Hi, good afternoon, everyone. I am Gaurav Rateria, the TMT 
analyst at Morgan Stanley. We are pleased to have with us Mr. 
Rajesh Gopinathan, the CEO and MD of TCS. Rajesh joined as 
the CEO role in February 2017 after serving as the Chief 
Financial Officer since 2013 and most recently Rajesh was 
reappointed as CEO till February 2027. Under his leadership, 
he TCS has scaled up from $17 billion of revenue to over $25 
billion in fiscal 22. The incremental revenue in fiscal 22 
itself at $3.5 billion which was one of the highest in last 
several years. And market cap has grown from $70 billion plus 
to one $60 billion plus during the same period. A warm 
welcome to you Rajesh, at the Morgan Stanley Flagship Virtual 
India Summit 2022 and many congratulations on your 
reappointment. Thank you, Gordo. Pleasure to be here. Before 
I begin the customer customary remark, Please note that this 
event is for Morgan Stanley institutional clients and 
financial advisors only. Event is not for member of the 
press. If you are a member of the press, please disconnect 
and reach out separately for any disclosures, please see 
Morgan Stanley disclosure website at morganstanley.com back 
slash research disclosures. The format of the discussion will 
be Q&A and participants can type in their questions in the 
Q&A box at the bottom of the screen. The topic for discussion 
is innovating for greater future. In a way this reflects the 
accelerated technology spanned by enterprises. So let me ask 
you Rajesh, this question. You have been talking about a 
multi year technology cycle for a while. Enterprises seem to 
be accelerating this brand and focus on technology. What 
really is driving this big change? Got to thank you and good 
morning, good afternoon to all your clients and whoever is 
joining this call the. I think this aspect of multi year 
technology cycle needs to be seen in terms of there are 
continuous technology changes but occasionally technology 
changes come in that are architectural in nature. So the last 
time we saw one in the turn of the century around the 2000, 
early 2004, 2005 time frame was when web technologies got 
adopted at scale by enterprises and that resulted in a. 
Significant change in the enterprise technology stack, mobile 
technologies versus similar shift that happened, but the 
cloud technology shift is as significant and has impactful as 
the web technology shift and it is a complete rearchitecture 
and the bottom up kind of a reimagination of how technology 
in enterprises will be consumed and in fact developed as we 
go forward. And these kind of shifts are by their nature 
multi year because unlike consumer tech, enterprise tech. Has 
a longer adoption cycle. Consumer tech does not have a 
context so you can an incremental app comes in and gets 
adopted. It doesn't need to coexist with whatever is already 
there. It is a standalone 1. Whereas enterprises need to 
coexist with their existing asset set as well as they need to 
be contextually aware of each enterprise situation and 
therefore enterprise technology adoptions are typically long 
cycle ones and architecturally shifts then result. And a 
significantly different way which comes in waves. So 
initially the foundational elements of the technology need to 
be brought in place. Typically it'll start with the 
experimentation on the front to prove the business case as it 
were. And then once that hump is crossed, we go into this 
bottom up one where the foundational elements comes into 
place. Then the transactional elements come in and then the 
real structural changes start getting. More and more 
emphasized and that's what we are calling this horizon 1, 
horizon 2, horizon three. And cloud is a big trigger for 
those kind of changes. And that's the context in which a 
couple of years back we had called out about the fact that 
the cloud shift is no longer being debated. It is inevitable 
shift that is well on its way and we should think of it as a 
multi year, multi year cycle because of the foundational 
nature of the change. What is going on? Great to have this 
context from you Rajesh. So clearly technology is becoming 
the mainstay here from you know good to have to must have and 
enterprises are not only using technology to see the change 
in the architecture, but also actually thinking about 
technology as an enabler for growth and transformation. So 
what are the various themes of growth and transformation that 
you are witnessing at the enterprises end? Go to multiple 
teams, some of them are traditional but getting played out in 
their own unique or new ways and then they always comes as 
part and parcel of any form of economic and disruption. And 
that continues to be a big theme both the integration aspect 
of IT as well as the spin-off aspect of IT. So corporate 
restructuring in its various forms. Bundling and then mergers 
and then reintegration of it. So that's one big theme. 
Corporate restructuring has been going across industries in a 
very, very big way. Front end reimagination of how the end 
customer interface is being addressed has been a big shift in 
almost every industry you of course in the financial services 
industry for many years now. Last years that has been at the 
front and center of it as to how do you engage with your end 
customer in a much more rich, meaningful, persistent manner. 
