- 9 minutes ago
Prime Minister Modi criticised opposition at India Today conference while Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang resigned amid export control probes. CFO Colette Kress is interim CEO.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Good evening, you're watching To The Point. I'm Maria Shakil.
00:03At the India Today Bharat Agriculture Conference, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
00:08launched a sharp attack on the opposition, accusing some leaders of treating democratic institutions
00:14and the constitution as their personal property. Prime Minister Modi also referred to an instance
00:20from his tenure as Gujarat Chief Minister, reviving allegations of political interference
00:25by the then-Congress government in an economic ranking that had placed Gujarat right at the top.
00:31The Congress has hit back. Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi-Wadra has accused the BJP of undermining
00:37the very institutions it claims to defend. Samajwadi Party Chief Akhilesh Yadav too has joined that attack.
00:43The big showdown is over. Who is protecting the constitution and who is politicizing it?
00:50I'll be taking that debate up in just a few minutes. But first up, take a look at this report.
01:15A sharp attack appointed political message. Prime Minister Narendra Modi took aim at the opposition,
01:22accusing some leaders of believing that the constitution and democratic institutions belong to them.
01:29At India Today's Bharat Agriculture Conference 2026, Prime Minister Modi said that even after losing power,
01:37some leaders remain intoxicated by it.
01:56Ön and after losing power, some leaders have killed from God in after losing power,
01:57some leaders remain irgendwie in their lives.
01:58For the government to stay czyli in their lives,
02:02they think that the democracy is different.
02:06The people who remain undertook as leaders of their lives and the people they remain in their lives.
02:09The people who have been includingさ below the constitution,
02:10the people who remain in their lives,
02:10the people who remain in their lives as well as they remain at the end.
02:14And then, Prime Minister turned the clock back to his Gujarat days.
02:19Modi recalled how Gujarat had topped an economic performance ranking during his tenure as Chief
02:24Minister. He said the assessment was based on research by leading economists and conducted
02:30by an organization named after a former Prime Minister. Without naming the organization,
02:35Prime Minister alleged that then Congress-led government at the center tried to prevent
02:40Gujarat from retaining its top position by putting pressure on researchers.
03:06ॐ अर तब मैं Gujarat का मुख्यमंत्री था। लेकिन तब, दिल्ली की सत्ता पर
03:14काबिज लोगों को गुजरात का सम्मान राष नहीं आया, और उन्होंने
03:23research
03:24करने वालों को
03:26बाकाइदा
03:27आदेश दिया
03:29कि ऐसे नहीं चलेगा
03:32अब कोई भी
03:34रिपोर्ट छापने से पहले
03:36हमसे मंजुरी
03:38लेनी होगी
03:40साथियों
03:42तब ये हालत थी
03:44और आज
03:46वही लोग
03:47सहिश्णुता
03:49और लोग तंत्र को लेकर
03:52गांदेटे पिरते
03:54The remarks bring back
03:56allegations made by former economist
03:58Vivek Debrau in an
04:00India Today interview in 2015.
04:02Debrau had alleged
04:04political interference at Sonia
04:06Gandhi's insistence. He recalled
04:08a 2004 study that ranked
04:10Gujarat number one in economic
04:12freedom and claimed that after
04:14the 2005 Gujarat
04:16municipal elections, publications
04:18of the Rajiv Gandhi institution
04:19for contemporary studies were
04:21subjected to political vetting.
04:25Debrau had alleged that the
04:26directive was signed by Sonia Gandhi.
04:29But the Congress is not letting the
04:31attack pass unanswered.
04:33Priyanka Gandhi-Wadra hit back at
04:35Modi's constitution in their pocket
04:37jibe accusing the BJP of silencing
04:40dissent and weakening democratic
04:42institutions.
04:44We are fighting for the
04:46constitution. We are fighting for the
04:48values of the constitution.
04:51And we are fighting because all the
04:53institutions in our country which
04:55uphold the constitution and their
04:57values are being systematically
04:59destroyed by the BJP.
05:02Samajwadi party chief Achilles
05:04Yadav also hit out at Prime Minister
05:06Modi saying people who insulted
05:08Baba Sahib Ambedkar were talking about
05:11the constitution now.
