Modi 12 Years: "A Lost Decade For the Economy."

[00:00:00]Since we are looking at Modi's 12 years, Modi Nomics or Modi's economic policy were 12 years. We all know that the policies are being made at the prime minister's office. Uh I don't think in this government the ministers have have really any say in terms of ideation etc. >> They say that we'll make the unorganized sector organized. Now that's impossible because the unorganized sector is so tiny and so small. It can never become organized. You can only kill it. And when you kill it then unemployment grows. Whereas you had promised two cr jobs to be created but those jobs cannot be created in the organized sector which is highly automated and mechanized that so you have to support the unorganized sector but instead of supporting the unorganized sector and the labor intensive sector you're growing for crony capitalism the foreign direct investment also has gone down the foreign portfolio investment has been going out since the September 202425 and therefore now there's a balance of payment problem that that we are running into. So in other words, you know, a variety of problems on the external and the internal front have come because of the skewed policy decision making which is very you know narrowly conceived rather than broadly conceived. The most peculiar thing about uh uh mod 12 years has been that that capacity utilization in industry has always hovered around maybe 65 to 70 75%. Never really gone above 80%. Uh for new investments to come and therefore uh you know new investment employment or new investment driven consumption has not happened.

[00:01:30]States are in trouble you know because the the the sort of you know diversity of the states we need different policies for them but there's only idea of one nation and one election and one language and one this thing you know that's also not good for the country. The other thing of course is that your education and health the social sector they are languishing you know the quality of education even though we have had many institutions but there are large number of vacant positions you know there large amount of leakage of question papers a lot of corruption because when you do privatization and commercialization in these areas they have problem and because your problem in education your R&D is lagging behind and when R&D is lagging behind that that affects us internationally. So in other words, the basic framework of policy is incorrect.

[00:02:30]Hello and welcome to this uh special uh discussion on the wire. Uh and today we we'll talk about uh the economy under Prime Minister Modi uh who has just completed 12 years. uh a lot of celebrations are we have seen lot of celebrations by by the ruling party uh on the occasion of uh prime minister Modi having uh completed 12 years uh as also the prime minister having now uh having become the the longest uh serving uh prime minister uh a lot of congratulatory messages pouring from all over the world. Uh uh of course technically longest serving even technically Javal Neu uh uh he his interim prime ministership is not taken into account in this uh his his his prime ministership interim prime ministership from uh 1947 to uh 952. Uh if you include that perhaps uh prime minister Modi has some more years to go.

[00:03:38]Nevertheless, uh lot of celebrations. Uh so we thought it's the right time to take stock of uh the Indian economy uh the political economy and uh the reason why we are doing this is uh I mean we can't we don't have enough time to talk about everything that has happened during uh uh Prime Minister Modi's tenure in the last 12 years. But the uh the economy and the political economy is a very very uh key parameter on which uh to judge uh uh any government and um uh the economy in the last 12 years u broadly speaking uh uh economy has uh not uh shown the kind of uh energy the kind of uh uh impulse uh that many had expected. uh uh the economy has uh has not performed uh uh well on many parameters and u even economists who support the government and who who've been advising the government you they are disappointed uh with the way the economy has performed uh uh particularly in the last five years uh uh particularly after co uh and uh recently we had u a very uh eminent uh economist working with the government government in a sense advising the government who who was also sent by the government as uh as executive director at the IMF uh Sud Balab uh who who said that uh who said India's economy uh was uh could be counted as as as as among two fragile economies today India and the other economy named was Turkey.

[00:05:30]and he was uh he was quite skating on the management of the saying that India should stop uh claiming that it's the fastest growing economy anymore and it should it should not u uh it should also shed the uh uh the the title of vixit uh economy or vixit as in developed economy. So, so why is it that economists on on both sides on on on the on the right who support the government and those on the center and left uh both sides are disappointed. Uh this is this is rather peculiar. Uh so I think to discuss all this we have with us a very eminent economist professor Arun Kumar uh former uh Ju head of uh economics department Ju welcome to our show professor Arun Kumar uh uh and I'll just start by asking you uh how would you uh characterize the the economy uh under Modi uh in the last uh 12 years you have uh studied the economy very closely you have written many books uh you you you written a book after demonetization on black money you you've written uh a book after co uh so you you really have studied uh the economy very closely so I we thought that you are the best person to tell us uh please give us your view on uh uh on the economy and the Modi last 12 years.

