Roundtable: How The Rise Of The Global South Is Reshaping Public Affairs

In an era where the Global North faces mounting economic challenges, the Global South, led by emerging economies like India, represents a beacon of growth and opportunity for multinational corporations (MNCs). The Global South's rapid economic development, expanding middle class, and youthful population offer vibrant markets ripe for innovation and investment. 

For MNCs, adopting a Global South perspective is not just a strategic option but a critical necessity, enabling companies to align their public affairs strategies with the unique socio-economic realities of these regions.

In India, specifically, consistent economic growth — allied with a youthful population and technological innovation — has helped to position the country as something of a template for Global South expansion. But no one can assume uniformity across such a diverse region, even if many of the public affairs and stakeholder lessons can provide considerable guidance. 

To examine these issues in further detail, PRovoke Media partnered with Global South Advisory, a brand of First Partners, to convene a Roundtable of media, public policy and public affairs leaders. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

Participants

• Carson Dalton, senior director, public affairs, communications & sustainability, Coca-Cola, India & Southwest Asia

• Gaurav Choudhury, co-founder & CEO, Earshot Media

• Navtej Sarna, former Indian Ambassador to the USA

• Rachana Panda, VP & country group head comms, public affairs , sustainability & CSE (South Asia), Bayer

• Senjam Raj Sekhar, head of global communications, Mobile Premier League

• Dilip Yadav, co-founder, First Partners

• Arun Sudhaman, editor-in-chief, PRovoke Media (moderator)

Economic & geopolitical drivers
"One needs to decode the broader mindset which is working behind the policy changes" — Dilip Yadav, First Partners
The conversation began with summarising the macroeconomic and geopolitical factors that are fuelling India's ascent amid a broader rethink of what the Global South means to MNCs, and the crucial context underpinning the region's re-emergence as a specific entity. Unsurprisingly, there are significant implications for companies that are aiming to capitalize on these shifts, even if challenges persist. India's consistent economic growth, though, remains a source of considerable optimism. 

Gaurav Choudhury (GC): The opportunities for India are enormous and need no emphasis, but there are also a few things that we need to keep in place. China plus one is a massive opportunity. But one of the proximate reasons for any investor to come to any geography is policy consistency. And also availability of a talent pool and a vast domestic market. I think India tick the latter two boxes quite well. What remains a problem because of systemic reasons or because of legacy issues, is policy consistency. In an example, 2012 — retroactive taxes were brought in. All of you are practitioners of public affairs and policy. You would know that it's like the hour hand of a clock. You rarely see it moving because it has to go through the dynamics of structural adjustment through various departments etc.

What should otherwise be a very vast domestic market has turned out to be or continues to remain small markets because, until 2017 for instance, there was a different tax structure in every state. We still don't have a perfect GST in place, but seven years is a very small time for a tax reform to achieve perfection. It took a long time for India to actually dismantle the tax barriers, fiscal barriers among states. One vast market turned out to be small tiny islands. That part has probably been taken care of at least directionally. But labour market reforms and land reforms remain a massive problem. 

You have to be extremely price competitive because China continues to remain the world's factory. If you want to outpace China in the world market, it's not just about the product quality, it's also massively about the prices. And a large part of that cost arbitrage comes for instance from logistical efficiencies, which we don't have. Our port turnaround time is 3.4 days. China's port turnaround time is 0.7 days. It has come down significantly, but there's still a very long way to go. That said, I think we are in the sweetest spot.

Navtej Sarna (NS): What exactly is the Global South? It's a general shorthand for everybody who's not really American or West European. The emergence of the idea of the Global South is not new. It is actually a carryover of the 20th century movements starting with the political movements of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Afro-Asian conference we started in 1955, which then led to NAM being formed formally in 1961. And that was essentially a kind of block of countries who were coming out of colonialism and who had got the hard end of life, but in both political and economic terms. Everybody was struggling. So there was a convergence of your political concerns and your economic concerns.

And then later on people realize that getting freedom in a very technical sense is not enough. The hierarchies that have been embedded by colonialism are very deep in the world and you heard terms like neocolonialism etc. So then again in the 70s, there was the North South dialogue. You started to ask for a new international economic order, structural reforms in global economy, better terms of trade, spread of manufacturing, reduction of poverty, all sorts of things. Then you saw a period of 20, 30 years when this new international economic order went to the back burner and everybody started talking about free liberal economies, let the market take care of itself. There is globalization and everybody will be happy in the long run.