05:13Baba Sahib Bhimra Ambedar ji
05:16mursiai torii gaii.
05:18And we are doing the attack on the
05:19hands of Baba Sahib Bhimra Ambedar ji
05:23because Baba Sahib Bhimra Ambedar ji
05:23has written a book in the hands of
05:24Samhidhani.
05:25In that time, it was 151.
05:27Now, it has become 190.
05:28It has become 190.
05:30There is no government
05:31government.
05:32With battle over constitutional values,
05:35the political confrontation has taken
05:37a familiar turn.
05:38The BJP and the opposition are now
05:40trading charges over who truly stands
05:43for democracy, dissent and the
05:45constitution.
05:46Bureau Report, India Today.
05:50Joining me on the show tonight,
05:52Devyani Rana, MLA of Nagrota in
05:55Jameen Kashmir.
05:56Amitab Dubey, national spokesperson of
05:58the Congress, is joining us.
05:59We'll be joined by Rashid Kidwai shortly.
06:01We also have Rajat Sethi.
06:03I'm going to begin with you, Amitab Dubey.
06:06What the Prime Minister is essentially
06:08saying is that there is political
06:10hypocrisy in Congress's arguments.
06:13That you say that the institutions at
06:15present are compromised, but when you
06:17were in power, you actually
06:19compromised the institutions.
06:21In fact, went to the extent of not
06:24giving a state like Gujarat its due only
06:27because it was doing well and it was
06:31governed by the BJP.
06:32The Prime Minister himself was the
06:34Chief Minister of Gujarat.
06:36So, firstly, let's be very clear.
06:38The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not the
06:40government.
06:40It is a private trust.
06:42And what they do is their business.
06:44This is not the UPA government juggling
06:47numbers, fixing numbers.
06:49And this is the same government, the
06:51Modi government, that ditched, and I'm
06:54talking about official numbers, ditched the
06:55PLFS unemployment survey that showed 6.1%
06:59unemployment.
07:00It ditched the consumption survey that
07:02showed that consumption had gone down 3.7%
07:05in real terms.
07:06That suppressed WHO data showing that the
07:08COVID deaths were much higher.
07:10So, we talk about official data.
07:11This is not a private institution's rankings.
07:15It's very interesting to me that the Prime
07:17Minister attended a farmers event.
07:19And, you know, he should be addressing the
07:21issues that are plaguing the farmers.
07:24He did.
07:24You know, why their incomes have not doubled
07:26by 2020.
07:28I mean, I was an audience.
07:30The event was organized by India Today Group.
07:33So, he did.
07:33He made some claims about the growth rate
07:35of agriculture.
07:37But what about the fact that fertilizer is
07:40being sold at double the rate it should be?
07:42Why the MSP for PADI in UP is 2,441, but the
07:47farmers are only getting 1,500 in UP?
07:49Why there is the threat of cheap U.S.
07:51imports in agriculture?
07:52The point that was made here, and I want your
07:54response specifically on this, Amitabh Dubey.
07:58The Prime Minister, when he was referring to,
08:02was essentially to Bibek Debaroy, who was then
08:06the director of Rajiv Gandhi Institute for
08:09Contemporary Studies.
08:10He, in 2015, said that it was envisaged the RG
08:18ICS, which is Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary
08:21Studies, was envisaged as an independent think tank.
08:28But it was very, it was becoming increasingly clear
08:32that there would be interferences.
08:34And this is what happened.
08:36You know, it was about a paper that I and colleague
08:38undertook.
08:39It was published.
08:40Then the study had ranked Gujarat number one in 2005,
08:43when the municipal elections were happening in Gujarat,
08:46all hell broke loose.
08:48These are his words.
08:49I was told, henceforth, any publication by RGICS has to be
08:54politically vetted.
08:55And this was sent to me, signed by Mrs. Gandhi, who was the
08:59chairperson at that time.
09:00And then he resigned.
09:03So, let's be absolutely clear.
09:04Like I said, this is a private organization.
09:06Now, this is his word.
09:07This is the claims of Mr. Bibek Debrai.
09:10Mr. Bibek Debrai thereafter went and joined the Modi
09:12government and became a major advisor there.
09:14So, his political leanings became evident.