[00:07:10]>> So thanks Venu for having me. Uh first thing is you know he's survived or rather he's done quite well in the 12 years and he deserves congratulations for that. But the point is that you see this stability that has come after a long time. Uh that was expected to actually help the economy, help the country and he came with many promises.

[00:07:32]you know he he actually his campaign was on the basis of you know that he'll help everybody you know he'll create jobs he'll check the black income generation you know that he'll double the farmer's incomes you know so many very big promises were made and you know given that the kind of majority he's had he could have per perhaps delivered on many of these things but that would have required a complete change in policy and that change in policy has not come about not only that You see this kind of a stability of one person being the prime minister that has led to certain kind of autocracy. Uh this autocracy is not good for policym because India is a very diverse country. It is it is really you know if you look at it from Gujarat to Assam and from Himachel to Tamil Nad all kinds of different states different requirements different levels of poverty different levels of population growth you know all these things are there. So what we needed was actually a diversity in the policym rather than a very narrow focus. You know when you are an autocrat and you're surrounded by your psychopans you think you know everything. So very major mistakes have been made in this period of time. Uh when the economy was taken over uh by uh prime minister Modi in 2014. The economy was already recovering. Its rate of growth had already started rising even before he took over. And therefore in 2014 15 the rate of growth turned out to be quite good actually uh because you know the uh problem that was there with uh you know tapered tantrum etc that had sort of died down and the economy was well on the path of recovery. So Mr. Modi took over an economy which had already considerably recovered from what was a crisis of 201213 when liquidity etc you know global liquidity etc was a problem.

[00:09:26]Now from that then he went in for demonetization which really damaged the economy very badly and then he went in for a very structurally faulty GST which again damaged the economy. So so there there have been number of shocks which are actually policy shocks even the the sudden lockdown during the pandemic was a policy shock and then you know we had the Ukraine war and then Palestine and now this thing. So there have been a huge number of shocks. Now that required somebody with a very steady hand who would have understood the diversity the problems etc and he he has obviously not managed to grapple with them and that's why everything is decided in a PMO even cabinet ministers don't have the autonomy and such a big country such a diverse country requires different cabinet ministers to take action it cannot be all governed by the PMO this is I think the major failure and that's why there have been big failures and that's why my own argument has been that the rate of growth of the economy instead of being 7% or 6 and a half% as is claimed is more like 2% rate of growth and that is because the data that is coming is not really kosher. Uh the data is being played around with you know whenever adverse data comes then it's not accepted and fresh data is generated which will show the government in a good light. Now if data is incorrect then the policies will also be incorrect. So for instance on GDP when the GDP data came the new series came it didn't show you know a good performance during the NDA period and UPA period was good performance then they asked the NITIO to generate the series now that's not the NITI Aayog's task but NITI Aayog then fiddled around with data and showed that the NDA period growth is better than the UPA period growth and that was accepted consumption data was not accepted unemployment data was not accepted and so on and so forth so in other words if If you play around with data then you're bound to run into problems because you're making policy on the basis of incorrect data and that that's been the big problem that this government has faced that you know the unorganized sector which is declining and it's being hit very hard because again the wrong policy that they say that we'll make the unorganized sector organized. Now that's impossible because the unorganized sector is so tiny and so small it can never become organized. You can only kill it and when you kill it then unemployment grows. Whereas you had promised two cr jobs to be created but those jobs cannot be created in the organized sector which is highly automated and mechanized that so you have to support the unorganized sector but instead of supporting the unorganized sector and the labor intensive sector you're growing for crony capitalism. So even the capitalists are very scared the businesses are scared that they may get acquired and therefore they are not investing enough. So private investment has not been very high you know as it should have been if there was a stable government we're giving you know policies perspective which was the correct one.

[00:12:19]So all these things put together the foreign direct investment also has gone down the foreign portfolio investment has been going out since the September 202425 and therefore now there's a balance of payment problem that that we are running into. So in other words, you know, a variety of problems on the external and the internal front have come because of the skewed policy decision making which is very you know narrowly conceived rather than broadly conceived. States are in trouble you know because the the the sort of you know diversity of the states we need different policies for them but there's only idea of one nation and one election and one language and one this thing you know that's also not good for the country.

