Bloomberg New Economy 2026 | Day 1 | Opening Session

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your patience in getting in here, and welcome to the Bloomberg New Economy Forum at the Taj Palace. To the ministers, the ambassadors, the business leaders, the investors, and the entrepreneurs, and of course to the journalists who have gathered here, thank you very much for joining us. We are especially pleased that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be joining us later this morning. I want to thank him, his government, and many of our Indian friends for welcoming us here. I'd also like to thank our new economy partners, whose names are listed there, for the support they give us, which makes this event possible.

This is actually the eighth New Economy Forum, and it's refreshing to see how many people have kept coming back year after year. There are a lot of very familiar faces, but it is the first we have held in India, and that feels to me, at least, overdue. Bloomberg has actually been in India for 30 years, and over that time India has moved from the margins of many global debates to right at the middle of them. And rather conveniently for an organization trying to organize a conference like this, almost every big question facing the world economy is evident here. India wants to become a developed economy by 2047. It is building roads, railways, ports, factories, and digital infrastructure at an amazing rate, and you will hear about those. It wants to become a manufacturing power, an AI power, and a much larger destination for global capital. At the same time, it wants to preserve strategic autonomy, protect domestic interests, and avoid choosing between America and China.

That sounds a very familiar choice to many countries. Every country, it seems, is trying to battle with similar ambitions and similar constraints. What is going on? I think you could probably argue that for most of the past generation, globalization — a creed I championed for many years at The Economist — rested on one very simple proposition: that capital would go wherever it could find the best return. Companies would build global supply chains where they could be more efficient. Technology would cross boundaries, and geopolitics, for the most part, would stay out of the way.

I think now very little of that looks simple. Governments are intervening in markets on a scale that we never imagined, even in the United States. Trade is increasingly shaped by security. Countries want sovereign supply chains, sovereign technology, sovereign energy, and increasingly sovereign AI. The United States and China are competing across almost every dimension of economic power. Europe is trying to work out how much independence it can afford, and other countries, including India but also Japan, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Canada, are discovering that being in the middle can itself be a source of leverage. Meanwhile, AI is beginning to alter everything, which leaves us with some very pressing questions.

How should fiscal and monetary policy adapt in an age where AI could lift productivity and require enormous amounts of capital at the same time? What happens to development in emerging markets if the cost of capital stays structurally higher? Can the so-called middle powers — a category into which some people put India, but India does not like being put — work together to create an alternative source of influence, or will they ultimately have to choose between Washington and Beijing? Is technological sovereignty actually possible without technological self-sufficiency? Can countries secure critical supply chains without simply recreating everything at home at enormous expense? And perhaps most importantly, how much of the old global economic system, which I talked about earlier, can survive when national security increasingly trumps economic efficiency?

Interesting word, Trump. Those questions run right the way through our program. Over the next three days, we will look at where capital is flowing and where it is retreating. We will inquire whether AI is justifying its seemingly incalculable cost. We will unscramble the scramble for critical minerals, energy, and technology. We will look continually at the different ways in which these different questions come forward.

We will also spend a good lot of our time on India. Not because India has solved all these problems — it plainly hasn't — but because it is trying to solve many of them at a scale that few other countries can match. That makes New Delhi an unusually appropriate place for this discussion.

The New Economy Forum was created to bring together people who do not normally agree, from countries that do not always get along, to talk candidly about problems that cannot be solved within national borders. That task has not become easier since we began in 2018, but I would argue it has become more necessary. So, thank you again for being here. We've got a great deal to talk through in three days in which to do it. Next, I'm going to invite Eric Schatzker, our editorial director, to moderate a panel with the rather provocative title of 'The End of Predictability.' After that, Mike will introduce Prime Minister Modi. And as you will have noticed on the way in, having a prime minister with us involves an extra layer of security. So my one plea is: please bear with us if the schedule occasionally veers a little bit off course. Around the prime minister's arrival and departure, we may ask you to remain seated until a member of our team tells you otherwise. So, welcome to New Delhi. Welcome to the Bloomberg New Economy Forum. And finally, that great clarion call of all these conferences: please silence your phones. Thank you.

Please welcome to the stage Natarajan Chandrasekaran, chairman of Tata Sons; Jonathan Gray, president and chief operating officer of Blackstone; and the Right Honourable Rishi Sunak, former prime minister and member of Parliament for the United Kingdom, for a conversation with Bloomberg's Eric Schatzker.

Gentlemen, good morning. Distinguished guests, I'd like to say a few things about our panelists to explain why we've invited them to join me here on stage this morning. Rishi Sunak, as you know, is a sitting member of Parliament in the UK and, of course, the country's former prime minister. He has become a strategic voice in Silicon Valley as an adviser and also as a visiting fellow at Stanford, and as a senior adviser on macroeconomic shifts. Jon Gray runs the world's largest manager of private capital, a total of more than $1.3 trillion, with assets across real estate, infrastructure, life sciences, credit, insurance, private equity, renewables, and of course, data centers. And Chandra is the leader who transformed Tata for the 21st century, building on its strength in IT services, automotive engineering, and heavy industry to enter semiconductors, advanced electronics manufacturing, electric mobility, and digital platforms.

An extraordinary trio of minds to tackle this provocative conceit: the end of predictability. So, gentlemen, I'm effectively making the case with the title of this panel that we are living in a new, fundamentally less predictable and more volatile era with a wider range of potential outcomes. Everyone here knows that you've managed through uncertainty before: war, recession, technological change, political upheaval. Every generation thinks its moment is uniquely uncertain, right? If you were around for the oil embargo, 1973; the Gulf War, 1991; of course, the financial crisis, 2008. What I'd like to know, and I'd like to start with you, Chandra: what is actually different about this moment in history?

Firstly, thank you for having me on the panel. First, I think we have had it very good for the last five decades. That's what the first realization is. But if you look at a group like ours, which is about 160 years old, we have seen two world wars, pandemics, and we have seen high borrowing levels, many things, and we have survived. So it's not the first time that something as hard as this is happening. But the primary difference is all of it is happening at the same time: the geopolitical disruption, the AI disruption, and commodity crisis, supply chain crisis. And the world has become so advanced and so connected. We are trying to decouple; it has never been this coupled. Tackling all of it at the same time is the unique thing now.