09:17Now, I don't want to criticize him because he's no longer
09:19with us.
09:20And, you know, he was a respected person in his own field.
09:23I have no issues with that.
09:24But this is his perspective.
09:26This is a private organization.
09:27And there's absolutely no comparison with the data fiddling
09:30that the Modi government as a government, as the elected
09:32government of this country has done in institution after
09:35institution after institution, whether it's data chori,
09:38vote chori, all kinds of chori, I'm happy to discuss them.
09:41But the fiddling that is done at the position level cannot
09:44be compared to a private organization.
09:46Fine.
09:46Fine enough, Amitab Dubey.
09:48Divyani, the point here is that you are talking about data
09:53when the present all data which is being put out by the government
09:58is being challenged by the opposition and also from many
10:01within the government who held positions like Mr. Garg
10:05questioned the GDP data.
10:08The very intriguing part, and I wanted to let Dubey
10:11finish his, you know, whole tirade about talking about data
10:14because he's very conveniently cherry-picked data that seems
10:17to suit his agenda.
10:18But when it comes to having to talk about the fact that in 2014,
10:22when the Honourable Prime Minister Sinderinder Mudiji took over
10:25reins of our great nation, he had to start from scratch.
10:28We had to start from building toilets in rural areas.
10:32What were you all doing for all those years?
10:34Even if we don't talk about data, that is where this country
10:37had to start.
10:38We went from talking about toilets to becoming one of the biggest
10:41manufacturers of semiconductors and being the third largest
10:45exporters of weapons to Europe.
10:46That is the data that matters in India today.
10:49We are right now leading the world on multiple different merits and
10:55multiple different data points.
10:57And those are things that they will not talk about.
10:59Very conveniently, Dubey talked about the election commission as well.
11:03Wherever they win, there the data seems to be very conveniently
11:07okay by as per their standard.
11:09But where they lose, they have such a hue and cry about what is going on
11:13that even when the Supreme Court has told them that you can go ahead and
11:16provide all the evidences that you have in your corner,
11:19they just go on and make stories out of nothing.
11:22I believe that there is this cherry picking of data that they like to do.
11:26But it is very, very apparent when they talk about the constitution very,
11:30very specifically.
11:31And as someone who comes from Jammu Kashmir and represents a constituency
11:34in Jammu Kashmir, I can very clearly tell you that when the article
11:37370 conversation was being had, especially about women,
11:40a lot of the same people today that you are on your channel today,
11:44a lot of their colleagues would talk about saying,
11:47oh, but the matter is subjudice.
11:48They did nothing to really help any section of society except wanting to be
11:53in power by any means.
11:54Dubey, I get your point.
11:56I'm going to come to that specific point that the Prime Minister said
11:59that there are people carrying Samvidhan in their pocket
12:03and they think that they control nation's democracy in just a bit.
12:07But let me take opening comments also from Rajat Sethi.
12:11Rajat, go ahead.
12:14So I think institutions and supra-constitutional institutions
12:21was the invention of the Congress Party when they created
12:24the National Advisory Committee to basically circumvent
12:29and undermine a lot of other constitutional bodies
12:32which were there to help in decision-making.
12:36When such stalwarts like Dr. Vivek Debray comes out and says
12:40he does not say it for political reasons per se.
12:43He was a thorough academician even in 2004.
12:48The kind of pressures that used to be there on all kinds of institutions
12:52during the UPA years, all millennials very clearly remember that.
12:57So there cannot be two doubts about it.
12:59And instead of taking it in the right earnest
13:03and trying to course correct, you can't point fingers
13:05that he was doing it for political motives.
13:09And his reputation was seemingly across political lines
13:15because Dr. Vivek Debray has served in institutions
13:19which pan across.
13:20Even for that matter, what he has written
13:23has been in public domain.
13:25And he's been critical of several government policies
13:27both in the UPA as well as of Prime Minister Modi
13:29whenever he felt so.
13:30So he was a free-weeding thinker.
13:32And whatever he said should have been taken
13:36by the Congress Party and tried to course correct then.
13:39They did not do it then.
13:40They kept on undermining various institutions.
13:44And today, lo and behold, today they are trying to appeal
13:47to the Gen Z and the younger voters
13:48that they are the biggest custodians of the Constitution.