[00:13:02]>> Okay. Hey uh uh so so Arun let me ask you this question uh this has been like bothering a lot of uh people a lot of economists including economists who have worked with the government like Arvin Subramanyam and you know Raguram Rajan etc. they have all been uh they have all spoken about u data not being reliable like like you've also written and spoken a lot on data not being reliable and the and there is a consensus among economists uh generally that GDP data does not reflect uh really uh the true uh growth in output or value ad and uh of course the people like Arvin superuminium etc. who who've been adviser uh in this government uh uh uh Modi uh the first uh u uh 2014 to 2019. Arvin Subraan has also said that probably GDP uh data uh should be uh you know down uh graded by maybe two two and a half% you of course have been maintaining that much more than that but broadly directionally a lot of economists even Raaram Rajan has has made this point agreed with you that that GDP data is not reliable. Now do you feel that when you have when you have data which is not reliable then uh your policies also become unreliable because you're using uh uh a certain data to design policy and if data is faulty the policy itself also becomes faulty. Would you say that would you say that this has happened with this government consistently over the last 10 years?

[00:14:51]That's right because you see uh the methodology that we are using for generating data for the quarterly you know data that comes out every quarter you know that data requires you to project from the previous year to the next year >> and it is based on what is called the benchmark estimates you know where you make have some benchmark estimates which then you project using high frequency data now when you project from a good year to a shock year then obviously you'll overestimate so if 2016 17 which was the demonetization year. Okay. We saw from November, December, January, February, March, you know the economy was down, the businesses were down, the production was down, employment was down, etc., etc. I in fact went in March 2017, 5 months after the demonetization to Gualar and I went to the wholesale market. The market had not opened at 1:00 in the afternoon because they said Rahak is not coming. I went to the labor chalk at 1:00 and the labor chalk was full of people. They said we are not getting work and this is in the heart of India and Gualia. So in other words my estimate is that actually in that that year the rate of growth of the economy was negative for at least five months whereas the government data shows 8% growth and why is it showing 8% that nobody nobody believed that uh that data is right >> and and why why it showed 8% was because you projecting from the previous year to the shock year and therefore your data was overestimating the the economy and then next year you had the GST which was faulty and again the economy went down and again the rate of growth was shown to be very high you know whereas everybody knew that the economy so what I'm saying is that this methodology itself is incorrect where you're projecting from the previous year to the next year and especially with the unorganized sector which got hit very hard by the demonetization and by GST and then by the NBFC crisis and then by the pandemic you know the four big shocks so unorganized sector been decimated and demand is shifting from the unorganized sector to the organized sector but this is not captured because you're proxying the unorganized sector with the organized sector. So we proxying a declining sector by a rising sector. That's why I keep saying that the rate of growth or the GDP that is shown by the government can at best be said to be the organized sector data.

[00:17:06]Even that data because the shockier is not correct. So even that is incorrect.

[00:17:10]But suppose we concede then 7% growth of 55% gives you 3.75% growth. But if the unorganized sector which is 30%, which is declining then you subtract from that you get 2% rate of growth and this is the average growth and that's why my argument is that our data is incorrect.

[00:17:26]Now what it means is that we are invisibilizing the unorganized sector.

[00:17:30]That means in data it's invisibilized and therefore in policy it's invisibleized. If the economy is doing well at 7% then why do you need to have any special thing? So government doesn't take special attention for the unorganized sector. So in other words the organized sector is rising but the unorganized sector is declining and that's why you have the employment problem because organized sector is highly automated and mechanized and when it displaces the unorganized sector unorganized sectors where the labor is and therefore you by displacement you create unemployment that's why our estimate for 2022 was that in India 380 million people have some kind of proper work but 280 million don't have proper work and that's why our labor force partation rate is also very low. All this indicates the massive problem that women have and the youth has. The educated youth is not getting the employment that it's wanting. It's not corresponding to the degree they have.

[00:18:20]So that's why you have a situation where in 2017 the NDTV one clip showed that those who've done MBA, they're cleaning drains because that is the test for becoming a safari. You know, PhD is applying for a job of a peon in UP, you know, in the railways, you know. So the youth is in trouble. You know the women are in trouble and when do you see this?