But you will find the same theme playing out in other 
industry. So if you take utilities which is typically been 
the most, you know, customer agnostic kind of an industry 
traditionally now is lot more front facing and wants to 
desperately build that customer relationship and the customer 
engagement. Aspect of it. So that's one end of it. But if you 
take something like auto, traditionally they have thought of 
the customer from a lifecycle perspective, but they would 
engage with them at points of time, sell them a car, go back 
after 3-4 years, five years, try to upgrade them and then non 
at every life cycle stage they will try to be relevant to 
them. But auto is more and more switching into a persistent 
relationship with the customer. So you will find this kind of 
customer change, customer interface or customer engagement. 
That's another big theme that is driving the growth and 
transformation journey. And the third one we have spoken 
about extensively is the shift in industry structure that 
ecosystem plays are driving. So traditionally we have looked 
at industries in vertical structures but more and more 
horizontal interplay of value providers and how that 
ecosystem getting stitched together to. Provide a holistic 
solution to the customer that is reimagining what possibly 
future industry structures could look like. So there are many 
themes that are driving, but these three are I would say you 
know, illustrative of the extent and the nature of the shift 
that is going on. So the corporate restructuring, customer 
experience and the shift in the industry structure to more 
like an ecosystem play. So growth and transformation agenda 
is so core to the business strategy of these enterprises. 
Shouldn't they be doing it on their own rather than using 
third party partners? And how does TCS really add value and 
participate in the growth transformation agenda? Great 
question, Gaurav. Multiple areas that this will play out. So 
one that we provide is of course speed on the transformation 
journey because you know the end state is well known to most 
customers. The question is that how fast can you get there 
and being able to you know that has multiple things. One is 
of course immediate capacity, flex capacity being available 
to be able to accelerate. That journey second is having a 
partner who knows your context, so that who can come on board 
fast and actually be part of that journey. If you look at the 
kind of the themes that are laid out, the end state, actually 
there's not much higher, very large dispersion of the end 
state in terms of any of the strategies that individual 
customers might be looking for, individual industry 
participants might be looking for, but everybody has a 
unique. Starting point and therefore the journey will be 
unique and a very strong awareness of what that starting 
point is, which we call contextual knowledge is a key part of 
the value that we bring in, so that the capacity, the talent 
availability married with the context is a big part. Then 
comes the whole aspect of innovation because you know people 
need to be able to have the ability to experiment with 
multiple things. To be able to get to the right answer and in 
growth and transmission. Whenever you are on the forefront of 
doing something new, you will need to buy force except the 
fact that fair amount of your initiatives will be failures 
and therefore you increase the chance of success by having 
multiple parallel threads running. And that's another value 
that we offer them that if you can actually reduce the per 
unit cost of innovation, you can in fact increase the total 
volume of innovative activity that you're doing for the level 
of investment that you are. Putting out. So again there are 
different different kinds of value that can help them 
accelerate and increase the chance of success in their growth 
and transformation. So it is not a question of should we do 
it ourselves, should we do it with somebody else. It is about 
as a service provider. Can I position myself to offer the 
right propositions for them to be able to accelerate what 
they are doing rather than for them to outsource what they're 
doing to us, It is about. The partnership of how we do it 
together and we do believe based on our in our relationships 
with our customers and the engagement that we see that it is 
resonating very strongly with them. Sure. So the key message 
here is actually it's not just an outsourcing contract, it's 
more like a partnership where clients and service provider 
like us actually innovate together. So you know looking at 
the core capabilities and maybe R&D spend is not the right 
way to look at companies and understand the strength of 
capabilities that we have. It just maybe 2% of the revenues, 
but when we look at the strength on the platforms and IPS. 
TCS has been filing patents for a long period of time, have 
been granted large number of patents, large number of 
platforms which are very industry specific to each of the 
industry vertical. How some of these things have really 
helped you to, you know, get some transformational deal wins 
from the enterprises? Go to our approach to this whole 
innovation space and has been that we are an equal partner in 
actually investing in creating intellectual assets that can 
be leveraged on the transformation journey. And those 
intellectual assets come in all shapes and sizes. You spoke 
about, you know our R&D capabilities and our innovation labs. 