13:52It cannot be something more laughable
13:54than what the Congress Party is trying to position.
13:56As we say that, it's political hypocrisy here
13:58that is being highlighted by the BJP.
14:01So, Rashid Kidwai, come in now.
14:03You know, Samvidhan Khatre Mein Hai
14:05was the big campaign which was started by opposition
14:09led by Rahul Gandhi in the run-up to 2024.
14:11And they did, it did yield political dividends
14:15particularly in the state of Maharashtra
14:16and also in the state of Uttar Pradesh
14:18where Akhilesh Yadav won 37 seats.
14:21But when the Prime Minister says that the Congress Party,
14:26you know, of course, obviously referring to Rahul Gandhi
14:29that he carries Samvidhan in his pocket
14:31and then he thinks that the institutions
14:33are all supposed to be subservient to the Congress Party,
14:37there is also that reference that how
14:39when the Congress was in power,
14:42it actually compromised institutions.
14:46Yeah, so, Maria, we must understand
14:48this is a political posturing.
14:50If what the Prime Minister is saying is true,
14:52then, you know, there are a lot of things
14:53can turn around and say a lot of things
14:56about, you know, the BJP also,
14:59the past and present.
15:01So, therefore, I don't see that
15:03what Rahul Gandhi is doing,
15:04something that is wrong.
15:05If there was lack of sort of, you know,
15:09freedom in Rajiv Gandhi Foundation
15:10or any other institution,
15:12there are so many other institutions,
15:14there are so many public intellectuals
15:16who have taken, you know, known position
15:18and taken a very different kind of thing.
15:20So, they are also very political.
15:22I disagree with Rajat,
15:23what he was saying that about somebody
15:25having a lot of, you know, intellectual heft,
15:27but people with intellectual heft,
15:29you know, Maria,
15:30and both Rajat, you and many of the panelists
15:33have seen, have also shifted their stance
15:36for political considerations.
15:38There are cases of...
15:39You know, when you talk about insiders
15:42of the government,
15:43when you say that somebody like
15:44Bibek Debaroy started talking about it,
15:47who was the director,
15:48then speaks against
15:50the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation's functioning,
15:53institutions functioning in 2015,
15:55you have the instance of S.E. Garg,
15:57who was working within the government,
15:59now speak against the present government.
16:01So, there are instances
16:02on both the sides here, Rajat.
16:04So, let me go back to Amitabh Dubey.
16:07Amitabh, the sense certainly is
16:09that here is the Congress Party,
16:12Rahul Gandhi in particular,
16:14trying to build the larger narrative
16:15that here is one important institution,
16:18which is the Election Commission,
16:21which is a constitution body,
16:22which should be functioning independently,
16:24is not functioning independently.
16:26And that is why this entire chatter
16:28around vote chori.
16:30Are you sensing then
16:32that in the run-up to the first big election,
16:34the state election of the state of Uttar Pradesh,
16:37this is something that the Congress Party,
16:39the opposition, will be highlighting?
16:42Yeah, I mean, I will answer that.
16:45I just want to address something
16:45that Rajat said about supraparty control,
16:51referring to the NAC,
16:52which Mrs. Sonia Gandhi headed.
16:53That was an official body.
16:56Its proceedings are transparent.
16:58Everyone saw what came out of it
16:59in terms of legislation.
17:01But we have another supraparty organization
17:02called the RSS
17:03that currently wields a lot of influence
17:05in the government,
17:07who have OSDs in ministers.
17:10Kindly let me speak, Divyani.
17:12Divyani, I'm going to come to you.
17:14Just a moment.
17:15Let him finish.
17:16I'm coming to you.
17:17Please let me speak.
17:22You have OSDs in every ministry
17:26who have an RSS background.
17:28You have vice chancellors across all universities
17:31who are selected on the basis
17:33of their ideological alignment with the RSS.
17:35This is a country that wants to compete with China
17:38and the United States
17:39is destroying its educational system
17:41by politicizing it
17:42and putting it in the hands of mediocre people
17:44with RSS leanings.
17:46This is a very serious problem.
17:47It's completely different
17:48from a legal body
17:49with transparent activities.