[00:18:42]See in normal times you can paper over this but when there's a crisis that is when the real data comes out you know so for instance during the pandemic millions of people started marching from cities to the villages because they did not have even one week saving. So you see the crisis in their life again. Now you see this now in the west Asian crisis that again the same problem is coming that now the the people who are the you know unorganized sector earning 10,000 11,000 they can't afford to pay extra 3,000 4,000 rupees for a gas cylinder >> and that's why they going back to the rural areas. So the real problem comes out during a crisis otherwise you can paper over it. Tell me uh if you look at the last 12 years since we are looking at Modi's 12 years Modi nomics or Modi's economic policy for 12 years we all know that the policies are being made at the prime minister's office. Uh I don't think in this government the ministers had have really any u say in terms of ideation etc. Uh so tell me in the last 12 years uh Arun what are the one or two big misses uh as far as economic growth is concerned? You you've rightly pointed out uh that that that the economy has has not performed well. It's shown it has shown subpar growth largely because an organized sector uh has not uh has not been sort of you know no attention has been paid to policy attention has been paid to the unorganized sector and and as you said uh where the data is doctorred when you have 7% growth anyways uh so you don't feel that uh there's any uh any special uh uh policy u uh mechanism uh needs to be put in place to to kickstart growth uh but during this period Arun B why do you think the two major uh failures uh that everybody now which is consensus now all economists all even business people say uh admit two big failures lack of meaningful pick up in private investment and also lack of meaningful pick up in uh consumption demand over the over 10 12 years I'm saying this because I know uh uh you know business cycles uh we we've seen business cycles the last 45 years since reforms 35 40 years there there's always a recovery that happens uh in in both uh capacity utilization and private investment and therefore consumption but the most peculiar thing about uh uh mod 12 years has been that that capacity utilization in industry has always hovered around maybe 65 to 70 75% never really gone above 80% uh for new investments to come and therefore uh you know new investment employment or new investment driven consumption has not happened. Why do you think this is this failure has has occurred uh during these 12 years? Uh it's almost as if there is no uh there's no business cycle which has uh recovery in the business cycle or economic cycle as they say.

[00:22:03]>> So we know you're right. uh what has happened is that this uh uh ignoring of the unorganized sector rather than actually decimating it by saying we'll turn the unorganized sector into organized sector has meant disparities have grown because the unorganized sector 94% you know according to the Isra portal they're earning more like about 10,000 11,000 rupees per month you know so on the one hand they are earning very little and the the rich are getting richer the benefit of the organized sector goes to a small 6% of the economy at the best and within that also to the top one or two% who are the real profit earners because the profit share in the economy is shooting up as the chief economic adviser himself said the corporate profits are shooting up so therefore this disparity means that demand will be less because those at the lower levels their incomes are hardly rising okay those at the upper levels their incomes are rising and they already are consuming what they would be consuming so when the demand doesn't rise much there'll be a demand deficiency when there's a demand deficiency then the capacitation will be low and industry is also saying that because the government says that the public sector is investing more why is the private sector not coming forward and they say because the demand is inadequate when demand is inadequate as you rightly said if the capacity license 75 then why should I increase capacity from 100 to 110 because then my losses will only increase so capacity has to come to 85 or 90 before they start investing more so if the the inequality is increasing between organized unorganized agriculture non-aggriculture cities and rural areas you know all these inequalities are rising in India okay because of the kind of policy that is being followed then there's crony capitalism in crony capitalism the the level playing field is not available to capital some cronies they get all the benefits the others are worried that they may get acquired so large number of the businesses the ultra high high netw worth individuals they're leaving the country and they're going abroad so the data from 2014 to 2019 showed that 23,000 had left In 2019, another 7 and a half thousand left. Then we didn't get data till 2022 when it showed another 7 and a half thousand left. So out of 250,000 ultra high net worth individual, 50,000 have left the country because the investment climate has been decimated.

[00:24:16]>> So two things are happening. One is unorganized sector is being decimated therefore inequality. Then crony capitalism is leading to another this thing. And then this uh problem that the investors feel that there's a threat to it. And then foreign investment also realizes that if capacity utilization is low then they are also so in the net FDI is also less. So therefore overall investment rate in the economy is not growing. It had peaked in the period 2005 to 2009 and then after it has come down and because you people don't have enough faith in the government and its policies unless that's there uh you know the investment will not rise and if investment doesn't rise and the rate of growth will not rise. So we don't even have data on what is the kind of investment going on in the unorganized sector because that's been marginalized.

