, you know, Lafayette or von Steuben, I don't think United States would have a face or French Navy. United States would not have seen an independence because they lost their independence after 1776. I think that's what Burmese people need. There's some times where people are capable to stand on their own feet. And there are times where they're unable to do that. And United States itself was one of those as well. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, such onion from you. Yes, as I'm in the country. So my my suggestion, maybe a little bit different from others. So my fuss of sorry my priority to US government is that the priority, which will help the emergence of inclusive and multi-faceted electrical dialogue and decision making platform. One will be empowering and creating moderate political space. As you know that now the tension is quite intense from both every side, let's say, so in that empowering and creating moderate political spaces that may include arching the SAC and military to stop killing, the anti-cool movement protester, and also to release all the detainee and also humanitarian assistance through CBOs and CSO, supporting the media, social media platform, diplomatic engagement to all stakeholders. That is priority one. Second, identify pressure and inducement, which may include targeted function, legitimacy, denial to SAC, help and support nonviolent movement, and also command ground for civilian production. That's second priority. That's what the priority will be. Develop principle for negotiation settlement. If now I'm saying about negotiation, the whole country may say, you know, it's something, say something to me, but actually, we should have negotiation settlement and a principle of it. For instance, military extraction plan, how the military will move back from the politics. Secondly, federal or confederal or secular state, you have to discuss about it. Also, we have to talk about transitional justice, security sector reform, gender issue, development strategy, multi-lateral international support for the rebuilding of our country. And that should be, you know, in that principle of negotiation settlement, those issues should be in and discussed, and also well developed. And then I think it will help our country from inside the country, my point of view. Thank you. Yate, last word here. Yes, last one. I actually like really support like Mark, Mark suggesting about the Obama bill, you know, like, so it's actually very comprehensive. So it's a very, like, a practical step, and it's already like a chief in your Senate in the House. And so it's just like some only like we can say that it's very like a feasible and then is some like a few more significant steps, you know, so is this is the first, like a priority that I want to set. And another thing is that, you know, in terms of, you know, dialogue, things, you know, so if the military actually consider in this sort of like a more, you know, a peaceful or like maybe like retaining is like a brutality and you know, taking the puts like taking the pathway of the dialogue, it wouldn't actually have this sort of like level of brutality and use of force and then like committing that level of like crimes against humanity. You know, so it's already like a pasta line. So, actually, is leaving the room, and that space, even for the dialogue actually is for us is Nancy. So I think we really need the very decisive standpoint for the, from the like international democratic society, including United States with the people of Myanmar to fighting this sort of like the very like last battle for us. We really have, we already suffer a lot. Like we have a triple jeopardy. We already been suffered, like the military coup, the COVID. And also like that all of the economic hardships, but we still like having standing still, we are standing, we are fighting. We don't, we won't give up, we don't have any, like any, any, like desire actually like already like the people of Myanmar showing in several ways with their lives. So this is my last message that please, you know, just let us, you know, finish our fight against this very and righteous very brutal lawless dictatorship. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think we'll have to leave it there for now. Thank you so much to our panelists. Thank you for joining us today across multiple time zones and for sharing your insights. And thanks to those who are tuning in. I hope you found the conversation useful. And at the outset USIP will soon publish two papers related to this event series will also publish the Myanmar study group reports, which will include deep analysis of the coup and offer recommendations for the US government, maybe pulling on some that were just mentioned. Stay tuned for those but thank you all again and see you next time.