17:52Now, about the question you asked me
17:54about UP,
17:56definitely,
17:56vote chori is an issue.
17:58Of course, it goes beyond UP.
17:59But I want to again point out
18:00what Divyani Rana had claimed
18:02that this was some issue
18:04that only the Congress is bringing up.
18:05This is today a big issue
18:07because of revelations
18:08that came out in the media
18:10about the proceedings
18:11in the Election Commission.
18:13The Congress Party, of course,
18:14has been talking about it
18:15for a year, year and a half
18:16and it's been vindicated
18:18by what's happened
18:19by the media.
18:21Please do not speak for me.
18:23This is not a very productive situation
18:25and I will interrupt you
18:27if you interrupt me.
18:29I'm afraid you can't speak over me,
18:31Divyani ji.
18:32This is not the right thing to do
18:33and I request you to stop interrupting me.
18:36I request you to stop interrupting me.
18:39I request you to stop interrupting me.
18:41Divyani, I'm coming to you.
18:42Let him finish in 30 seconds.
18:44Let him finish in 30 seconds
18:46and then I'll come to you.
18:47Yes.
18:47So the question is,
18:49as Modi ji himself said,
18:50why is Mr. Gandhi walking around
18:52with a red constitution in his pocket?
18:55I want to point out
18:56that Mr. Modi gave Ramnath Kovin ji
18:58the same red constitution
18:59a few years ago as a gift.
19:01But be that as it may,
19:02the reason Rahul Gandhi is doing that
19:04is because the BJP itself said
19:07that if it gets 400 seats,
19:09it will change the constitution.
19:11Ms. Mirda said it.
19:13Many, many leaders of the BJP had said it.
19:16The reason he's walking around
19:18with the constitution
19:18is because the right to free expression
19:20is under attack
19:21by pellet guns, tear gas,
19:23and violence against peaceful protesters.
19:25The reason he's walking around
19:27with the constitution in his pocket
19:28is because the electoral integrity
19:30of this country is under threat.
19:31That is why he's walking around
19:33with the constitution.
19:37I find, like I said,
19:39it's very fascinating
19:40that the India alliance,
19:42whenever it comes on board,
19:43has no basis of reality or facts.
19:46I mean, if you very easily open up,
19:48I just need to go back
19:48to the 1975 and 1977
19:51and everything that their governments
19:53have done are completely
19:55right in front of them.
19:56And that is not something
19:57that they never talk about.
19:59They very conveniently brush it
20:00under the rug
20:01and try to hide behind
20:03the institutions
20:05of this great nation.
20:06I mean, you have so much,
20:09if you have so much concern,
20:10where are your evidences?
20:11Why is it that all of it
20:13is only in rhetoric?
20:14Why are you not able
20:15to file in your rejoiners
20:17a file in the Supreme Court
20:19all the data
20:20that you supposedly claim
20:21to always have?
20:22I feel that this is all posturing.
20:25They know that they have lost ground.
20:27They, after their Ramlila ground attempt
20:30to, you know,
20:31have some semblance of a rally,
20:33they quickly figured out
20:34that they have lost ground
20:36and how.
20:37They stand with the individuals
20:38who make seditious statements
20:40and even their own leaders
20:43cannot, you know,
20:44come on board
20:45and say whether they agree
20:46with the things
20:47that their own alliance is saying.
20:48So now they,
20:49because they have lost ground,
20:51because they know
20:51that the people are no longer
20:53just listening to the words
20:54that they're saying
20:55and they are more keen
20:56to know what is happening
20:57on the ground.
20:58The Bharatiya Janta Party
20:59is on track
21:00to make six crore
21:02lakhpati diris.
21:03Mind you,
21:04that amount of contribution
21:06into the GDP
21:08by women
21:09is unprecedented
21:10across the world.
21:11This is something
21:12that the BJP government
21:13has on a basis of,
21:15on the basis of data.
21:15I've just enough time
21:16for final comments
21:17from the two experts
21:18who are with us.
21:19Rashid Kidwai first to you
21:21and then Rajat Sethi
21:22gets the last word.
21:22We got only just a few words,
21:24but we do
21:24and our words are reflected
21:26in our action.