[00:25:03]So there the investment would have been coming down because many units have closed down. So in other words this is the key that you have to try and tackle the inequality. You have to give support to the unorganized sector that's where the employment would be. When employment comes the incomes will come and when incomes come then poverty will be less and demand will be there. So this is the key. Unfortunately this government is not looking at this uh rising inequality. The other thing of course is that your education and health the social sector they are languishing you know the quality of education even though we have had many institutions but there are large number of vacant positions you know there large amount of leakage of question papers a lot of corruption because when you do privatization and commercialization in these areas they have problem and because your problem in education your R&D is lagging behind and when R&D is lagging behind that that affects us internationally we are then losing the autonomy you know the strategic autonomy so between China and Russia and the US we lose strategic autonomy we have to listen to all three of them that's why we are not able to do what we as a nation should do you know we have a$ 102 billion de tra trade deficit with China even though they are enter they they have entered part of our territory and we have to listen to President Trump when President Trump squeezes us we we get squeezed we are not able to open our mouth China is able to stand firm but we are not able to stand firm so you know to me social sector Education and health are crucial and that will also help to reduce the inequality and that give better training to our students who will then be able to do more entrepreneurial jobs. So in other words, the basic framework of policy is incorrect. The basic new education policy of 2020 is very flawed. It's promoting more privatization and more commercialization which is actually going to lead to more question paper leakages, more corruption etc in education field etc. >> Yeah. So Arun another peculiar uh uh phenomenon uh which I want to talk to you about you know at the end of 12 years of the Bodhi government uh we see a lot of celebrations going on uh but but in the background uh a lot of uh things appear decimal. uh the one thing that I I I mentioned to you in my introduction was that uh uh that economists generally even those economists who who've been associated with this government are also disappointed with uh with the uh with with Modi's economic policies and the way the economy has panned out so far.

[00:27:38]uh they the economists on the right uh they have their own reasons. They they they say that Modi is not reformed uh the economy enough. uh there more reforms needed and the economist on the on the center center left uh they are disappointed with uh policy for different set of reasons like I like you said inequality has not been addressed right the the economic policies have not addressed inequality well economist on the right are saying it has not addressed uh growth enough uh and it has not addressed uh overall policies enough to attract foreign investment uh or even private investment uh on on in the organized sector as you say. So so net net what what we are seeing is uh economists on both sides are disappointed uh with with Modi's economic policy. How do you look at this?

[00:28:32]>> So you know the economists on the right wanted more free market. They wanted actually more pro business policies you know and uh this government has not gone in for the kind of pro business policies that they wanted. They've gone in for crony capitalism. they've not gone on for you know a level playing field that uh is required to promote businesses. Uh for them reform means giving uh you know businesses more concessions and the government did you know it cut the corporate tax rate very sharply in 2019 and gave the corporate sector 1.6 lakh cr bonanza in the year but that has not led to increased investment that has actually led to cleaning up of the balance sheet. So the balance sheet of our organized sector has become very clean. But they're not investing because of lack of demand. And this is something that the uh right-wing economists don't see. For them, reform means pro business. It means more incentives to businesses. But you know the the real problem they don't see which is the lack of demand which is the growing inequality etc. which is what has been pointed out by many of the center and the left of center economists for quite some time. And that's what data indicates and that's why the private sector is not investing enough. So this government has fallen between two stools because you know when it came it could have taken a a turn and said that look you know these are the problem of inequality these are other problems and they have the majority they could have convinced the business sector because if the unorganized sector starts growing then the demand for organized sector will also grow because the unorganized sector with 94% of the workforce in there if they have more money if they something closer to a living wage rather than a minimum wage then you know there'll be much more expenditure in economy and therefore consumption would rise, therefore demand would rise etc. So my own take is that this government has not done what could have been done that is taken a new leap and created you know the help the unorganized sector but it's believed in you know pro business and halfway uh pro business because of crony capitalism not even fully you know what the right-wing economist would have liked uh to see.

[00:30:41]So finally uh Arun uh do you feel that uh would you characterize the last uh say decade of uh Modi's economic management as a lost decade uh like many other analysts are saying uh and if if that is so would you would you also say that uh uh would you agree that because the last the last decade has been by and large a missed opportunity for India in terms of uh you know building its economy and its technology and and a whole lot of other you know associated uh strengths. Uh India has kind of lost out in its bargaining power uh at the global level. Its foreign policy is also uh these days uh you know at at various levels seems a little half-hearted.