Well, it's great to be here in Delhi. I would say we obviously have two live wars: in Russia, Ukraine, and in the Middle East with Iran and its proxies. We obviously have an environment that has more volatility. We see the US with a little more tension with its allies, although I think there are enough shared values that we'll ultimately get through this. I think the biggest thing, when we look back in history — when we look back 10, 20 years from now — will be the technology, because I think that's the thing that's going to define this era. That we're moving from a place like we did in the US from 1870 to 1900 with the industrial revolution, that when you bring this superintelligence to the entire world, it's going to profoundly change how we live, how consumers live, how businesses are impacted, and how governments oversee societies. And to me, that's the big thing. That's the biggest challenge. These other things, yes, are making business more uncertain at times, but I think we'll find a way to plow through that. I think it's the technology that's the hardest.

So, it's all those things that Chandra talked about with the overlay of technology.

I think that's the one when we look back, that's what we'll talk about is really where things are changing.

I see you nodding your head.

Well, look, thanks for having me. It's good to be here, and actually good to be here with two very dear friends of mine who I had the privilege to work with both in and out of government. And I think actually both Chandra and Jon are right. You mentioned the '70s and every generation thinking they're in a different place. I had the great privilege in Downing Street of welcoming Henry Kissinger to come and spend some time in the UK before his 100th birthday, and I had exactly that conversation with him. Right? He's a statesman that had been through all these incredible periods of our global history, helped shape them — nuclear weapons, arms race. And I said to him, 'Gosh, this is really challenging. I'm grappling with all these problems,' expecting him to give me some version of 'Look, you know, you kids don't know anything. We had to deal with real problems.' But surprisingly to me, actually, he didn't say that, and he ended up discussing with me international relations. History tells you that when you move from one system of predictability to a new system, you have a period of transition which is often very unpredictable and bloody, and that's the period that we're in now, right? I think we all grew up investing and operating in a multilateral, rules-based framework largely enforced by, you know, US unipolar strength, and that is over, right? President Trump is not a cause of that; he's a symptom of that. And the world that we're in now is one where we don't quite know what we've settled down to, and that creates an enormous amount of geopolitical uncertainty and indeed danger. So China is a peer competitor for the US across economic, military, and technological domains. That is a new feature of the world economy. Countries like India, like the Gulf, now are able to chart their own course. They're not going to always agree with the US or China. They're going to do what they want, and that's a new feature. And I think it's no coincidence that right now there are more armed conflicts happening than at any point since World War II. Right? 61 different state-based armed conflicts around the world. Now, I look at that and I'm worried. I think President Trump probably looks at that and thinks 61 opportunities to win a Nobel Peace Prize. But, you know, I think that should concern us. But his deputy chief of staff said something instructive about the environment, and he said, 'We are living in a world that is governed by force, that is governed by strength, that is governed by power.' Now, I think that kind of Thucydides worldview is probably a little bit extreme. It's not that bad. But we are certainly living in an environment where, you know, hard power matters, and states, as both Jon and Chandra know, have realized that their economic security is indivisible from their national security and technological strength, which is creating a world, I think, of unpredictability.

What we are talking about is a cocktail of risks. You could think of it in those terms. There are factors or there are variables, right, beyond your control. Geopolitics is a risk. Technological disruption, obviously, a risk. Bad policy is a risk. Climate events are a risk. Market dislocations are a risk. What I'd like to know quickly from each of you is this: which of those risks, or perhaps a risk that I didn't mention, do you find hardest to manage? And which worries you the most? Rishi.

What worries me is the technology that Jon talked about is completely extraordinary, right? We're on the cusp of general-purpose technology. AI is often compared to the industrial revolution, but I think that actually undersells it. I think of it as the industrial revolution combined with the Enlightenment — that period in Europe of invention and discovery of new ideas — combined with the printing press, which democratized information and knowledge around the world. So this trifecta is going to be extraordinary. It's going to raise the floor for humanity. We talked about that here in India in February at the AI summit. However, all new technology brings with it new risks. And, you know, what technology does is kind of lower the barriers to entry for bad actors, and that's what this technology does. And I think our job as policymakers is to get ahead of that, provide safeguards, governance, and a framework so that we can not only prevent bad things from happening but also bring along the public with us, who outside of places like India or China and the Gulf are deeply distrustful of this technology. And if we don't reassure them, we're not going to get all of its benefits. So put aside all the geopolitics; we'll manage that. But Jon's right: the technology is the thing that, for better or worse, we will be talking about for years to come.

Chandra, they're not the same thing, right? The thing that you worry about the most and the thing that you find hardest to manage. In Rishi's case, it sounds like it is the same thing. What about for you?

I think he's right, definitely in the near term. Technology, both in terms of what it will do at the hands of bad actors and also the labor restructuring that has to happen in the near term, is going to be a big deal. In the medium to long term, it's going to be hugely powerful. It's going to make, I at least think, the world beautiful and highly impactful. But the other thing I worry about is the war situation. I think we seem to be opening wars on every front and nothing is getting closed. So I don't know — somebody's going to press a button.

We should all be worried about that. I worry about that a lot. Jon.

All right, this is positive, right? I guess I definitely agree on both of these fronts and the technology which I highlighted. But since Rishi covered that, maybe I'll talk about another risk, which is the lack of fiscal sustainability in Western governments. Interestingly, emerging market countries in many cases have been much more responsible, and we're now facing a bit of a reckoning. We're seeing that in terms of what's happening in the bond market, which also the wars have contributed to, the demand for capital because of AI, but also there's a perception that, hey, these countries are running deficits that are well above their inherent growth rates. And you worry, you know, shocks come along. We saw it with obviously the financial crisis, with COVID. Governments now with deficits that are greater than 100% of GDP and don't seem to have a path to bend that curve. And what happens, of course, is it leads to affordability challenges, particularly around housing, and it means you have to make tough choices around taxes and social services. So I continue to think the technology probably is the biggest sort of existential risk, but this is one that has been slow-moving and it's going to force very tough choices.

And just to pick up on Jon's point there, you see these different forces coming together, right? Because on the one hand, you've got governments who aren't able to be fiscally conservative, and the kind of populist politics we're seeing across Europe and elsewhere contributing to that. But this massive capital buildout of AI is then adding to the mix, as Jon knows, because the demand for capital from the technology companies is so huge that, kind of remarkably, if you think about long-term debt — so 10-year-plus debt — next year I think the technology companies are going to be bigger net issuers of that debt than the US government is, right? And it gives you a sense of the scale here. But that ultimately is putting pressure on governments in Europe, contributing to some of the challenges that Jon mentioned. It just speaks to the interplay between these big structural forces that we're living through.