The labs themselves provide an environment of Co creation and 
Co collaboration with. Customers which they value and they're 
similar to what I said about the ecosystem, our Co innovation 
network which is a ecosystem of more than 2000 odd 
participants both academic and startup and others. That is a 
very big value proposition for customers because they are 
able to actually come into a kind of a curated environment 
where they can experiment along with us. So the whole 
research environment that we have itself is a value 
proposition. Then the kind of investments that we do 
exploratory a lot of what we are filing as patents might not 
end up in any form being part of any product or any platform 
that we do in the future because we have very wide wide 
innovation agenda and very wide research interest. But that 
also provides a very good experimental ground for our 
partners and customers who are also interested in. Other 
areas and then they try to see whether there is something of 
common use. Then comes there of course granted patents and 
later on solution frameworks or parts of the solutions which 
incorporate some of these that could be we consume the OR 
used in a prepackaged way by customers and moving on to 
products and finally into platforms. So the kind of use case 
shifts all along, but underlying it is a. Very strong fabric 
of investment into intellectual assets, investment into 
innovation, investment into you know exploration and Co 
creation and that is what is the holistic proposition that I 
think customers value with a relationship like ours. And in 
many cases they expect that also that you know, yes, there is 
a base case value proposition that we provide them as a 
provider, but over and above. What is it that will do you 
guys bring to the table And here we have very differentiated 
and it is also like in other industries they talk about 
network effects. Our longevity of the relationship actually 
increases the value of the relationship. So many of our 
relationships are multi decadal, but recently we are 
celebrating with one of the airlines more than 25 years. We 
are still getting rated as the most valuable supplier. So not 
just the largest supplier or their older supplier, but their 
most valuable and most relevant supplier. And that for us is 
the most important aspect that are we still relevant, are we 
still you know part of their transformation. Are we still 
current with where their interests and investments are and 
this innovation fabric provides us that engagement model and 
which is valued by them and very valuable to us also? Very 
well experienced, Sir, this underlying fabric of the whole 
transformation journey that you talked about. In fact that 
was a question which I was anyway planning to ask that. The 
way clients are now thinking about awarding contracts or the 
way clients are now thinking about going about their 
transformational journey is no longer like 1 lift and shift 
kind of work they used to do in the past. It's like a 
multiple Sprint, right. So typically these sizes typically 
come down and the general notion in the market was that when 
these sizes come down, the ability of even smaller companies 
or vendors to participate. And that increases. So have you 
seen that really this trend playing out favorably more for 
the smaller players versus the larger players or the larger 
players really get that still get the scale benefit which 
others will take a lot of time to build? I think God of our 
own track record and both long term as well as in the recent 
times is a testimony to the fact that deal sizes are 
transactional. But what matters is the relationship and what 
is the overall size of the relationship, what are the nature 
of the relationship. So as you shift more and more towards 
agile, the transaction size automatically reduces and because 
the IT is not just that the transaction. Price reduces the 
ability to predict. The scope of the transaction also goes 
down. That is structural in nature because it is agile is 
designed to do that. So then what you're left with is 
actually a partnership model where you're taking a long term 
commitment on a partner. You are kind of getting onboarded 
into a partners operational model and you're integrating the 
partner into your operational model and then you're. Creating 
a space where your line managers and your know organization 
can do multiple small, small, small transactions on an 
ongoing basis, which is what agile demands. And therefore the 
proposition from the partner becomes, are you likely to be 
relevant to me across a wide gamut of my requirements so that 
I can do all the underlying contracting I can do the 
commercial models I can put in place, the governance models, 
the security, etcetera and all? And then the individual 
transactions can keep flowing on their own. So if anything it 
is similar. That's why we kind of talk about it in the 
context of the talent cloud. Think about these relationships 
similar in concept to a cloud kind of relationship. There are 
underlying you know propositions which are important but 
which are quite you know, volume driven propositions like in 
cloud compute network storage. These are the a lot of value 
from there, but still fairly undifferentiated. But what gets 
built on top of it is where the differentiation comes, where 
the long term commitment and the long term lock in and the 
strategic alignment comes in and we are similar in nature. So 
you think of our old basic outsourcing or talent provision as 
the equivalent of compute and storage in cloud and then you 
bring in the layers on top. Which actually adds on that 
incremental strategic value. Great. So picking up from here, 
you also mentioned about the multiple horizons of this whole 
cycle. So should one think that these horizons run on stage 
wise or they can actually run in parallel also and general 
concern that investors have also raised is that as you 
migrate or as you transition from horizon one to two, a lot 
of the migration work will be behind us and could that? 