Welcome back to HPE Discover 2021, the virtual version. My name is Dave Vellante and you're watching The Cube. We're here with Manav Sadana, who is the global head of sales and market development for cognitive business operations at Tata Consultancy Services, TCS. And we're going to dig in to digital transformation and take a deeper dive into the customer journeys. Welcome, Manav. Thank you, Dave. Thank you for inviting me to this appreciate and looking forward to have an intriguing dialogue with you and David. Me too. I mean, we talk about digital transformation all the time prior to the pandemic. You know, a lot of it was kind of buzzwordy and there was a lot of complacency around it. But as we know, if you weren't digital during the pandemic, you were out of business. But people were forced into it. They were rushed into, I call it the forced march to digital. So you really didn't have time to be planned full. And now people are stepping back and saying, okay, now we have an opportunity to get digital right. I'm going to put that in air quotes. How do you think about digital transformation? What do you mean by that? Okay. See, I think the way we look at it at TCS, I will probably take a step back wherein, while the digital transformation has been in play, not just over the last year since the pandemic began, but even before then where the shift in the customer organization that we have been seeing is largely from being product-centric to be purpose-centric, wherein the whole focus of the entire existence is to be able to serve the purpose for their consumers, their customers, and so on, so forth. And if you look at it, for example, total energies, right? They're looking to sell or produce fuel. They are looking to be a responsible energy company producing reliable, affordable and clean energy for the consumers, right? Similarly, there are other examples, diamond shipyards, who are looking to be more of a maritime solutions provider rather than just a ship-building company. So what's really happening when the purpose is being the driving force behind any organization's agenda or even a reason of existence, that purpose is actually the driving force also for the digital transformation that is basically shifting the pace of the way businesses are looking to drive consumer experiences, time to market, and so on, so forth, right? And if you see our, we launched our new brand positioning in the last quarter that's building on belief. And that's basically centered around this whole purpose-driven mindset. What that means is that we believe that in the technologies enabling digital transformation are going to be the pillar of the whole shift of the re-imagination of the business models wherein businesses are coming together across industries and driven by the key goal of serving the customer in terms of driving the enhanced experience rather than just selling a product. So that's basically is really happening. And having said that now in the last year or so, what pandemic has done is basically accelerated the pace by quantum leap, right? So in that sense, some of the organizations that were not ready at that point, they are also kind of transformation and taking that leapfrog I would say. So from that perspective, and then going back again, my our brand positioning statement, building on belief, right? That's really helping towards that particular thing. The overall journey is three horizon basis. And I'll come to that in a minute, but I hope it is answering your question of what digital transformation and how pandemic has really helped it. I just want to get one point of clarification, Manav.  You said go from product-centric to... Purpose-centric. Platform-centric. Got it. Purpose-centric. Oh, purpose-centric. Ah, building on belief. Got it. Okay, so something else you said that I picked up on, you talked about actually crossing industries. And this is something that's new and that's enabled by digital. I wonder if I get your thoughts on it. I mean, if you look at industry structures historically, whether it's manufacturing or automotive or financial services or healthcare or media and entertainment, whatever it is, there was a value chain. There is a value chain that's built up in that business. It might be R&D, sales and marketing, service, manufacturing, et cetera. And if you were in that industry, you largely stayed in that industry forever. Now you're seeing a lot of big company, a lot of big tech companies having a dual disruption agenda, not only horizontally tech from a technical standpoint, but you're seeing Amazon get into grocery. They're buying studios. You're seeing Apple get into finance. And so the enabler is data and digital. And that talks to the business model reimagination that you're talking about. Absolutely, and absolutely, exactly what is happening. That's what I'm really talking about. And we are firmly believing that boundaries or those boundaries are going to be blurred even more so going forward. As I took a few examples and you also talked about Apple or even Amazon or the Netflix, for example. So all these technology companies are just being disruptors. So having said that, that's data being the new fuel, at the same time, cloud being the new ERP. Now, cloud as a technology that is enabling the business model reimagination is not just on the cloud side, but also on the edge side. And that's where the boundaries are becoming so closer between edge and the cloud. And how do we give that flexibility to the customers to be able to adopt those digital technologies across the enterprise, right? That's what the shift that we've been seeing. How do you see ecosystems playing in this? I mean, it's kind of, I know it's an overused term, but it seems to me to be increasingly important. It's power of many versus the resources of one or a few. How do you see ecosystems driving this purpose driven business that you talk about? Very, very closely, I would say. And I'll give you examples also in that sense, right? First, if I talk about the journey, I mentioned briefly earlier about three horizon based journey, right? The first and foremost being the setting up the digital foundation. That basically