I was just going to follow up briefly with you, Jon, because you can see this coming to a head right now in France. Now, as John Micklethwait likes to point out to me, it doesn't take much to get the French into the streets protesting, but the situation that the French are dealing with is very real. There just simply isn't enough money. There isn't enough money in the United States either. Now, America has exorbitant privilege; perhaps that puts it in a different category. But at what point do you begin to worry that what's going on in France is going to become a similar problem in America?

Well, I think there's a very important difference. I mean, I think all of these countries face this challenge, but the growth rates in the US are much higher. And when you look at the technology, the investment, what's happening with AI, you're seeing it lead to a lot of capital flows in, and that higher rate of growth gives you a little more room. Now, ultimately the US is going to have to face tough choices, but I think now this is more of a France, UK, continental Europe challenge, just because there you have much lower rates of growth, approaching, call it 1%, but also very large deficits. And what we've seen over time is these get addressed when there's crisis. We saw this in Greece, and unfortunately that feels like the way this is going. But I say the US, its great strength is both the age of its population but also its higher growth rate, and I think people are underestimating how much growth is going to come out of the US because of this investment and then productivity boom. So that's helpful to us, but again, we, like everybody, are going to have to find a way over time, either through much higher growth or better fiscal responsibility, or a combination, to get to sounder footing.

I'd like to stick with you for a moment, because when we talk about unpredictability and we talk about risk, of course, we should be talking about how to manage, how to hedge those risks. And the hedge for unpredictability is resilience. But resilience is expensive, right? It comes at a cost: efficiency. And since we're talking about markets, investors really aren't very good at putting a price on resilience. For the most part, they don't actually value resilience. Just the opposite. When you think about the need to build resilience into the investments that Blackstone makes, do you find yourself wondering whether the implicit consequence of that is that your investors are going to have to accept structurally lower returns in exchange for securing those cash flows?

There may be some of that. I think if you went back over time, you probably just looked at where could I get the lowest cost. Let's say, where could I source a product, you know, set up my business to manufacture in that lowest-cost location.

Optimizing for efficiency.

I think it's clear now after you go through COVID, you go through wars, you have tariffs, you recognize if I run a manufacturing business, I need multiple sources of input. I probably shouldn't just have one central place I manufacture everything. So yes, there's probably some incremental cost, but there's still a desire to be global in these businesses. And I would say for India, which we haven't yet really touched on, this is definitely something that's beneficial. I mean, you could see it with Apple moving some of it or expanding some of its manufacturing here. You're looking for other places where you can find human talent, where you can do things at large scale. And so I think for all of our businesses now we are factoring this in, and I do think it leads to multiple locations, both for sources for input costs, but also for manufacturing. And I think that's just the world we live in now. I mean, if you look at the war, if you were dependent on LNG from the Gulf, all of a sudden you lost that, your business could be in a real challenge right now. And so I think when you're looking at global businesses as we do — could be a medical supply business, could be an HVAC compressor business — you need a number of locations, you need some of that redundancy.

So going back for a moment to that question about returns. Where does the rubber hit the road in the returns? The cost of capital is rising, as we've acknowledged, and investors demand a premium.

But I would say that, you know, we focused a lot on risks here. It's worth pointing out that we're seeing real revenue growth globally. So our companies in the second quarter saw 11% revenue growth. We've seen margins consecutively go up for now two and a half, three-plus years. We've just seen steady improvement. We see this in the public markets. So what we're finding in our companies is even if they have some incremental costs to absorb that resilience, they're able to do it and continue to grow the businesses. And one of the reasons you see strength in markets, particularly the US markets, is because the revenue growth and the margin growth have been such that you're getting compensated even though there are more risks out there.

Chandra, how do you decide how much resilience is worth paying for?

See, I think I have fundamentally a different viewpoint. In a highly unpredictable, volatile environment, optimizing for efficiency is definitely not the right thing. And to think that resilience is the opposite of efficiency is the wrong move. I believe that if you design it for resilience in an unpredictable environment, actually you're optimizing for efficiency. You look at our business — we have seen supply chain disruptions. I mean, if magnets are short, then we can't produce vehicles. And, you know, you take every industry: you take steel, you take electronics, you take automobile, you take any industry — any disruption causes a halt in production. A cyber attack causes a halt in production. We almost lost six weeks of production in our Jaguar Land Rover due to cyber. So I think if you design it for resiliency, you will automatically optimize for efficiency.

But you have to start that way. This is the fundamental belief I have, and I don't know whether we have automatically designed for resiliency. Some resiliency has been built in our businesses because it really surprises me how well we have done as a group with so many disruptions that we have had. Personally, we have had a lot of disruptions. We had an air crash, we had a cyber attack, we had supply chain disruptions. Still, as a group, we will deliver double-digit growth and margins are holding up. So I think we are paying more attention. I send the message across the group: we have to think what is resilience for each one of our businesses. We can't define resilience as a global thing. Every company has to think of what is the resilience. I think if you design it for resilience, you will optimize efficiency because that's the nature of the world.

Rishi, I made the point that markets aren't very good at — or investors, at least — aren't very good at valuing resilience. But nevertheless, and we keep hearing about this, every country wants a resilient economy. So what happens if the market doesn't reward companies for having excess inventory, spare capacity, surplus capital, supply chain diversification? If the market doesn't reward you for that, and the genius of having it only looks brilliant in a crisis, what do you do? Is that where government needs to step in? Does government need to subsidize or incentivize resilience? And if so, how?

It does, but you have to be careful because politicians always like opportunities to protect local businesses. They like opportunities to put up barriers that, you know, you protect the producers, and this gives them an excuse to do that, right? I think the instructive example here is the French. When Pepsi, you know, big bad American company, tried to come and buy Danone, the important French company, the French declared that yogurt was a strategic national priority in order to block this transaction. And that is an example of what not to do. Having said that, it's clear, as Chandra said, the world has changed and governments need to adapt to it. And I, you know, the G7 we had when I was in office, you know, we talked about this notion of de-risking rather than decoupling. And the national security adviser Jake Sullivan in the US actually had this concept — she put it in a speech I thought was very good — which is this concept of a kind of small garden or small yard and a high fence. And it's trying to figure out what are the small number of absolutely critical things that you do want to have national sovereign capability in, where you need to have a really good range of options, where you're going to prioritize to protect. But outside of that, we should be careful to make sure that we enjoy the benefits of free markets and enterprise, which all of us realize creates growth and prosperity for our citizens, hard as it is sometimes to defend. And I think that is the balance that we need to strike. And look, no one's going to do that perfectly, but what you are going to see is governments being far more active. As you know, Chandra and I spent an enormous amount of time working on different things together in government, and that's probably indicative of the environment that we're in.