Create a concern around plateauing of growth rate for vendors 
like us. While longer term outlook may still be good, but 
there may be a phase where you see a little bit of 
plateauing. So is this even a valid concern? How do you think 
about it? At a given enterprise level, it is not very 
linearly stage wise, but it is sequentially. You need to get 
the foundational elements in before you start, you know, 
experimenting at scale with some of the other aspects. But I 
would think of them as overlapping faces rather than very 
linear faces. And it depends on, you know, even in certain 
enterprise on the adoption by business unit, adoption by 
function. Change is different. So they will not all go 
lockstep, they will go in a certain each of them will follow 
their own pathway. So in our more sophisticated clients, we 
have all three phases being simultaneously experimented with 
very different parts of our being adopted by different parts 
of the organization. There are even in a case of. Pharmacy 
retailer that we have spoken about, there is experimentation 
going on the COVID vaccination Passport which is a ecosystem 
kind of proposition. There is experimentation going on 
actually building a new age pharmacy system that is 
completely cloud based and therefore it goes across there all 
their physical assets rather than being store based system 
with store based records and allowing. Their entire the US 
population to be seen as one single customer set rather than 
local prescriptions being held at local portions. And of 
course the base proposition which is the compute load 
shifting and the storage load shifting to 1. So all three 
horizons use cases being simultaneously experimented with 
different levels of volumes on all three as usual so if they 
are not. Entirely watertight compartments, but they are 
logically laid out and there comes the idea about what you 
said that is it likely that there will be a big volume in the 
beginning on the migration side and then there is a big lull. 
It's unlikely to be that as the migration kicks in by the 
early movers, they will start moving into Horizon 2, whereas 
the middle or the late adopters will continue to drive the. 
Horizon one volume and the Horizon 2 value is even bigger 
because once you have actually enabled this, once you've 
created that, you know, boundaryless fabric, the cost of 
experimentation or the friction for experimentation reduces 
significantly and the fixed cost for experimentation reduces. 
So it becomes less friction, less fixed cost, which yields to 
more experimentation and more, you know spend and also it 
frees up a lot of the. Investment budget shift of the 
foundational layer frees up investment budgets which get 
invested into Horizon 2. Horizon three so. The way to think 
about it is, you know, we have spoken about it in the past 
that. The real question to ask is that if the given 
enterprise is pending X dollars on technology as a percentage 
of its total cost, whatever its total cost of operations be 
if X percent of it was on technology. Two years from now, 
three years from now, five years from now, 10 years from now, 
will this X be a higher percentage of its total cost or a 
lower percentage of its total cost? And the answer, 100%, is 
that this X will be a higher percentage of its total cost. 
It's unlikely to be lower. And that is the theme on which we 
are playing. What will that X be used for? It might be used 
for Horizon one, it might be used for Horizon 2, or it might 
be used for something else that we don't know yet. But that's 
not the point. The point is if you're relevant to what where 
the spend is. The actual budget bucket will keep on growing 
and you're seeing that in technology spend, that technology 
spend has stayed ahead of overall economic growth, whether it 
is an up cycle or a down cycle. And our business is 
essentially built on that, betting on that dynamic that this 
is an increasing one. We just need to keep on investing to 
stay relevant to where the wave is and keep moving with it. 
Sure. So AYUSH, on the differentiation side also you talked 
about the value actually is much more on horizon two and 
three. So is it important to be present in Horizon 1:00 to be 
able to capture the horizon two and three and you get any 
competitive advantage by being in present, by being present 
in horizon one, somebody who's not been in horizon one, can 
they come and compete with you in Horizon two and three or it 
becomes even more difficult? That was no easy answer. It's 
more of a strategic choice and philosophy. So I'll take the 
analogy of AMS and AD. The question is that if you want to 
were to do maintenance work, why would you want to do that? 