21:28Maria,
21:30I think the institutions
21:31are coming under strain.
21:33So there is no point
21:34saying that,
21:35you know,
21:36the institutions
21:36have not come.
21:37If the institutions
21:38had come under strain,
21:40you know,
21:40during the earlier time,
21:41it was bad.
21:42But if it's happening now,
21:43it is worse
21:44because there is a political party
21:45that always opposed
21:47and,
21:47you know,
21:48Indira Gandhi
21:49and several other,
21:50you know,
21:50Congress governments
21:51are weakening
21:51the institutions.
21:53I find it bizarre.
21:54Why is the election commission
21:56needs to be defended
21:57by the BJP?
21:58The election commission
21:59is independent
22:00of government.
22:04So there are a lot
22:05of institutions
22:06are there.
22:07If there is something,
22:07so there is an
22:08over-pulsonization
22:09of Armed Forces,
22:10Reserve Bank,
22:12UGC,
22:13a lot of institutions.
22:14I think there is
22:15a very strong case
22:16for that.
22:20Let Rajat speak.
22:23Yes, Rajat,
22:2430 seconds.
22:26So,
22:27Mariya Ji,
22:28I mean,
22:28any party
22:28which is in opposition
22:30remembers constitution
22:31and rightfully so,
22:33they should seek shelter
22:36under the constitutional values.
22:37But you also have to go
22:39on to the track record
22:40that these very parties
22:41when they are in power,
22:42how they crush
22:44the entire spirit
22:45of constitution
22:45has been a constant.
22:47Therefore,
22:48just flashing
22:48the constitution
22:50in one hand
22:51and on the other hand,
22:52waiting to somehow
22:53get into power corridors
22:55back and then try
22:57to install
22:58the same constitution
22:58has been written
22:59as part of our core history
23:01over and over again.
23:02I just heard
23:04the defense of NAC,
23:05what can be more laughable
23:06than that.
23:07It was not an unconstitutional body,
23:09but it was an extra
23:10constitutional body.
23:11There is a basic difference
23:12when you have
23:13an unelected member
23:14drafting the most
23:15important policies,
23:16which clearly means
23:17that it is trying
23:18to act as an authority
23:19which does not have
23:20the mandate of the people
23:21of this country.
23:22And still,
23:23they went ahead,
23:24these unelected activists
23:25who were trying
23:26to make policies
23:27for the country.
23:27The same is carrying on now.
23:29If you genuinely
23:30trust the institutions,
23:31you can't say that
23:32I will drag the chief justice
23:33onto the streets.
23:34This is what Kerala Congress
23:35intended to do
23:37and was an official handle.
23:38So I don't know
23:39by what parameter
23:40is Congress Party
23:40judging their respect
23:42for these institutions.
23:43If you want to doubt
23:44every institution,
23:45what is that
23:46supra-institution
23:47which you are still
23:47relying on
23:48by flashing
23:48the constitutional book
23:50in your hand?
23:50When you don't trust
23:51the Supreme Court,
23:52you don't trust
23:52the election commission,
23:53you don't trust
23:54the president's office
23:55as well,
23:56you tried seeking
23:57appointment from the president
23:58and the president said
23:59one thing
24:00and one thing alone
24:01that please give me
24:02the required evidences
24:04and I will act on it.
24:06Till date,
24:06the leader of opposition
24:07hasn't had the time
24:08to again go and visit
24:09the honorable president
24:10and hand over that dozier
24:12with evidences.
24:13I mean,
24:13what kind of a respect
24:14does he talk about?
24:16All right.
24:17Thank you so much
24:18for joining us.
24:19Devyani, Rana,
24:20Amitabh Dubey,
24:21Rashid Kidwai
24:22and Rajat Sethi.
24:23We are shifting focus
24:24to another big story now.
24:26He was the face
24:27of the AI revolution,
24:29the man who turned
24:31Nvidia into a global
24:33powerhouse,
24:34made computer chips
24:36one of the world's
24:37most valuable commodities
24:40and became
24:40the most influential
24:42executive in the AI industry.
24:45But after 33 years
24:46at the helm,
24:47Jensen Huang's
24:48extraordinary run
24:50has come to an abrupt end.