But the other thing I'd say with that is, going back to what Jon said about financial market risk, I think generally this is inflationary, right? Like, it comes at a cost, right? In the UK, take an example: you know, gas storage. Right? Jon talked rightly about the supplies we've seen. In the UK, we had our storage capacity; it had run down over time. You have the energy shock in Europe when Russia invaded Ukraine, new energy shock now in the Middle East, and then you realize the value of having more storage. Well, ultimately that storage comes at a cost for all the other years that it's not used, and that requires the government to step in and provide essentially some incentive to do that.

And I think just touching on India, like, the great opportunity here, for example, is in healthcare and pharmaceutical supply chains, right? And we've kind of learned the experience of critical minerals in not having a dependency on one country in China. If we look at our healthcare supply chain — lots of people here are involved in that industry — you know, there is a similar dependence on key starting materials or active pharmaceutical ingredients that are single-sourced from China. And that is a new risk, right? That is a lack of resilience in a critical area for all of us: our health. And I think that as governments look to try and move those supply chains away, India should be, and I think will be, a massive beneficiary of that move as a trusted partner to countries like the US and the UK, where it may not make sense to bring that all the way home, but actually if you've got a trusted partner like India that can provide that resilience for you, you know, that to me seems the right type of avenue to pursue.

Does that resonate with you, Jon? When Blackstone looks at a country, right, or a potential investment in a country, presumably you're looking for some predictability, some sense of assurance that what's there today is going to be the case for years to come, ideally. Where are you finding that?

Well, it's interesting. And what we're finding is governments that are moving towards welcoming in capital, where they're reducing excessive bureaucracy, burden on regulation, on building new things, making their tax regime simpler, easier. That's where your capital wants to go. We were all in Canada recently, and, you know, the Canadian government has made some big strides in that direction now under the new prime minister. Obviously here we've seen an enormous amount of progress over in India. No question about it, because the government has done all sorts of things to change the rules for capital markets. We've actually moved multiple companies to India to list. Can you imagine that 20 years ago? That the liquidity in the Indian market is probably second to the United States today. Because what's happened here? Obviously, the physical infrastructure has improved. The ability to get dispute resolution — all of that has improved, and the government has been welcoming foreign investment. 20 years ago, most industries we couldn't even invest in. And what's happened as a result of that is a real acceleration in growth. So, it's a very positive sign for this place.

Japan has done an excellent job over the last five-plus years really trying to encourage capital to come into that, freeing up, allowing public companies to be taken over. Wherever we see that — actually in the GCC region, we see a similar dynamic. And so I think as governments grapple with fiscal challenges, one thing they can do at low cost is make it easier to attract foreign capital: more simplicity, greater clarity, taxes that make sense, and trying to accelerate growth as a priority. And I would say India's done an excellent job in that regard.

You're nodding, Chandra.

No, I agree.

Jon, this is going to make you happy because we've spent most of this conversation talking about unpredictability. I'd like to flip the script a little bit and talk about predictability. And Chandra and I have had conversations about this. And in those conversations, Chandra, you've told me that Tata, which to your point earlier is almost 160 years old, has learned to think in terms of generations, maybe even centuries, which is quite a thought. Any strategy, any plan built on that kind of time frame requires at least some certainty about the future. What do you believe is predictable?

I think if you look at our own history and go back, some of the decisions that were made by Jamsetji's time in the early 1900s — he believed that steel was fundamentally important. He felt power was fundamentally important. He imagined a steel plant, he imagined a hydroelectric power plant, and he imagined R&D is important, science is important. None of this he saw — he didn't live to see any of this — but the steel plant came up in 1907 and the hydroelectric power plant came in 1911, and they had raised money in Ohio in 1911. So then the IC came about, and subsequently there are many decisions that have been taken by various chairmen of the group which have all proved to be right in the long term. And sometimes things go wrong, then you of course correct. But I believe that directionally, if you design it on the belief that it is needed for India, it is needed for mankind and for enterprises, you will get it right. It doesn't mean that everything will be a smooth ride.

So from the same inspiration, we have now gone after semiconductors, electronics, even batteries. I mean, even from the time we went into electronics to start manufacturing, India's exports have gone from $12 billion five years ago to $48 billion this year. So the manufacturing sector is growing at 9%, and advanced manufacturing is here to stay. And if you take chips, I think if you take a vote, everyone will say chips are the future. So whether we will get it right and meet the numbers in two years or three years is not the point. The point is that chips are going to be fundamentally required for domestic consumption. You see, we are in a beautiful spot in India because we are the talent, we are the domestic market. We can play a part on every global supply chain. So, and we need partnerships because we may not have all the technologies, and so we need partners.

But if you design it, definitely we'll get there. But we also have to be careful because you need to keep an eye on the balance sheet. So we can't be reckless and say that I'm going to be putting a 2-nanometer chip — it's just not going to work. So we need to also see where the demand is. But I think for me the metric is: first, it's important for India, or it's important for businesses and people, and it's the future. Third, it can create jobs. Fourth, it's financially viable. And the financially viable thing, you've got to feel the stones and cross the river. It's not that you're going to have a very clean spreadsheet in this uncertain world that everything is going to be certain, but a lot of things are certain. Direction is certain, the need is certain, the ability to execute is certain. And only is how much you ramp up, how fast you ramp up, which technology you go to, all this stuff.

Jon, if I look at Blackstone's track record, I think it's fair to say that the firm's strategy has proved over time to be remarkably prescient, built out businesses ahead of the moment when they really took off. So I'd like to know — well, maybe I'll use the hockey reference, being the Canadian that I am — that you want to skate to where the puck is going, right? Not where it is. So what is that? Where is the puck going for Blackstone next? What is the next trend that you anticipate will become a big business for you?