Why not do just the development work? But if you look at us, 
one of the big reasons for our success is that we took on 
workloads on the AM side and use the knowledge gained there, 
which we call the contextual knowledge because it gives you a 
Ms. gives you a cross enterprise view into what is going on, 
what their state looks like, where the issues are, what are 
the aging systems, where are the processes. Broken and as 
long as you're investing to be able to move forward, it is a 
very, very powerful foundational position because it gives 
you knowledge that an outsider does not have. Most of the, 
you know, product companies fail not because the product is 
not good, it is because the product doesn't make the product 
work. In the context of that enterprise requires a special 
level of knowledge. So it is similar to Horizon 1, Horizon 2 
if you were to do the heavy lift. For the horizon one you 
gain so much of. Insight into where the enterprise is, where 
the core systems are, what are key that you're much better 
positioned to deal with Horizon 2, but it's not a pre 
requirement. But we believe that in the model that we have, 
it gives us a very strong competitive position which is not 
easily replicable if you were to come at it purely from a 
Horizon 3, Horizon 2 kind of proposition. Got it. You 
actually made a very valid point a few minutes back that we 
are actually play on technology cycle, not necessarily a 
macro play because fundamentally the percentage of spend 
going on technology as percentage of revenue should keep on 
going up and that's the play we are here. But having said 
that, there is still a lot of things going on the macro side. 
There have been geopolitical concerns. Do you see that during 
these times clients? Have the tendency to reprioritize some 
of the spends and I think you have been very vocal about 
that. We tend to underestimate the resilience in the 
enterprise technology spend. How do you compare this cycle to 
be different than previous cycles? Actually, I. Frankly, we 
don't see this cycle to be very different. If anything we are 
going into the cycle with one of the strongest endorsements 
of the value of technology. Because you know what happened in 
the last 2-3 years was that enterprises that had a strong 
resilient technology fabric were much, they were up and 
running faster than someone who had not and B, they were much 
more agile and much more able to twist and turn with the 
where the emerging challenges and opportunities. So if you 
were to take any three-year period, I don't think you would 
have ever had such a strong endorsement of the actual 
business value of technology and that should give us some 
cushion as we talk about everything else. But beyond that, if 
you look at the past scenarios whether it is Brexit, whether 
it is the European issues or any of the other ones that have 
gone before and after. Then comes out typically as a winner 
in the medium to long term cycle on the immediate, you know, 
aftermath of a big shock like the financial crisis or so. At 
that time when a huge squeeze gets applied, everything will 
be cut. But the question is that which is the one that is 
most resilient and which is the one that's likely to bounce 
back most? I think technology has proven multiple times and 
this time around not. Is it similar? I would suspect that 
it's even more resilient given our recent history of what 
tech has done in business. Beyond that, whether it is 
inflation or it is geopolitics, you guys have a much better 
view. We meet with customers. They're also worried about all 
your experts being commenting about it. So yes, there is a 
heightened sense of, you know, that nothing is wrong with us, 
but is there? I mean, what are you hearing outside that kind 
of a dialogue is of course a, you know, a dampener to things, 
but on the ground? You don't see it play out. Everybody is 
executing what they're doing. But we will wait and see. It is 
not completely immune to what happens, but in the what's 
directly available I think. Somewhere I read the micro is 
executing well. The macro is unknown. Probably that's the 
best way of putting it. So we have a question here that while 
we understand it's a multi year cycle, but how should one 
think about how long the cycle can last and which should help 
to support higher than historical average growth rate for the 
industry and TCS? That's a difficult one to call. So if you 
think about the web cycle, it kind of you can say it lasted 6 
years to 12 years depending on whether you count mobile, 
inside, outside and where you put the list in. And that's 
likely to be the case here also because the cloud in and of 
itself is not the entire play. The cloud brings in this 
concept of a boundaryless enterprise and. It redefines that 
space so. On the horizon, one itself, we are less than 1/3 of 
the way in even large adopters at an individual enterprise 
level itself, large enterprises are nowhere beyond 50% or so 
of leverage. And their own, you know, models of what a hybrid 
cloud looks like is also getting redefined as they go along 
and everybody understands the space better and cloud 
providers will also remodel their commercials to make it even 
more attractive for the. The last half or the last third of 
the adopters to come on board, so that is yet to play out. 
And on horizon 2 and horizon three, we are in early stages 
yet from our perspective, you know for us three to five years 
is a long enough duration and it is well that much of 
visibility is there. Beyond that what happens it's on a 
rolling basis, we'll have to deal with it, but we are not 
forecasting anything. Beyond that. Alright. So shifting gears 
to more longer term, you actually have already talked about 
doubling your revenue base sooner than later and you also 
announced a new organization structure based on the client's 
majority. So why was this required when we have already been 
doing so well with the current structure? And why now? This 
was a milestone year for us, $25 billion big, big milestone 
for us and it's always a good opportunity both to you know 
congratulate and to feel good about what we have done also to 
look forward into what the next milestone would be. So that 
is definitely you know one part of what is going on. Also you 
know we coming out of the pandemic, it gave a good time for 
us to. Take Fresh Guard and look at what say, but it's been 
something that has been brewing with us for quite some time. 