could be through the combination of cloud, IoT, analytics, artificial intelligence, and so on and so forth, right? And then eventually moving on to reimagination of business models and then leveraging the purpose led ecosystem. Now in the horizon one, when we are setting up the digital foundation, that is where the whole ecosystem comes into play. Where in, if I talk about our co-innovation network partners like HPE, where we are working together to really bring in that flexibility for the customers, even in on-premise environment, giving them that kind of features that they can experience also on the cloud to be really able to leverage the whole power, be it at the edge or at the cloud. So that's where the kind of ecosystem coming together. And those are also some of the challenges that we have seen that customers are facing today to be able to achieve the first horizon in that journey. The challenges like accelerated or the time to market, challenges like, are they able to achieve the flexibility to be able to offer to the business? And challenges like, are they able to achieve transformation at scale or is it just a pointed POC sort of thing, right? So bringing the ecosystem together is able to help customers address those challenges, be it in terms of consumption-driven, addressing the flexibility needs, be it in terms of the pre-integrated solutions, addressing the challenges related to time to market, and so on and so forth. Can we stay on the challenges for a minute? As I said, pre-pandemic, there was a lot of complacency. We've all seen that meme of the wrecking ball coming in and sort of a tongue-in-cheek joke, but the complacency is gone. So there's also, but still, organizational challenges. It's not complacency anymore, but what's the right regime? What's the right approach? Everybody wants to get digital right, but a lot of people, you know, that's a, do you see that as a challenge, actually not knowing where to prioritize it? And, you know, how can you help in that regard? Yeah. So, and I would also like to talk about what we have done in certain, with certain customer, with some of the challenges. Some of the things, I'll introduce TCS Cognix here. This is our platform, which basically brings together the capabilities in a pre-integrated, for pre-defined solutions, accelerators or value builders, as we call it, for customers to be able to just integrate their environments to be able to manage the whole infrastructure of the landscape in a completely automated and analytics-driven manner, right? So that's one way of addressing those challenges. What it also does is it gives that power to the stakeholders in the organization to be able to address that key challenge of time to market because it is giving out or coming out in a pre-integrated manner and be able to achieve that benefits or realize the benefits of transformation in an accelerated time frame instead of waiting for 18 to 24 months, how can it be done in three to six months, for example, right? That's one set. And similarly, if I talk about the flexibility, right? Consumption-driven manner is extremely, extremely important. And if I talk about hybrid cloud, so to say, right? Today, about one to 2% of the on-premise infrastructure is actually in a consumption-driven manner, while cloud is always in a consumption-driven manner. The trends that we are seeing is that by next year, about minimum 15% of the on-premise infrastructure in a hybrid cloud environment will be about, or will be delivered in a consumption-driven manner. And that's what is going to address where is the opportunity, as well as the challenge to address that particular aspect of flexibility. And that's where the ecosystem with the likes of us, TCS and HPE, coming together to provide solutions that are addressing those needs of our consumers. And when you talk about the consumption-driven, obviously you talk about things like HPE GreenLake, that's a model that enables that kind of consumption model. You know, I feel like, I mean, I feel like that's kind of table stakes, to be honest with you. I mean, you pointed out one to 2% of it. I said, wow, cloud's been around for a long time. And now, but now we're seeing the rapid adoption, 15%. And we're also seeing, I mean, I think I give HPE some props on this, because they've got their whole company behind it. But there has to be a complimentary shift in the mindset of, okay, we're not now selling boxes anymore. And I think HPE has done a pretty good job of this. They've made some announcements recently to that effect. They're doing it in HPC. We just saw some storage announcements. So it's no longer, hey, here's a box to sell. And this is where a company like TCS comes to play. You've never had that box mentality. You have a solutions mentality. And so the industry is moving in a very rapid pace now. My question is, are the customers ready for it? Are they ready for it because they have the cloud experience? Are they ready for it on-prem? And what do they need to do to get ready for that? See, to answer your first question, are they ready? And what really is the trigger point for them being ready? The answer is yes, okay. I would say a large percentage of the customer base was ready even before pandemic, but pandemic has really made it even more prominent in the customer and that has become a need. We are seeing so many customers today. I mean, in my global role, I'm seeing across industries and across markets, right from North America to Australia, Japan, wherein the need for having consumption driven is even at on-premise. While cloud is definitely there, but even at on-premise is so much, so that's really is the trigger. At the same time, now what is really driving that trigger apart from pandemic is to be able to offer that flexibility to their business. Businesses are basically reimagining their whole, where they are reaching out to their customers, where they are expanding into the newer markets and the speed is extremely, extremely important. And that's what is really bringing the whole consumption driven. Let's peel the onion on that. Somebody asked me this the other day, why? Why as a server, I said the same