Well, I think we'll continue to be very long electricity because everything we're talking about around technology — the data centers, the autonomous vehicles, the robots — all of it's going to use electricity. So this AI is going to move from the desktop to the physical world, that'll demand more electricity. Obviously, the digital infrastructure, hugely important. I think, unfortunately, based on the discussion — Rishi knows better than all of us — but defense is going to be hugely important for pretty much every country in the world, is going to be investing more on its own resiliency. I think life sciences is an area that we will keep doubling down. It'll be obviously good for India. But this technology, which we all rightfully focus on the risks, the benefits to human health are going to be the number one thing that's going to come from it. So there's going to be lots of innovation. You'll still have — you'll need to do a lot of trials around that.

And then I would just say geographically, because we are here, this place has got an incredibly bright future. When you look at the size and age of the population, the education that's here, English-speaking, lots of people with degrees in technology and engineering, a government that's pro-growth, and yet you're working off GDP per capita that's 1/130th of the United States now with new infrastructure. This is a place, when we look over the next century, that I think will grow faster than any other major economy in the world. So we want to deploy more capital there.

And Rishi, the last word on predictability goes to you. What trends do you believe are durable enough to outlast today's geopolitical and technological uncertainty?

It used to be said that you couldn't be a high-income country without being a high-energy country, and I think Jon touched on that well. I think the same will be true for intelligence and compute, and that to me is the critical infrastructure, you know, of the next couple of decades. And ensuring that a country has that enabling infrastructure, I think, is going to be absolutely critical. Obviously, electricity powers that; India's investing in it. Countries need to do that in order to get all the...

benefits that John talked about, whether it's in life sciences, whether it's in productivity and elsewhere, and we're living in the midst of this extraordinary explosion in demand for intelligence, right? The Jevons paradox that people are familiar with from the 1860s, when the new engine came along that made it all more efficient, meant that the consumption of coal went up extraordinarily, and we're seeing that today. I mean, the demand for tokens is growing exponentially. I think that will continue and enable all these. So yes, all these swirling currents are there, but as a country or as a company, having access to that raw intelligence to power your future, I think is the thing that you can bet on. And alongside that, I'd say human ingenuity, right? No matter what comes our way, you know, we are always able to find solutions, right? So I would always bet on human ingenuity, whether it's in countries like India or elsewhere. The people who are innovating, the entrepreneurs who are creating new things, supporting them and allowing their ideas to flourish and grow. That's ultimately how you develop not just security but also prosperity and health to your society.

An appropriate note of optimism on which to end our conversation. Rishi Sunak, John Gray, Chandra, distinguished guests, please join me in thanking them. Thank you.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

For 30 years, Bloomberg has been proud to support India's financial markets.

Blackstone joins a consortium to buy Royal Challengers Bengaluru.

30 years of breaking business news.

Breaking news: the RBI raising the repo rate 25 basis points.

30 years of local and global market data.

India just coming online in India and in Europe. Volatility is very low.

30 years of meaningful conversations. Our prime minister has always told us we should make sure that our capabilities increase.

Growth has been very significant.

India continues to be a good story, with a new Bloomberg India homepage and Asia's fastest-growing subscriber base. India is now our second-largest digital audience, and we're just getting started.

I'm just in Mumbai, here in Delhi.

India's financial capital draws millions.

For moving mountains, literally.

The world is enthralled.

We are starting right now. This is just the beginning of the journey.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

Global capital flows, it's just a nerdy way of saying the money that flows around the world. And directionally, it does tend to be wherever investors expect the greatest return, which right now pretty much means one thing.

AI. AI. AI. AI. AI. AI.

There's so much frenzy around AI.

An extraordinary amount of capital has flowed into a tiny number of powerful, predominantly American hands.

It's pulling in a lot of investments from all over the world. In fact, foreign investors now account for 20% of all US equity holdings.

The AI revolution isn't going to come cheap.

The more money AI draws, the less is available to other industries and countries.

What people get worried about is the imbalances in these flows. And that's where you have kind of potential vulnerabilities in the system.

For the bet to pay off, the biggest tech giants need to deliver strong returns. And if they don't, that pipeline could suddenly become a drain.

In the world of AI, a circular deal often refers to transactions between customers and their suppliers.

For us as economists, we're taking a larger view. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan are the main producers of these semiconductors, GPU, memory chips that are critical for the AI data center buildout in the United States.

These places that are benefiting from this AI boom that are building up a huge amount of wealth and savings, they are looking for a way to get a return on it. Some of those savings then find their way back into US equities and corporate bonds, helping finance the very AI boom that created them.

That's the circular flow. It's one reason why the AI revolution is taking place so fast.

The same loop that speeds up the AI boom also narrows where the money flows. And it's creating imbalances which look like this. In 2025, economies running current account surpluses recorded about $2.5 trillion between them. On the other side of the ledger, deficit economies ran shortfalls, adding up to about the same amount.

Typically what we've seen from history is that whenever there's a huge amount of savings built up in foreign countries, investors like to look for investments that have high return but tend to have more risk to it, which is what we saw in the period leading up to the financial crisis. Expand the chart back to the year 2000 and a pattern begins to emerge. The last time the gap between current account surplus and deficit countries was this wide was in 2008.

Not saying that the current inflow in foreign money is going to lead to the same outcome, but there are parallels.

There is however one big difference. This time the money is going somewhere else. So in the early 2000s, foreign capital was pouring into the United States, from China, from other East Asian countries, from the petro states of the Gulf, and it was parked in US treasuries.

Global savings were tended to be managed by central banks and they were very conservative and risk averse.

Things are different now. The money is being managed by investors with more appetite for risk. Hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, all of them are institutions that are willing to embrace more risk and are hoping for higher returns.

Foreign investors haven't abandoned US treasuries. They're just much more interested in equities.

In the early 2000s, those investors largely played it safe, buying treasuries and bonds issued by government-backed institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then equities and corporate bonds took off thanks in part to low interest rates right up until the global financial crisis. Now equity buying is back for the US. That could create a large and awkward problem.

Essentially there is just a huge sucking sound that is coming from the AI world for capital that is starting to affect the ability of the US government to sell treasuries. If fewer people choose to lend America money, America has to offer them a better deal.

And that adds to the cost of interest payments for Secretary Bessent and for US taxpayers,

who, it's worth mentioning, are now paying $1 trillion a year in interest on more than $40 trillion of US debt. Since 2016, Donald Trump has said bringing down trade deficits is a priority, partly because he thinks US manufacturing has been hollowed out by overseas competition. But on the other hand,

Trump has gone all in on AI. He really believes that the US is in an existential competition with China over leadership of this important technology. And the reality is that that bet on AI is also feeding back into global imbalances.