Clearly that didn't happen and I'll just mention two or three things which brought the idea of Global South back in the new world. One was Covid — it highlighted the vulnerabilities of countries which were economically weak, which were not at the decision making table of world forums etc. For instance, vaccine inequality became a big thing. People started getting together because countries like Canada and some other countries started hoarding vaccines rather than giving to the poorer countries. The second was Ukraine, because suddenly a large majority of countries began to think that this is a European war. But where is the impact on these countries because of food, security, energy, all sorts of things.

The third thing has been climate. 10% of the richest people in the world cause 50% of the carbon emissions. This will be a debate which is going on since Rio 1992 — who caused it and who will pay for it and all that. But, because of the heightening of the climate emergencies, these are the countries which are suffering. So, despite the diversity in the Global South, which I do want to mention, there is a certain unifying narrative that we want to reimagine the global world order. We want a more just world order. We want a reform of the multilateral institutions. And now, if you adjust for the change in tone and change of issues, this was exactly what was happening 50, 60 years ago.

But, today the issues have changed. And the other thing that has changed is that, today, you have some very economically powerful countries in this grouping. You have 88% of the world's population, which is considered Global South. In terms of your global marketing and your global outreach of the corporate world, now you know why there is the kind of interest that Gaurav is mentioning. You have a huge diversity. You have countries like Malaysia, who have per capita income over $32,000. And you have countries like Burundi and Benin and in size as well as in economic terms, huge differences. You have Brazil, you have India and China, which are sort of there and not there. You have a diversity of politics. For instance, Freedom House, has South Sudan and Syria at number one and they're part of the Global South. It has Uruguay, which is 96 and is also part of the Global South. The third angle which has come is sustainability. You have a petro state like Nigeria, plus you have somebody really out there on the green frontier, you have Costa Rica. 

So, what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge diversity and it is a mistake for outreach people or analysts to project it as a monolith. When you are engaging with each country, despite this unifying narrative of the Global South, you have to see its individual standing. Its individual concerns, its individual priorities, its setting. China is giving huge amounts for instance through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It's an infrastructural initiative, but it's also a strategic initiative. Plus it is providing a lot of jobs and money to a lot of countries of the, so-called Global South. China is today selling $800 billion worth to countries of the Global South, which is four times the amount it was selling eight years ago in 2016. They are eyeing 5 billion consumers who belong to the Global South. They are setting up factories. They're now talking of geopolitics. They're doing military exercises with several of these countries. 

So, China is moving in different ways. And then there's the rivalry with India. We think it's the rivalry. The Chinese think they've got so much money, so many proposals that India just can't match up. But we would also like to be a voice of the Global South because we feel that we can actually, if not put in that much money, we can do a lot more in terms of creating public good, in terms of training, in terms of education, in terms of technical assistance and in terms of representing the voice of the Global South to the G7. So the Global South has, in geopolitical terms, evolved a lot. The US/China rivalry is a daily thing in the Global South, because many of these countries are being asked to choose. In the days of the Cold War, choosing was easy. It was a zero sum game. But today, African countries are saying, we will take what's good for us from you and from you. What used to be non-alignment is today's strategic autonomy.

Dilip Yadav (DY): Clearly we can see that this is a region with a lot of spending power and that is something which is of course attractive to all companies. And within that, if you look at the countries in the Global South, India is definitely one of the most promising countries because it's not just one of the fastest-growing economies, but it is also representing a lot of diversity. If you have worked out a successful India template, it becomes easier to navigate the diversity which the Global South as a region represents. But India is also not an easy country to operate in. We have seen a lot of tussle between India and corporations, particularly when it comes to, say, big tech. We have seen lots of regulations. We've seen a lot of conflict happening and that reflects essentially the ambition and assertiveness of the nation.

So, my point is that if you need to succeed in this market, then you need to of course understand that it is not just about responding to these policy changes. One needs to probably decode the broader mindset which is working behind the policy changes. What it's demanding is lot more inclusiveness, I would say broader advocacy for India's independence as well as assertiveness. It's not just about going and doing business, capturing the market, following the regulations. What is expected and probably holds you in good state is a broader advocacy for bringing about a larger change. 

It is not just about responding to these policy issues, you need to also have a larger play on climate and sustainability. We also see that we need to move beyond these buzzwords. DEI, sustainability, all of that is fine, but we probably need to move to what is called inclusive economics. Where organizations need to embed the whole thought process right into the strategy. That is a slightly different game because you need to not just look at how you're going to comply with your CSR regulations, but how would you really go deeper into communities and really make a big difference. 