24:53Three reported
24:54personal affairs,
24:55a controversy involving
24:56alleged diversion
24:58of American chips
24:59to China
25:00and mounting
25:01national security questions
25:02have culminated
25:04in a dramatic exit.
25:06And this is no ordinary
25:07corporate shakeup.
25:09Huang's departure
25:10has rattled investors,
25:13sent Nvidia shares
25:15tumbling
25:15and raised questions
25:17about the future
25:18of an AI boom
25:20built around his company's
25:22technology and vision.
25:23So what happens
25:25to the artificial
25:25intelligence revolution
25:27without the man
25:28who powered it?
25:29I'm going to ask
25:30all these questions
25:31to the guests
25:32who will be joining me shortly.
25:34But first up,
25:35here's a report.
25:40He built Nvidia
25:41into the powerhouse
25:42of the artificial
25:43intelligence revolution,
25:45turned computer chips
25:46into one of the world's
25:48most valuable commodities
25:49and became the most
25:50influential executive
25:52in the global AI industry.
25:56But after 33 years
25:58at the top,
25:59Jensen Huang
26:00is out,
26:01ousted following
26:02revelations
26:03about multiple
26:03personal relationships,
26:05one of which
26:06has now triggered
26:07serious questions
26:07about China,
26:09American technology
26:10and national security.
26:11And the fallout
26:12is no longer confined
26:13to Nvidia's boardroom.
26:18Nvidia shares
26:19plunged as much
26:20as 14%
26:21after the news
26:22of Jensen's ouster
26:23before recovering
26:24some ground.
26:25Closing Thursday
26:26down 4.3%,
26:27more than $500 billion
26:29wiped off
26:30its market value
26:31since the scandal broke.
26:33The selling spread
26:34to AI-related companies
26:36including Micron,
26:37Marvel
26:38and Coreweave.
26:39As investors
26:40confronted
26:41a question
26:41that had long
26:42been overlooked,
26:43can the world's
26:44most important
26:45AI chipmaker
26:46thrive without
26:46the man
26:47who built it?
26:48Chief Financial Officer
26:50Colette Kress
26:51has been named
26:51Interim CEO
26:52but her immediate
26:54challenge is much
26:55bigger than
26:56steadying Nvidia's
26:57share price.
26:58She must reassure
26:59investors,
27:00protect billions
27:01of dollars
27:01in AI investment
27:02in companies
27:03like OpenAI,
27:05XAI,
27:06Antropic,
27:07Intel,
27:07SSI
27:08and convince
27:09customers that
27:10Nvidia's
27:11technological dominance
27:12does not depend
27:13on one individual.
27:18At the heart
27:18of the controversy
27:19is Wong
27:20reported relationship
27:21with Alice Wong,
27:22a former executive
27:23at Singapore-based
27:25Megaspeed,
27:25a major buyer
27:26of Nvidia chips
27:27that has faced
27:28scrutiny over
27:29possible diversion
27:30of restricted
27:31American technology
27:32to China.
27:33The Justice Department
27:35is examining
27:36potential export
27:37control violations
27:38while questions
27:39have also emerged
27:40about whether
27:40Alice Wong
27:41had links
27:42to Chinese intelligence.
27:44but American
27:45authorities have
27:46not yet established
27:47that she was a spy
27:49and both Nvidia
27:50and Megaspeed
27:51have denied wrongdoing.
27:52So you assume
27:53that DOJ
27:55learns that
27:56she is in fact
27:57a spy.
27:58I'm not,
27:58nobody said that.
27:59I certainly
28:00haven't said that
28:00and I don't,
28:01all I said
28:02a minute ago
28:03and all that I think
28:04I will say
28:05is that of course
28:06DOJ is an investigator
28:07looking at it.
28:08So there's no
28:09conclusions reached
28:10by the Department
28:11of Justice
28:11or by me
28:11or by Director Patel
28:13around who she is
28:14or is not.
28:15I don't have concerns
28:16with the Commerce Department.
28:17I don't.
28:18We have a good relationship
28:19with the Commerce Department.
28:20I've read
28:21some of the stories
28:22which, you know,
28:23are sourced
28:24or not sourced
28:25and so
28:25I don't have any,
28:27but no,
28:27I don't have,
28:28the answer to your question
28:28is no,
28:29I don't have any,
28:29I don't have any concerns.