And it's coming at a time when the US has become kind of source of volatility.

Even if we drag the AI-shaped elephant from the room, political uncertainty is still affecting where the money goes.

What we've seen in the last few years is geopolitics reasserting itself. In the most recent investment data, countries that vote the same way in the United Nations, they're more likely to invest in each other.

And that only makes the imbalance worse.

Countries which vote in opposite directions, they're not putting money to work in each other's economies in the same way that they did in the past,

which is what this data shows. Cross-border investments have largely plateaued. They grew from 27% of global GDP in 1980 to 141% in 2008.

But since the financial crisis, things have slowed down.

And this is happening despite there being more money depicted here in bull form, if that wasn't clear, flying around than ever before. The result is capital isn't necessarily getting to the places where logically it should be or where it's most needed. If you don't have to worry about politics, capital can just flow to wherever the returns are highest. There are developing economies and emerging markets who need capital to invest in infrastructure, factories, roads, electricity networks.

And geopolitics is making the allocation harder. Under Trump, the US has also become more protectionist. Meanwhile, AI continues to suck up global capital.

The trillion-dollar question today is, are we at the dawn of a new age or are we investing in the false promise of a new age?

And with so much money in AI, what happens if valuations fall sharply and people discover they were more exposed than they'd anticipated?

It's very hard to tell how widespread this exposure is. This has real consequences for people's livelihoods and in a way Asia economies can be hit twice where the amount they've invested into US companies gets devalued and at the same time their trade balance and economy along with it weakens as well.

As global trade imbalances rise, global risk assets are rising as well. Some worry that that is a volatile combination.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

Please use your translation headset for the upcoming address. Select channel one for English and channel two for Hindi.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

For security purposes, please remain in your seat at this time.

Please welcome to the stage Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

Namaskar. Namaskar. Excellencies, delegates who are here from across the world, business and industry leaders, policy makers, and my friends. A very warm welcome to all of you in India.

A short while ago, Mr. Bloomberg shared his thoughts with us here, his 30-year journey in India, and he is calling me his friend. He is older to me. He has been a very successful individual in the work that he has done. He is not only successful, he is totally dedicated to his work and his love for India. I have experienced this personally and therefore I have always respected him. I have always been an admirer of his and today as well his love for India, his feelings that he's expressed about India even at global forums have always been very positive. And therefore I convey to you my heartfelt gratitude, Mr. Bloomberg.

Every year this forum brings together the world's brightest minds. There are discussions here on the economy. There are deliberations on technology, on energy and on global affairs. And for the first time ever, this event is taking place in India. Bloomberg, I congratulate Mr. Bloomberg and his entire team for having taken the decision to host this event here in India. You have chosen the right place and at the right time.

Friends, this year the theme of the Bloomberg New Economy Forum is focused on the emerging new powers in the world. Every era has had its own sources of power, its own definition of power. However, a big transformation is taking place in the 21st century, in particular during its third decade. Today, technology is power. Technology is power. Data is power. Data is power. Knowledge is power. Knowledge is power. Innovation is power. Innovation is power. However, friends, the real question is not who has the power. The real question is how is this power being used? Will technology only help a few people to progress? Will it create new opportunities for millions of people? Will knowledge remain a source of power for only a privileged few? Or will it enhance everyone's abilities?

It is here that a new idea is born and that idea is the power to empower. Beyond the power to control lies the power to enable. Beyond the power to compete lies the power to collaborate. Beyond the power to succeed lies the power to help others succeed. And that is why the vision I have come here with today is the power to empower.

Friends, this idea is not new to India. In our country it has been said that the essence is the same. You may have knowledge, wealth and power. What matters is how you choose to use them. In other words, the true value of power lies in the purpose it serves. And in today's world, it is essential that we understand this principle: the power to empower. Friends, this humanitarian belief in the power to empower is not just something we preach to others. This is what our traditions have taught us. Traditions that go back thousands of years. And in India, we have brought this principle to life by embedding it in our governance and in our culture. Therefore, I will take this thought forward by drawing on examples from India itself.

Friends, all of you know India is the mother of democracy. India is the mother of democracy. There are over 100 languages in India. There are about 80,000 registered newspapers and publications. There are over a thousand satellite TV channels. And that's not all. In this age of social media, there are more than 500 million YouTube users in India. There are over 500 million Instagram users. Here a wide range of issues are debated openly and diverse perspectives are discussed by the people. And what has played a very big role in this today is digital power.

Friends, in India till about 12 or 13 years ago, just having access to a mobile phone or to the internet was in itself a source of power. Those who had access had information, they had knowledge, they had opportunities. After 2014, when a new government was formed in India, when we got the opportunity to serve the country, India focused on making mobile data affordable. And as a result today, even students from small cities can have access to digital learning. A small shopkeeper in a village too can access new customers. A young person too can join new online courses. In India, connectivity has not just connected people. It has also connected people to opportunities. This is the power to empower.

Friends, I would like to say something to the guests among you that have come from abroad. You must also try out and experience India's digital payments ecosystem. In India, a street vendor's business is very different from that of a large car showroom. Their scale is very different. However, in India, both of them are using the same ecosystem for digital payments. This is the power of inclusive technology. Friends, whatever capabilities India has, we do not believe in keeping them confined within our borders. We continuously share them with the Global South and with other partner countries.

We are sharing our experience in the area of digital public infrastructure with other countries so as to enable them to develop their own digital systems as per their needs. During the COVID pandemic too, we had created the CoWIN platform. This was an open-source platform. So it has been our constant effort to ensure that India's capabilities open new doors of possibilities for other countries. In other words, we ensure that our capabilities empower humanity.

Friends, the power of innovation is very similar to transforming an idea into a product, a problem into a solution. This in itself is a great ability. However, when these opportunities benefit as many people as possible in society, it creates a balance of power and its impact increases manifold.

India's startup journey is an example of this transformation. Before 2014, there were just a few hundred startups in India. Today, their number has increased to over 250,000. About half of our startups are from small cities and towns. Over 45% of the startups have at least one woman director or partner. That means opportunities for innovation are reaching more people. New talent is coming to the fore. New solutions are being created.

Friends, the focus on the purpose of power needs to be reflected in governance as well. The government has the authority. However, its objective should not be to make the citizens of the country dependent on just the system. Its objective should rather be to make citizens of the country more capable, more empowered. And this is the path India is moving ahead on. And moving ahead on this very path, India has lifted 250 million people out of poverty. This is more than the entire population of many countries. India has lifted 250 million people out of poverty over the last decade.