The corporate angle

"Growth has only happened because the Global South is rising" — Senjam Raj Sekhar, Mobile Premier League
For corporates, the trends outlined above are more than just food for thought, they provide a crucial level of insight if they hope to succeed in a bewildering variety of markets. Whether in terms of government policy, advocacy, stakeholder engagement, public affairs or community outreach, the 'India template' may well provide a roadmap for the MNC world in general. 

Senjam Raj Sekhar (SJS): If you really look at the history of the Indian startup sector, growth has only happened because the Global South is rising. When the first set of startups came, they were backed by angels and small funds. But it's really the big funds of Tiger Globals, the Softbanks, who came and pumped in a lot of money. They raised funds from investors, from LPs in the Global North, saying that there's a huge opportunity in India. So there's a large Indian market which is there, which is available, and then the other set of startups followed. And the best part is that when Flipkart eventually was sold to Walmart, Tiger Global made a massive exit, and more funds came in. The second wave is when these startups went public and doing very well. They actually proved to the world that investors can put in money and make money. It is a large market and India is also evolving its own set of startup philosophies. Quick commerce like Zepto and Blinkit is truly an Indian thing. The fact that there is investor interest, that the startup sector has grown because of funds from the Global North is actually a sign of India's emergence.  

But, if India and Indian brands have to truly emerge as a voice of the Global South and therefore conquer the Global North as well, I think there's some lessons that we can learn from China. If you look at the top apps in the US, UK etc they're not your Facebook or other apps. They actually are TikTok and Temu. Truly it's innovation that came from the Global South. Indian startups have not really created a large consumer app which is loved in the Global South and Global North. Which China has done. I also feel that there is a certain soft power which is needed from the Global South. One country that has done extremely well on that is Korea. If you look at K-pop from a soft power perspective. You need soft power and a large consumer app can really be the killer app here. 

Rachana Panda (RP): These are the largest markets we are talking about — India, China, Indonesia, Brazil, and many others. So even if they want, [MNCs] cannot ignore them. I represent a very basic infrastructure or a sector, I would say, agriculture and health. When you're talking about a unified narrative, these are the countries that actually have gone through difficult times. Maybe it's colonization, maybe it's in terms of agriculture etc. There's so much to learn from each other, so much to lead in terms of digitization, in terms of modernizing agriculture. In fact, at Bayer, the global smallholder farming initiative is led out of India. It's a huge leadership opportunity for Indian talent. Secondly, in terms of business models, what's working for India is working across different countries. We are talking about water resilient, climate resilient crops. So the unified narrative, the projects, the initiatives, I see a lot of those being led out of [India], at least for multinationals.

Even similarly for healthcare campaigns, we have women's health — we're talking about access to healthcare, tiered pricing. These are models that a lot of countries are actually picking up from India and I think it's a huge opportunity. We all know what's happening in the digital world with digital payments etc. Now the government is talking about agri stack, which is a huge move in digital public infrastructure. Of course there are challenges. These are sustainability commitment target areas. Sometimes we see that multinationals end up saying, 'OK most of the sustainability commitments are going to commit from these markets, the low and medium income countries are good at the moment.' Why? Not, to some extent, until we become profitable enough.

Carson Dalton (CD): If I have to look at my career in the last 15 years in multinational and Indian companies, I don't think companies are arranging themselves as per the Global South. It's very much mature markets and emerging markets. That said, if we look at India over the last decade, and I had the privilege of leading Ola's international foray into the markets of Australia, New Zealand and the UK. There was that pride in place which Indian companies wanted to have globally. I'm not saying that we've come back to India in terms of international ambitions, but today, I don't think companies look at it. We do talk about China plus one, but what is the India strategy? And with all the indicators that the ambassador has spoken about that Gaurav has very well articulated, I think Indian companies and multinationals are saying, how do we build and grasp the demographic dividend for the next 10 years? Or we lose India forever.

10 years ago, public affairs teams only had a WEF strategy, but today we have corporate leaders who are going to UNGA. We are actually now looking at not only trade, but also looking at policy, political and economic. So public affairs and communication professionals have to really rise up. There's also a lot of what we are tracking through G2G conversations. Everyone realizes the equity that our talent brings. It's not only about having Indian multinational CEOs from non-tech companies in every sector, but it's also about Indian talent in Indian companies. And it's not only English language, but how even today AI talent globally has actually come from Indian institutions.