We have been working on it. Thinking about it is more the 
timing of it was driven by the short term events that 
happened rather than. And if you think about that, as I said, 
we have been thinking about it. It is not the clients were 
charity, it is the maturity of the TCS's relationship with the 
client right. That is the differentiating factor of the 
organization model and what we are essentially betting on is 
that our most important asset is this client franchise and 
the IT is quite well understood that our business model we 
have thousand 1200 odd customers and. It's all about 
incremental and repeat sales into that customer universe and 
being able to make sure that we are onboarding customers and 
giving them an experience that keeps them with us for 
multiple decades so that we keep selling see. I referenced 
this in the past and it has been, you know, taken in a 
different form, but this idea that. I'm very, very focused on 
the business model being developed with the underlying belief 
that technology is an industrial staple. And when I say 
technology industrial staple, the specific technology or the 
service key can keep on changing. But the underlying 
technology consumption which we discussed right now also the 
idea that is an industrial staple is the most important, you 
know belief for us in this whole you know structure and our 
entire strategy. So building that relationship, making sure 
that the customer experience stays very, very strong, making 
sure that. The relationship is multifaceted with them and 
they feel that we are very responsive. We are continuously 
investing to stay relevant to them and we are able to be 
meaningful to them across all aspects of their strategy and 
their organization is the core to our model. So this new 
structure is designed to maximize and double down on this. So 
relationships where the level of trust. Is very high. The we 
have earned the right to be a transformation partner. The way 
we treat them, the kind of engagement that we do with them 
needs to be different. Whereas relationships that are 
relatively new irrespective of the size of the customer's, 
relatively new relationships where they themselves are going 
through certain evaluations, they're going through certain 
changes in their own organization there. Our approach to the 
engagement management has to be very different. That has to 
be much more focused on the limited area where you have been 
entrusted with and you have to earn that trust with them. So 
the IT is more as I said differentiated by the nature of the 
relationship that we have built our of course our strategic 
intent is that everybody in the relationship incubation group 
should one day become part of our business transformation 
group and how can we curate that journey and how can we 
accelerate that journey is the. Anything for us. So the auto 
structure double s down on this lifetime value of the 
customer. It double s. It recognizes and you know 
structurally supports the idea that the relationship will 
progress in a logical sequence. And we are fine tuning our 
engagement models to be cognizant and to curate it to where 
the relationship is on this journey with us. So that's the. 
That's the big picture view of thinking about what we're 
trying to do or what we have done in this new structure. 
Great explanation, Rajesh. So thinking out like couple of 
years out when we further grow in size, how do you think our 
business mix? Will evolve, right. I think the G&T initiative 
has been over the last couple of years and may not 
necessarily be a dominant portion of revenues, but maybe 
growing faster than the other lights on the outsourcing 
business for us. So going forward, how do you think the 
business mix will evolve and how will that have an impact 
from client in front of client positioning point of view and 
our ability to command? A premium or a better pricing in 
front of the clients? Or one way to think about it, see given 
the heterogeneity of what we have across our customer 
universe, there is no one answer that I have for it, but. One 
model that can help kind of anchor this is. Our value 
proposition to customers traditionally has been that we will 
try to shift your run the business to change the business 
budget mix that traditionally enterprises were spending. And 
the rule of thumb that the expectation was that they were 
spending 30% in change the business and 70% and run the 
business. And a big part of our value proposition was that 
how we can actually increase the efficiency of run the 
business so that we can you know free up investment 
resources. For change the business and in a manner of 
speaking, can you invert the pyramid, Can you change your run 
the business to 30% and change the business to 70% And that 
was where the proposition was built on. What we're trying to 
do is to make sure that I also have a proposition to 
participate in the investment budget that is being freed up 
on the change the business part, which is the what you're 
calling the GNP part, the change the business might be about. 