Friends, you might also have heard of the JAM Trinity and direct benefit transfers. Using technology, we have created a system to transfer government aid directly into the bank accounts of beneficiaries. This has reduced corruption. It has made things more convenient for the citizens of the country and it has created a direct relationship between the government and citizens.

Friends, it is this belief in the power to empower that can also be seen in India's global engagement. During the COVID pandemic, vaccine manufacturing had great importance. The question that arose then was, will the benefit of this power be limited only to a few countries, or will vaccines also reach those countries and those people who don't have this facility and don't have these abilities? India chose the path of empowering humanity. We supplied vaccines to over 100 countries. Our manufacturing capability also became a means of helping other countries.

I will give you one other interesting example. A few months ago, India hosted the AI Impact Summit. Mr. Bloomberg too spoke about the AI Impact Summit and he praised it. At this summit, apart from discussing the use of AI for humanity, we also discussed how animals could benefit from AI. Nandan is sitting here. He will be able to give you a lot of information later on about this. In other words, the more capable India becomes, the greater the benefit it will bring to humanity and to the world.

Friends, power is not just the ability to move ahead. It is also the ability to empower others to move ahead. India believes competition is necessary. However, compassion too is required. Innovation is essential. However, its benefits must reach more people. National strength is necessary. However, we must also contribute to solutions for global challenges. Whether it's climate change, water governance, public health, or the responsible use of emerging technologies, the world needs capabilities that offer solutions and create new opportunities.

Friends, I will give you all one other example. India had made a big commitment under the Paris Agreement to address climate change. In the year 2015, we had set ourselves the goal that we would achieve 40% of our installed electricity capacity through non-fossil sources by 2030, and India achieved this in November 2021 itself. That is years before the agreed time frame. India became the first G20 country to fulfill its commitment ahead of schedule. And this was not just about fulfilling a commitment. It was also indicative of the transformation taking place in India's energy journey.

In 2014, India's renewable energy capacity was about 75 gigawatts. Today it has gone up to about 300 gigawatts. That is, we have increased our capacity about four times.

Friends, this energy transition taking place in India is also creating new opportunities. Today we are running schemes in India such as PM Surya Ghar and PM KUSUM. The first brings solar power to homes. The other scheme enables farmers to produce solar energy, thus lowering their input costs. Through both these schemes, India has achieved over 30 gigawatts of solar capacity and it is estimated that these will help reduce over 30 million tons of carbon emissions every year. So that means solar power is becoming a means of protecting the planet and it is also at the same time empowering people.

Friends, in this race for power in the world, India is moving ahead with a different mindset and this decade also bears witness to that. Friends, this decade of the 21st century brings with it unprecedented global challenges. If we look back at just the last six years, we have seen a global pandemic. Then wars broke out in different regions. And if that wasn't enough, whether it was trade, critical minerals or energy supplies, we are facing obstacles in all of them too. No sooner does the world find a way of coming out of one crisis than a new crisis looms ahead.

Things that connected the world at one time are today being weaponized. Be it supply chains, or energy, minerals, or payments, or technology, they are all becoming tools for coercion and for exerting pressure. We are all seeing when and where the routes created by globalization over the last few decades became choke points. And in the midst of all this, artificial intelligence is changing the way we work in every sector. In several countries, aging-related challenges are also increasing at a fast pace.

In this situation, one of the biggest questions facing the world today is that of trust, of confidence. The confidence that supplies will continue uninterrupted in times of need. The confidence that promises made will also be kept. The confidence that partner countries will stand by us in times of need. And it is here that India stands before you today with a different mindset, with a different thought process. Friends, in the 21st century, India's progress is the story of how it is moving ahead together with all, taking everyone along.

When the world needs affordable medicines, one in five generic medicines comes from India. When you want digital identity and payment solutions, you see the model developed in India. When the world needs talent, it has confidence in India's skilled youth. Today, there are over 2,000 global capability centers in India that provide their services to companies all over the world. Friends, it is clear that whenever the world needs a steady pillar, India extends its hand, understanding its responsibilities. We do not grow at anyone's cost. We grow with the world and for the world.

And friends, India doesn't even want credit for what it does. The world says with pride that India gave the world the zero. This zero benefited all humanity. However, India never asked for royalty for this. And today as well, India is working in the same spirit and this is reflected in our thought process to address today's challenges as well.

Over the course of history, several global institutions were created. They have had their own interests. But what kind of global platforms did India create? You must listen carefully. What kind of institutions did we create and compare it with what is happening elsewhere in the world? What did we give the world? The International Solar Alliance. What did we contribute? The Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. What did we give? The Big Cat Alliance, the Global Biofuels Alliance, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, IMEC, Mission LiFE, Lifestyle for the Environment. In other words, India has launched initiatives that benefit everyone, that benefit every living being.

Friends, the kind of ideas that India has come forward with are also right before you. One Sun, One World, One Grid. One Earth, One Family, One Future. This is our thinking. One Earth, One Health. This is our vision. In other words, India always focuses on connecting and being connected and here too power is only being used to empower others.

Friends, in this world full of uncertainties, India inspires reliability and stability. This year in the April to June quarter, India's growth rate was 7.8%. And this growth is taking place on a strong foundation. 12 or 13 years ago, India's current account deficit was over 4% of its GDP. Last year this reduced to about half a percent. Today our foreign exchange reserves are over $700 billion. Our banking system is on its strongest footing in decades and very strong compared to banking systems of many other countries.

Friends, the result of these strengths is that India's sovereign ratings are being upgraded. Today India's confidence has reached unprecedented heights. We are carrying out reforms underpinned by clear policy direction. Through GST, we have transformed a complex web of taxes into a national market. We have created the insolvency law. 29 labor codes have now been reduced to just four simple codes. Hundreds of small offenses related to businesses have been decriminalized and we did not stop there. India's reform express is moving forward at a vast pace. For us, reforms are not a compulsion. Reforms are our conviction.

Friends, thousands of years ago, our Vedas gave us a mantra. Come, let us repeat this mantra once again today. Let us walk together. Let us speak together. Let us strive to understand one another because walking together makes us stronger. Dialogue helps us deepen our understanding. And when we understand each other, we can together address big challenges. This is the power to empower. Not limiting the use of our power for just our own progress but using it also to create new opportunities for others. I am confident that this Bloomberg New Economy Forum will become a big platform to take this spirit forward. Once again, my very best wishes to all participants for this event. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

For security purposes, all delegates must stay in their seats until the prime minister has left the room.

