on its own. take the case of the us airline industry. it has faced a roller - coaster ride over the last 90 years of its existence. at its inception, even though there was no threat from hijackers or terrorists, they found it difficult to sell tickets as people thought airplanes were inherently dangerous. till 1978, the industry was also overregulated by government, but full deregulation that followed brought new competitive pressures. i would urge you to read the book co - authored by anthony j. mayo and nitin nohria of harvard business school, and mark rennella, a former research associate titled “ what the airline industry can teach us about leadership ”. the authors write in the introduction of the book that, “ leaders are change agents who see opportunities and promise where others see only defeat. ” at each stage of aviation ’ s business life cycle – start - up, growth, maturity, decline, rebirth – new types of leaders emerged. they may have represented different leadership archetypes as the industry went through its life - cycle stages, but they believed in themselves as winners, rather than falling into the trap of looking out for bailouts. friends, we have done reasonably well over the last decade or three. but we can do much better. so why not? it is in this context that i drew your attention to the need for a more inclusive growth, better governance and better leadership. we also need to focus more on higher investments in agriculture and rural infrastructure, education and skill development, better health services, scaling up infrastructure investments further by faster execution of projects and speedier delivery. these would work to take us to a 10 % sustainable growth path, but we would need to look beyond the narrow business interests to so. an enabling environment through stable macro - economy and a vibrant financial system exists, but improved governance is a necessary condition. we have the elephants and we have tigers within us. we need the leadership that not only takes us higher on growth, but takes everybody along so that each one of us can partner in these efforts and share the fruits. sharing these thoughts, i leave you all to deliberate further upon the various aspects of leadership and the policy imperatives necessary for future sustainable and inclusive double digit growth. thank you!

make the growth process more inclusive, ( 2 ) improved governance, and ( 3 ) developing leadership in all walk of life. there is some slack in all these aspects, as a result of which india is not harnessing its full long - term growth potential. however, opportunities exist for india to step up its high growth rate still higher. i the transformation to the high growth phase the high growth phase for the indian economy started from 1980 – 81 when the economy clearly broke through what was known as the “ hindu rate of growth ” of 3. 5 % that represented a low - level equilibrium trap for the indian economy. average real gdp growth rate for the indian economy improved to 5. 6 % in the 1980s and was distinctly higher than the averages of 3. 6 % for the 1950s, 4. 0 % for the 1960s and 2. 9 % for the 1970s. what caused this structural shift? in my view, four factors were particularly important. first, the high growth of 1980s was helped by industrial de - licensing and trade liberalization. there was a clear improvement in the growth rates of mining, registered manufacturing and electricity during this period. second, high fiscal deficits fuelled faster growth, but fiscal deterioration spilled over to twin gaps and on the back of the gulf crisis, precipitated the balance of payments crisis of the 1991. gross fiscal deficit ( gfd ) averaged 6. 7 % of gdp in the 1980s, compared with just 3. 8 % in the 1970s. this also resulted in increased monetization of the deficit with net rbi credit to the centre increasing to 2. 1 % of the gdp from just 1 % in the 1970s thus impinging on the monetary policy efficacy. third, the saving and investment rates in the economy picked up since the second half of 1970s, laying the foundation for the higher growth in the 1980s. gross domestic saving rate had improved to 21. 2 % in 1978 – 79 from 15. 7 % in 1974 – 75, led by improvement in household ’ s financial rate that increased to 6 % from 3 % over the same period. correspondingly, the gross investment rate improved to 21. 3 % from 16. 5 %. however, saving rate and investment rates stagnated in the 1980s till 1986 – 87, especially as public sector savings deteriorated after 1982 – 83. fourth, structural transformation gathered pace during that decade, with services like trade, hotels and restaurants, transport, communications moving up to a 6 % p. a.