Growth initiatives, it might be about the transformations on 
the cost side, but it is about change the business 
investments and that is the proposition that we're trying to 
build in. And if you were to go with the model that I told 
you then in our most mature relationships, we should have 
equal participation on the RTD as well as on the CTB side, 
but at the portfolio level if you get to. 30% GT, GT or 40% 
G&T or whatever. We would still be in a very good place, so I 
don't have a fixed number, but what is most important is 
that. For our valued clients, our proposition should be 
equally strong on the run the business side as well as on the 
change the business side. And that's what we are trying to 
build out to that into the change of the business side where 
we do currently have participation, but we're trying to 
increase our holistic proposition in that space. So the 
second part of the question was Rajesh, does it help us to 
command? Better realization because the mix of the offering 
has improved towards more change the business, which is 
probably valued much more by the client than just keeping the 
lights on. Absolutely, Gaurav. In fact, this change has been 
ongoing for some time. So if you look at our actual 
realization, you would find a steady improvement in the mix 
of realization and revenue productivity. That we have been 
able to achieve even though offshoring has continuously 
increased. So that is the underlying proof point, but 
definitely change the business propositions have a higher 
price point associated with them and that is something that 
we definitely also hope to participate in. So when we double 
our revenue, does it mean our employee base also double s to 
more than a million employees and? Or there should be some 
nonlinearity in that equation. So there are, if you take the 
last 10-15 years also there has been nonlinearity and as long 
as we can achieve similar nonlinearity, it is going to be in 
the 10% plus minus kind of a range, right. So it is not going 
to be significantly different. So what that means is that as 
an organization we have to be mentally and structurally 
prepared to run a large organization and. That's the most 
important thing because whether it is 1,000,000 people or 
900,000 people, it is not likely to change the nature of what 
it required to run that and it is not likely to be that. 
We're not going to get to 50 billion with 600,000 people. 
Whether we get there at 900 or million at an organizational 
level, that doesn't really change the challenge. So we need 
to be able to attract talent at scale. We need to be able to. 
No train talent at scale, we need to make sure that our 
retention rate continues to be industry leading. We have to 
continuously architect our organization to be decomposable 
into independent self organizing, autonomous self organizing 
units that can you know be independent on their own but they 
can collectively work together towards a larger purpose and 
which is what the organization structure that we have been 
continuously and driving it. Giving more and more empowerment 
and creating these self-contained units that can seamlessly 
collaborate but can exist on their own. So the organizational 
structure processes philosophy and that is the key part of it 
and that you know for lack of a better word we are building 
it for $1,000,000 a million people organization and I keep 
saying I mean I grew up in a railway colony. So as corporates 
we are afraid of size, but there are we are not the first 
organization of that size. So we need to structurally set 
ourselves up to be able to run a large operation. Got it. So 
we have a question from one of the investors with respect to, 
again the current macro environment concerns around inflation 
and profitability, which might lead some customers to squeeze 
out on the legacy budgets and focus a lot more on digital 
transformation. That's the only way they can do that if there 
is a squeeze on the profitability. So does that pose a risk 
in the near term from a growth rate perspective? There's so 
many assumptions in there in that question that I don't know 
where to start with. Let's assume that there is a squeeze on 
legacy. Is that a bad thing for us, right? There are two ways 
in it. One is who is going to feel the squeeze more? Will the 
squeeze be felt by us or will the squeeze be felt by somebody 
else And will it result in greater market share gain for us 
even in that book of business? Because it's not that I have, 
you know, even 50% of that market share. Second is that? With 
the squeeze and happens and the shift happens to digital 
business, who gets to participate in it and what does it do 
to for a player like us to be participating in that and is it 
better for us or not. So I think that question is I would 
say. I know Too Loaded on the back end of this conversation. 