How do we continue to ensure that there is that cautious optimism while there is strife in the world and the world is interconnected and supply chains are disrupted? How do we ensure that India has a lead on trade policy, taxation, innovation, labour, IP and the ease of doing business? Unless and until there is transparency and predictability, some of these areas that we spoke about, I don't think we can be that leader. And I think every company, every country has gone through that transformation. 

Dollars & diplomacy

"Many countries are doing all sorts of things to project their country through public diplomacy" — Natvej Sarna 
If strategic autonomy is a realistic goal for Global South countries, then further factors are likely to come into play. One of those is the continued dependence on the dollar, while another is the changing nature of soft power and public diplomacy. Together, trends like these help illustrate a complex picture for India and its businesses. 

GC: There's an elephant in the room, which is the currency, the dollar. A large part of our strategic autonomy that does not come is also because we don't have the currency strength. Primarily that is driven because we are dependent on crude oil imports, which is likely to remain and likely to grow even more because the economy is growing. De-dollarization will be a process. It cannot be an event. That process has started — to what extent can we actually try and reduce our dependency on the dollar and increase our dependency through bilateral trade treaties and local currencies is a matter of conjecture.

SRS: If you look at the things China are doing, especially in two, three areas, it's already overtaken the world. BYD has already overtaken Tesla as the largest EV company and the US and Western nations are blocking a lot of tech sales and chips et cetera from China. China is building foundational AI models, and tech and foundational AI are really going to drive the next sort of arms race, if I may call it. So are we going back to a situation in which you will have the US and its allies, you'll have China and its allies, and India leading the rest of the Global South? 

NS: There is this move away from the dollar. Given our relationship with the US, I don't know how much we can do it. On the second point, I wouldn't be worried about our soft power. I think there has been a considerable progression, whether it was Indian film, fashion, food, literature. And now you have yoga. But what you're asking is are we going to Cold War 2.0 — a purely bipolar world and the rest is Third World? I don't think China is reaching to rival the US in the region or at a global level — it cannot be what the Soviet Union was because the world has changed too much. The point is strategic autonomy, it is coming today in stronger terms than it could when the [Global South] didn't have clout. We've moved away from foreign policy being a sort of backroom discipline where a lot of things are done in secret. Public projection of foreign policy has been something which is, I think, a function of increased digitisation, increased media availability.

Diplomats have learned that they have to move into the public sphere because not only do you have to do things, you have to be seen to be doing things. We have made huge progress. So there is much to talk about, which is what you have heard the Foreign Minister talk about because we are seeing ourselves not only in an economic sweet spot, we are in a geopolitical sweet spot because we have developed good relations with the West. We have a longstanding relationship with Russia and we have made the West accept the fact that there will continue to be a relationship with Russia. The inherent strength of India being its demography, its markets, its stability, its entire diversity. Now that is also a challenge in our development. The Southern states are doing much better than the Northern states. So can we handle this kind of diversity is one of the challenges that you come to. But I think that pride is well placed and that projection is important and that's why these things are happening. 

DY: One of the reasons why there is always a struggle within the Global South economies and countries is about financing. You need infrastructure. And there is a big expectation from the Global North, for example, on climate action. It is a real problem which cannot be ignored and everybody wants climate action, but financing is a big challenge. Then there is the demand that, along with climate action, should come climate financing. Without the flow of the right financial inputs, but that brings in dependency. 

GC: Who controls the finances is going to determine anyway which way the world is moving. On climate change, if you consider China to be part of the Global South, the Global South then cannot be fully absolved. Because the BRI initiative, while it's audacious in its ambition, is also going to result in China actually exporting a lot of climate impact. The externalities that is going to trigger are something that we cannot ignore. It's not just about strategic ambition. It's going to last for generations and that remains an underrated undertold aspect.

On financing, money always follows a path of less resistance. In this case, the returns are supremely attractive because India is an attractive economy and that is why the dollars will follow the geographies where the returns are likely to be the highest. Which is why I think you will have to depend on Global North to fund Indian startups. Global South does not have that kind of money. And we saw that when Sam Altman was here last year, when someone asked him can we build our own AI, he was very candid and straightforward. He said, you can't because that requires hundreds of billions of dollars and we don't have that kind of money. So those who control technology, in this case AI, over the next decade or so and those who control the purse strings are going to dominate. 

A number of participants asked Sarna for his thoughts on diplomats becoming social media personalities in their own right, and what this means for traditional public and foreign policy communication strategies. 