Everyone, please remain in your seats.

For security purposes, everyone must remain in the room.

Please take your seats.

I'd like to extend our sincere thanks to Prime Minister Modi for honoring us and for gracing this forum with his address. I'd like to share a few important notes. You've been hearing the so-called voice of God about the importance of staying in your seats. It's important. John Micklethwait earlier shared with you the security instructions that we've been asked to pass on and those remain in force. So please do listen to me and please do listen to the voice of God as it were, because those instructions still apply. We are not again allowed to move about freely. As you may have noticed, some people here and there are being asked to leave the room. They're being escorted. And then when the moment comes, you will know when it's your turn to leave the room. I promise. I promise. I would also ask you to keep the ringers on your phones turned off for the time being. Bear with us. Our program here at the Taj will continue momentarily. Thank you.

Please welcome to the stage Nandan Nilekani, chairman and co-founder at Infosys, for a conversation with Bloomberg's John Fraher.

Nandan, it must be very nice to have the prime minister as your PR man.

No, no, I think it's very kind and very gracious. I'm grateful to him.

Well, we are so happy to have you today. I mean, so many of the transformations of modern India over the last 30 years that we heard about this morning from Prime Minister Modi and from Mike, you have had a role in. So for those of you who, the very few of you who don't know, Nandan was co-founder of Infosys and he also helped build Aadhaar, the world's largest biometric identity system, which now covers roughly 1.3 billion people, and he played a central role in creating the digital infrastructure that made India's UPI payment system possible, bringing hundreds of millions of people into the digital economy. So very few people combine your understanding of how to create a truly global technology business with the know-how of how technology manifests itself in people's lives. So you are the perfect guest for our first morning of Bloomberg New Economy to help us think about how AI can be harnessed to help India become a developed economy by 2047. So thank you again. We can't really start any conversation about economic growth today without talking about AI. So let's first start, I think, by talking a little bit about AI sovereignty and India's role in the global AI story. You know, AI is often represented as a tussle, a battle for supremacy between the US and China, with everyone else fighting for scraps. But is that the right way to look at it?

Well, I have a slightly different perspective. I think everybody is saying that AI is a general-purpose technology. They compare it to fire, to, you know, printing press, industrial revolution, whatever. But the thing about general-purpose technologies is nobody can own or control it. You don't think of the whole world's electricity being supplied by one company. You don't think of the world's books by one printer and so on. So AI, in my view, is not a winner-take-all economy. It's going to...

To have a huge number of players, a huge number of producers, and we are seeing that every week there's a new model being announced. So the whole thing is moving across the world—in India, in the US, in China. So the action, really, in a general-purpose technology is how it is used, how the technology is diffused in a society, how does it make businesses dramatically more productive, how does it make people in an economy do better. And I think in that part of AI diffusing and making it work for people at scale, India will be the leader, and that's where I think the action will shift. So today we're in the production phase—you know, who's making the chips and the data centers and all that—but that's all supply side. Ultimately, this has to work for people's benefit, and I think India will, precisely because we have the experience in implementing sophisticated technology at scale for the last several years.

I mean, I want to talk a little bit about the use cases and how India can help develop, you know, these practical examples of how AI can change people's lives. But I just want to stay a little bit on the sort of geopolitical or strategic part of it. Is there not, though, a risk in your position that India becomes strategically dependent on the US and China, you know, if they're building the sort of railroads?

Sure, but these are not choke points because ultimately, if you take a longer view—take a five- to seven-year view—there will be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of models. Many of them will be open source. Today we're already seeing very large open source models. In India itself, we are building companies like Sarvam and BharatGPT are building very large models which would have been state-of-the-art maybe two years back. So I think there'll be more and more. You cannot bottle this technology. Similarly, on the chip situation also, I think you'll see a lot more chips coming. So ultimately, as I said, this is not a winner-take-all chokepoint technology. This is something which is going to become the environment, and so we of course have to be careful about what happens. But I think by and large, if I take a long view, I don't see how anybody can create a choke point here.

So if India becomes the crucible in many ways for these use cases, the test ground for these use cases, can you give us some examples of where you're most excited?

I think, you know, the prime minister mentioned one example: what Amul Dairy is doing, providing a very, very capable chatbot for veterinarian advice to the cow owners, the dairy farmers in Gujarat—you know, thousands, a few hundred thousand of them. Or what we are doing in agriculture, where all farmers now are getting a very sophisticated source of information: access to market information, pricing information, weather information, soil information, whatever. Or what India is doing in language. India, as you know, has several hundred dialects and so on. And now, if you really want to make computers inclusive, a person should be able to talk to their computer in a language of their choice, and that's happening here as we speak. So I think all these are examples of how AI will be used in an empowering way, as the prime minister mentioned, so that millions of people benefit, and that experience we have got from our prior buildout of large-scale technology.

So I want to talk a little bit about the Indian economy and how technology can be used to build it more from here. However, over the last 30 years, you know, the Indian growth model—so much of it has been based on the growth of companies such as yourselves, Infosys and others. But yesterday we heard the managing director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, talking about AI being a slow-moving tsunami wiping out demand for many human workers by, you know, taking over routine, repetitive tasks, and that this is a narrative that's also been applied to India. It's been applied to the software services industry here. You told me today you think this argument is hogwash.

Absolutely.

Can you explain why?

No, I think this is all disaster marketing to suit the interests of large capital. The fact of the matter is that the requirement for companies like Infosys or others is actually more than ever before, because the transformation of enterprise is a very complex activity, and AI requires you to fundamentally reimagine the way you do business. And it's not a—it's a root-and-branch surgery that is required, and this in fact even more requires firms like ours to show companies how to go about making those transformations, how do you reimagine the future. And I think we are going to see only more work coming our way. Of course, individual companies will have to get their act together. They'll have to transform themselves, reskill their workers, build new capabilities. All that is true, but this will only mean more things to be done. I mean, the capacity of AI technology is far ahead of its deployment. If you think about the cloud—the cloud was invented 20 years back. It's still not that ubiquitous. So technology diffusion in companies takes years and has to deal with complex issues of legacy, of change management, of power structure and so on. So I think there will be lots more to do. It'll in fact be more complex to do and therefore more rewarding.