We have been, we have gone forward many years in it, but it's 
a. I don't know how to answer it. So coming to the question 
around priorities, so in the near term we have one large 
demand to be fulfilled and at the same time we have a supply 
side challenges and therefore to fulfill the demand we have 
to. Stay in the investment mode until the supply side 
challenges kind of ease out. So from a priority perspective, 
do you think demand fulfillment is a much bigger priority 
rather than protecting margins in a particular band in the 
near term? Absolutely. We have always said that you know our 
margin aspiration and margin philosophy is not ever at the 
cost of losing market share or at the cost of being able to 
serve our customers or at the cost of investing continuously 
to stay ahead of the curve in terms of the emerging trends in 
the industry. So in our business priority, being relevant in 
the market, being competitive in the market, being able to 
serve our customers and being able to invest. And 
continuously open up new vistas that takes much higher 
priority. Our philosophy on margin is that we can do all of 
that and still maintain industry-leading margins and that 
also does not change. So because I have always maintained 
margin is a play of relative competitiveness, relative 
competitiveness, visibly competitors, relative 
competitiveness with customers. So I don't think the short 
term impact is of course you know. Interim aspects, but long 
term structural margins are a question of relative 
competitiveness and our relative competitiveness has only 
improved as in no way deteriorated through the years. So how 
should one look at the aspirational margin of 26 to 28%, 
especially in light of last three to four years where our 
full year average margins have been below the lower end in 
most of these years. While on a relative basis we still the 
industry-leading margin, we have done better than the most of 
the peers in the industry. But how should look one look at 
that band, Is that band kind of achievable from a medium to 
point of view? So let me put it this way, that our strong 
belief in it and our systematic investment in being able to 
you know stay focused on that target is what has resulted in 
us still being where we are at 25% despite multiple years of 
completely unprecedented change that happened. So it is a 
guiding light for us. It is a deep rooted philosophy for us 
when we were faced with the severe. Uncertainty in March 20, 
so back in 30 years we are going to get hit but we are you 
know we are very sure about being able to bring back margin 
parity in by the end of the year and we were able to do that 
on a you know three months ahead of schedule. So it is about 
what is the underlying belief with which you are building the 
business. Beyond that we have been able to you know that ban 
we have been able to touch. A few times in between and net, 
net, given the scenario that unfolded and our approach to it, 
we stayed completely invested. We didn't take any short term 
steps. We were not laying off people. We were not cutting 
back on investments. We were hugely focused on driving it and 
yet we were able to maintain our industry-leading 
profitability. So I think it's more a what has happened is 
more a validation of our belief and. That stays, continues to 
stay as an underlying theme of our strategy and I still 
believe that target that we have put structurally is 
achievable and we are focused on it short term where we are. 
That is for all of you to judge. Survey at the top of the 
hour, but let me end this by asking the last question. Look 
at the capital allocation wise. Last five years more than 90% 
of operating cash flow has gone back to the shareholders 7 to 
8% maybe in the form of CapEx. So why so cautious approach to 
inorganic route? Is this caution or account of valuation, is 
it on account of? You think that a large portion of that 
capability you have been able to build in house and therefore 
no necessarily no need to go organic. That I want a lighter 
note it. The reason we've been able to give that money back 
and not give it over to your other colleagues and the other 
side part of your organization is this philosophy right And 
our industry is testament to the fact that it's very easy to 
spend a lot of money and not have much to show for it. Yep. I 
think the caution comes from that. We have always said that 
we are always active in the market, but we want to find the 
right asset at the right price and it is not just the price, 
the right asset is the most important thing that we are very 
focused on what we want to do and who we are and finding an 
asset that can be integrated and can accelerate our journey 
is the most important thing for us. We have been able to do 
that in you know from a geographical expansion point. We have 
been able to occasionally do that on the product side and we 
have been able to do it at scale on the services side when we 
did the ESOP transaction. But again, to find the right asset 
at the right point of time is also a challenge in our mind. 
The benefit of a transaction like that is to accelerate what 
you're trying to do and that is what we always balance that 
will the friction of integrating it and the drag of executing 
it, will that supersede the value of that incremental 
acceleration that it is likely to bring And that's the that's 
the one big. Measure by which we look at it and that's where 
we are actually most cautious. It is not the price that 
actually drives the caution, it is the cultural integration 
and being able to actually make sure that this will add 
rather than act as a drag is what actually holds us. Is the 
one thing that we are very, very careful about studying and I 
don't think that's going to change in the near future. So 
meanwhile having that cash in our pocket shouldn't burn a 
hole in it. So we are happy enough distributing it back 
because we have sufficient in reserve to execute whatever 
that we can see. If you need more, we have a clean balance 
sheet so you know access to resources has never been a 
challenge. It is more this approach and. That's unlikely to 
change in the near future. All right. Thank you, Rajesh. We 
are at the top of the hour, so we have to end the discussion 
now. But thanks a lot for your time. This was a very, very 
insightful discussion. I'm sure the investors would have 
learned a lot about the company and the longer term approach. 
We really look forward to interact with you again at a future 
event. Thank you all for participating. Thank you, Gordo.