NS: It's a rise of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy was not a phrase which we read when we joined the foreign service. We had press relations. Public diplomacy was considered a very small part of diplomacy and at best it was to deal with the press. But when I was a young officer in that position, we had an external publicity division, but there was no technology. There was not even 24 hour television. Today what has been added to it is this [gestures to his phone]. There's Twitter, X, Instagram, this, that and the other. So, public diplomacy has become essential. Earlier they used to tell the spokesman to say what, where. The ministers, the ambassadors never said anything openly. Very rarely. Today the minister is himself tweeting. So the spokesman has to find a job for himself. You have all the senior leaders tweeting there because they have to be in there. 

GC: The grammar of diplomacy has changed, but the nature of diplomacy has also moved the needle. Has it become more difficult now because of the pervasive nature of social media? 

NS: It is more in the public eye, but also the nature of diplomacy has changed because the content has changed. You go to 19th century, it was all political diplomacy. Then somewhere the second half of 20th century, you have economic diplomacy. Our ministry never had an economic division until the Sixties, and then you had an economic division, then you had multilateral divisions, then you have divisions dealing with technology. Today you have divisions dealing with technological diplomacy. You have divisions dealing with environment, full officers, you have arms control people. So the subjects have become far more complex.

Inevitably it becomes personality driven in public perception. The foreign secretary on occasion will be out there or the spokesman will be out there, but you will not find a joint secretary who's dealing with Central Europe putting out tweets. Ambassadors are all expected to be active on social media. When I was spokesman, you were not allowed to have Twitter. Today you have to. If you don't have Twitter, you're in trouble. That is the best way I can tell you how much things have changed. The nuance will be there because it's going on record and it'll be read by the world. If you lose the nuance, then you're opening yourself up to any sorts of problems. 

CD: You would love to teach people how to use social media apps with nuance. Even in the private sector, it's not that everyone is trigger-happy or ready to grab it. Over time, communication departments, public affairs teams have advised chief executives that you need to be a lot more careful now because there is a lot more scrutiny than earlier. It's also true that the spokesperson ends up not having a job. That actually leaves you wondering, what else is my chief executive going to say?

NS: The fact is many countries are doing all sorts of things to project their country through public diplomacy. And there's a whole new discipline of nation branding. How do you brand a nation? Sweden, you don't need to do anything except put that yellow and blue colour because it brings to your mind Ikea. Some brilliant campaigns have taken place. 

Consistently inconsistent

"Public affairs teams, especially in India, we have a seat at the global table today" — Carson Dalton, Coca-Cola
To conclude a lively discussion, our participants explored the importance of policy consistency and talent, not just to India's Global South aspirations, but for the communications and public affairs sector in general. On the former, it was hard to avoid the challenging issues that companies are being forced to address from a geopolitical perspective, which are often brought home with added complexity across Global South markets. The Israel-Gaza conflict is perhaps the best current example of this. 

RP: That's where a public affairs or policy team gets up saying, 'hey, we are talking about health and food.' Or maybe the Ukraine-Russia war, how do you choose one country from another when it comes to the basic needs of food and health? I think those are situations where a company really has to take a firm position. 

But coming back closer to home, I think particularly for the sectors that I represent, these are state mandates in agriculture and pharma health. One looks at the centre for policymaking or driving the larger ticket items, but the focus is really on the states and one has to manage within teams. We have separate teams very focused on these states' issues. Because each of the states is extremely different from each other, particularly in agriculture or health. Mostly we go to the state level and then of course we have a larger engagement at the central policy level. 

Arun Sudhaman [AS]: I guess the next question is how challenging does that make it? And is it too much of a challenge? Because you also mentioned the diversity in India, it's not always the easiest equation for multinationals to tackle. 

RP: I think it's the opportunity. One instance I would give, five years ago. India was not a part of the global public affairs team. Now India and Brazil are a part of global public affairs leadership. I give a lot of credit to the rise of India's voice. Of course, I would want to believe it's performance based as well. But a lot of the credit goes to India as a country because at the global level we cannot ignore India's voice. Second, because of the complexity that we deal with as public affairs professionals in the country, I think there's a lot of expectation and confidence in the talent to be able to manage global markets. 

SRS: From a startup perspective, it's very interesting. It's not really about consistency. There are hundreds of startups coming out. And they're always looking for a new innovation, a new niche. Now, the problem here is that those companies are actually innovating faster than regulations. And then suddenly you see a whole lot of companies who are in fintech sector, because of one regulation, you can't operate anymore. 