thing, flexibility. And they're like, yeah, okay, but give me some examples. And so I said, well, first of all, they're paying by the drink. So it's a much fairer for the customer model instead of, okay, charge them for what they're not even going to use or what they might use for a day or two or a month. The other is experimentation. It seems to me that in the digital world, you got to fail fast. You don't know, you don't know what you don't know. And so these consumption models allow you to spin up experiments very quickly and cheaply and only pay for what you use. Am I getting that right? Absolutely, absolutely. And that's exactly what the model is that we as a partner together that we are offering. Only one thing that I would want to highlight here is while that's the foundation, as I said, it is setting up the digital foundation, giving the customers the flexibility. And if I talk about example, one of our British large OEM who really is leveraging this technology for them to be able to bring more resilience and more engineering and sales departments to be able to, you know, on their manufacturing line and ultimately driving to the sales value chain. So those are the things that are happening. And you took an example of basically talked about consuming purely as a service what you use. This model is basically expanding everywhere. Very recently, I mean, I saw an ad of bicycle as a service. I mean, instead of buying a new bicycle, I'm just able to get one bicycle, use it for a month, return it back to the owner to be able to use it only when I need it, let's say for example. So that's what is really happening even in the digital transformation. I just need it for a time basis, for a particular purpose. I serve that purpose, ultimately driving the business resilience, agility and then ultimately serving that purpose, yeah. I mean, I think I'd love your thoughts on this. I think the real opportunity here is for technology companies like HPE working with TCS to create a layer, I call it a layer that spans on-prem, name your favorite cloud or multiple clouds goes across clouds, goes out to the edge. That's a layer that hides all the underlying complexity. You're going to take care of that for me because it's complicated, no question about it. The bigger the universe gets, the more complicated it gets but as a customer, I want to hide that complexity because I don't want people doing plumbing. I want people focused on strategic initiatives. And that to me seems to be the killer app, if you will, of infrastructure in the future. Is that abstraction layer? Do you see it that way? Absolutely, and that's where TCS Cognix comes into play very strongly, right? As I said earlier, it's basically, it's actually an AI driven human machine collaboration suite. So what that really means is it is bringing together capabilities from analytics to AI with our machine-first principles and really giving that abstracting layer in a pre-integrated manner from edge right up to the cloud and bringing it all together for the customers. So that's exactly how we are really helping the customers achieve that, again, addressing those challenges of accelerated time-to-market flexibility and more importantly, unifying the entire landscape into one single view. If I am a CIO or if I am a CFO, I want to see what is important to me rather than going to multiple different dashboards, so to say, right? So that's where TCS Cognix plays an important role in abstracting everything and presenting that unified view and in a transformed service delivery model for the customers. So the history of TCS is pretty amazing. You guys have, I mean, the ascendancy of the company over the decades is actually so impressive. Now, in your relationship with HP, and now, of course, HP, it goes back, I think it goes back to the 90s. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that relationship, where it's come from, how it's evolving and where you want to see it going. So I think it's a, when you go back so long, right, the only way you are able to sustain that long relationship when then there is a value that we have been able to deliver to each other and more importantly, the value that we have been able to deliver to our customers, right? And that has always been the mantra of the whole relationship and that continues to be going forward as well. So in that regard, I mean, while I would rather focus more on the future, history is definitely good, but I think going forward, the kind of work that we are doing together to be able to serve some of our customers globally across the base, across the industries is extremely valuable, both to us as well as to HP, I'm sure, and that's where we are really looking to have providing real value to our customers, not just from the technology perspective, ultimately elevating that value, how do we help them solve the business problems and not just the technology solutions? Well, I think we've learned that. That's the one big thing we learned from the cloud is if you just shove all your stuff in the cloud and lift it and shift it, so what? It's that operating model that we talked about earlier that really is how you drop, if you're a large company, you're talking about billions to the bottom line, not hundreds of thousands or millions, but that's a game changer. I'll give you a final word, Manav. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, as I said, I think, I hope I would not end up repeating my message, but that solving the business problems, leveraging technology and irrespective of the location where the technology is based, be it on Edge or on the cloud, it's the whole model of addressing the customer demands and the customer's need is extremely, extremely important. So that's what the whole mantra is, and that's what is really driving us forward together in this journey. Major shifts in industry, digital is the driver, and Manav, thanks so much for being on theCUBE, really appreciate your time. Sure, thank you, thank you for having me. And thanks for being with us for HPE Discover 2021, the virtual version. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in digital tech coverage. Keep it right there.