[00:31:38]India is not able to sort of really put forth uh its uh point across uh assert itself because of you know lack of economic muscle as we've seen repeatedly in the way uh the Indian policy makers are dealing with the the American pressure you know on whether it is on Trump tariffs or whether it's on uh the the agreement uh that Trump is US is trying to force on India etc. Uh so would you would you agree with uh with this characterization that that lack of economic muscle is also impacting India India standing uh uh in the uh in a global uh uh space uh and it's its bargaining power and foreign policy etc. So Wu you are absolutely right uh because of lack of economic muscle and again I come back to this question that the lack of economic muscle is both because of rising inequality where you know we are at 140th position in terms of per capita income because there's a still large amount of poverty in spite of whatever the government may claim about reduction in poverty there is a large amount of poverty if you go by the international thing second is that lack of R&D which is the R&D in the world in a globalizing world that gives you autonomy. Uh China gets its autonomy because it has you know moved up on the R&D ladder is become the manufacturing hub of the world and so it can withstand US pressure. If the US put 100% tariff it also put 100% tariff on the US goods.

[00:33:06]The US raised it to 150% they raised it to 125%. You know because they could uh you know they have the technology they have the production of goods etc that the rest of the world needs. Uh so their their trade surplus in fact increased from $850 billion to above $1 trillion in the tariffs that Trump was putting and they excised their strategic autonomy by reducing the dollar holdings. They diversified the trade which we have not been able to do. In fact we have gone in for free trade agreements. Wherever we have gone in for free trade agreements, we have lost out because the the partner nations they have been able to export more to us and we've not been able to export to them whether it be Japan or South Korea or Australia or other count and now because of Trump's tariffs we are hel going in for agreements with many other countries like EU and so on you know now those free trade agreements are going to damage us because we don't have the capacity to export the kind of goods that we would like to export you know because there are other competitors who are able to do it much better than us.

[00:34:09]So this problem of R&D, problem of higher education, you know, that links up to the vision of the government. The government doesn't allow free thinking.

[00:34:18]It thinks that if you if you're, you know, critical, then you're antinational, you know, uh if you uh uh uh you know, and research cannot be done without criticism. Research requires, you know, alternate ideas to come and alternate ideas means you don't accept the traditional ideas. you don't you'll critique them and develop new ideas. So in other words, this framework within which this autocratic government is working where everything has to be what the government says what the prime minister's office says that is not good for that's not conducive for R&D. So our R&D environment is not there and our R&D expenditure is very low 65% of GDP whereas South Korea you know spends much more you know China spend 3% you know uh uh US spent 3% and their economy is 20 times and five times and 20 times bigger so they're spending 22 and 100 times more than what we spent on R&D. So in other words you know we don't have a strategic uh thinking where we focus on R&D we focus on education and then we become competitive in the world and then you know our voice should be heard today we are not competitive we are dependent on other countries you know and that's why we have to listen to >> yeah so so uh so finally I don't if all that you just said uh were were to be uh taken into account uh would you would you then characterize the last say 10 12 years last 10 years the last decade for the Indian economy largely >> well as I said you know any economy would do something now the task of policy maker to do it better you know so if you just leave the economy and don't do it the government doesn't something would happen but the purpose of government is to actually make it better to improve things to take it in the right direction now in that sense it's a lost decade because we have not done what should have done. We have not reduced the inequality. We have not given jobs. We have not been able to tackle the black economy which actually works like a debug. So therefore in that sense, >> it's a kind of business as usual uh kind of economy.

[00:36:27]>> Not even businessual. It's not even business as usual. It's it's incorrect policies. It's a policy induced crisis.

[00:36:33]When you say organized unorganized, that's wrong. If you say demonetization, that's wrong. If you do the GST kind that you have done, that's also wrong.

[00:36:41]So there's a policy induced crisis. It's not that just business here you know policy induced problems have been there.

[00:36:48]>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much Arun for uh uh for giving us uh your perspective. Uh you really uh you've given us a full elaborate account of uh uh Modi's economic policy management in the last 12 years. Uh thank you very much uh for talking to us.

[00:37:08]>> Thanks for having me. Thanks.