DY: My point also is that it's not possible to have policy consistency to a large extent with the way everything is changing around us. Policy will have to be reacting to things which are happening. There are spaces that startups discover, or there could be larger geopolitical level forces. It's not possible to imagine a world where we will have consistency on policy for a longer period of time. For example, the IT policy in India is getting amended after 10 years. It should be reviewed much faster because it's not keeping pace with the needs. So the question is how do you navigate an environment like that? What I've seen is that it's not just about reacting to policy changes. It's about trying to get to the mindset behind [the changes], and therefore it's important to track the larger forces. One's ability to gather intelligence and data. Policy makers are also responding to environmental factors. So monitoring those environmental factors is more important. 

GC: Corporates actually want to avoid policy shocks. Consistency is fine, but so long as there are no policy shocks, I think it's easy to do business. 

CD: We are moving from a VUCA to a BANI world, which is brittle, anxious, non-linear and incomprehensible. And that is what we explain to our leaders. Planning cycles have reduced, there are more supply chain challenges. I think public affairs teams across the world and especially in India, we have a seat at the global table today, and there is a lot more integration. We get to understand conversations that have taken place with prime ministers and heads of states and multilaterals and we feed into all of that to understand how we progress and the positions that companies can take or sectors. So, we're going up the value chain where companies need to understand what's going on in the world and how can we manage our business in this hyper interconnected world. If you ask us what's the bottom line of this conversation, there is more investment in people, in teams, there is more investment in agencies and intelligence and how do we monitor. How can we avoid regulatory shocks all of a sudden? Which means investment is going in people and in agencies. We are paying more to be part of associations flying around the world globally. All of that is really helping companies and sectors manage BANI better. 

GC: India is the global capital of Global Capability Centres (GCCs). I think the next phase of growth for GCCs is going to come from the tier two and tier three cities, because of cost arbitrage and talent pool. It also talks about the emergence of India and India's position in Global South because GCCs in India are actually solving global problems.  

NS: How optimistic are you of this talent pool that we keep talking about going forward? Are we going to get stuck at being the talent pool for the lower end of the food chain of AI?

GC: No, we have already made that leap. If you look at the kind of problems GCCs are solving in India for the rest of the world — there are more actuaries working in GCCs in India and insurance companies and these services are offered to global clients. Actuarial service is a very highly evolved service in the financial services sector. I think we are already there, and more and more it's also engineering services. High-end engineering services are being delivered out of India. Just as an example, the National Australian Bank, their GCC is in India and they're offering high-end services. So I am quite optimistic about this talent pool because as a service led model, I think we are leading the growth. 

AS: The broader question is, if India is to play any kind of a leadership in the Global South, it is reliant on the quality of its biggest asset, which is its people and that so-called demographic dividend. So how confident is everyone in the quality of India's people, not just as it relates to GCCs, but even things like public affairs and comms and brand building and soft power?

DY: We'll continue to see diversity. We'll have talent which is very good, top level, top tier. And we also have struggles with scaling up people. So right now the Government is willing to put a monthly stipend as a subsidy to companies who are willing to skill people because there is a challenge with people who have education, but that don't have skills. That's a challenge that a country faces. I think both situations will coexist and that's the beauty of the country.

CD: And the biggest challenge is the middle income trap. How do we create more jobs? You can have high value jobs, but then we have many Indias in this India. So the first is jobs. The second is how can we continue the pace of infrastructure and build more cities? There are these elementary issues which have become more than elementary now. And the third is I think Global South. We look at it as the challenge of climate change. We are seeing all our cities crumble. The cities are seeing very varied climate trends which are worrying. 

RP: In the last maybe seven to eight years, the number of people who've moved within the multinationals and from our markets to other markets is phenomenal.  The number of people I see moving from India, from the business sector team to Africa, whether it's telecom, whether it's agri, it's health, phenomenal. I think India is taking a huge leap in terms of talent to these markets.

NS: I would be highly optimistic about India's position in the world. We are at the sweet spot, but in many different ways. Particularly in terms of the future of the Indian economy, there is very little doubt. There will be challenges of job creation, of expanding our manufacturing capacity, of handling climate emergencies, of looking after rural India and making sure that we do not have too much of our regional disparities as we go along. But I'm sure that we are quite capable of handling this being a democracy for 70 years. We know how to handle the federative structure and the differences. I envy the generations of the future of India.