28:30The distinction
28:31is crucial
28:32because while the
28:33espionage allegations
28:34remain unproven,
28:36the investigation
28:36into possible
28:37chip diversion
28:38could have consequences
28:39for the entire
28:40global AI supply chain.
28:42One GPU.
28:44The political fallout
28:46is gathering pace
28:47in Washington
28:47where Democrats
28:49are demanding answers
28:50about whether sensitive
28:51American technology
28:53may have reached China
28:54and whether national security
28:56was compromised.
28:57It was the right thing
28:58to do.
28:59Now we have to get
29:00to the bottom
29:01of whether America's
29:02national security
29:03has been compromised.
29:04We need a classified briefing
29:06made available
29:07to members of Congress
29:09as it relates
29:10to the NVIDIA situation
29:11and to the extent
29:13that our national security
29:15has been compromised.
29:17The American people
29:18deserve answers
29:19and we're going to work
29:21to make sure
29:22that happens.
29:23With congressional scrutiny
29:24expected to intensify,
29:26NVIDIA now faces
29:27the prospect
29:28of tougher export restrictions,
29:30more aggressive oversight
29:32and potential greater limitations
29:33on its access
29:35to the Chinese market.
29:36And that could also deliver
29:38a major blow
29:39to Chinese AI developers,
29:41many of whom
29:42still depend on American chips
29:43to power
29:44their most advanced systems.
29:47Meanwhile,
29:48US President Donald Trump
29:49added his own
29:50unexpected twist
29:51to NVIDIA's
29:52succession drama,
29:53publicly suggesting
29:54that former Apple chief
29:56Tim Cook
29:56take over the chip maker.
29:58Calling both men legends,
30:00Trump's intervention
30:01has thrown another spotlight
30:03on a company
30:03already under intense
30:05political
30:05and investor scrutiny.
30:08For Huangli's NVIDIA,
30:11the immediate priority
30:12is stability.
30:13But the long-term challenge
30:14is whether it can preserve
30:16the business empire,
30:17its dynamic founder
30:18and former CEO created,
30:20including its closely
30:21interconnected investments,
30:23customers and partnerships
30:25across the AI industry.
30:27Rivals AMD,
30:29Intel and Broadcom
30:30could see an opening
30:32while investors
30:33will be watching
30:34whether customers
30:35reconsider their dependence
30:36on NVIDIA
30:37and whether Washington's
30:39next moves
30:40disrupt the global chip trade.
30:44Bureau Report,
30:45Business Today Television.
30:49And joining me now
30:51is Ross Feingold,
30:53who is an Asia
30:54political risk analyst
30:56we also have
30:57N.S. Napinai,
30:58senior advocate
30:59of the Supreme Court
31:00and founder of CyberSathi.
31:02Let me,
31:03we also have Richard.
31:04I can see Richard Sanders
31:05also joining us.
31:07He is former member
31:08of the U.S. Department
31:09of State's
31:10Senior Foreign Service.
31:12He is a foreign policy expert.
31:16I'm going to begin
31:17with you, Ross.
31:18What changes
31:19between China
31:21and U.S. now?
31:23Has Jensen Huang's
31:25departure
31:26fundamentally changed
31:28the equation now
31:31between U.S. and China?
31:33And is NVIDIA's
31:34China business
31:35now a national security
31:37liability
31:38for the United States?
31:40Well, one thing
31:42to keep in mind
31:43is actually
31:44in recent years,
31:46the legal channel
31:48for NVIDIA
31:49to sell its chips
31:50to China
31:51had all but
31:53evaporated.
31:54First,
31:54there were
31:54restrictions imposed
31:56by the United States.
31:58This was followed
31:59by a partial relaxation
32:00by President Trump.
32:02But subsequent
32:03to President Trump's
32:04relaxation,
32:06China basically
32:07told the potential
32:08buyers
32:09within China,
32:10we don't want you
32:11to buy
32:11NVIDIA chips.
32:13Now, all that being said,
32:15if we put aside
32:15the revenue
32:16opportunities
32:18or lost opportunities
32:19for NVIDIA,
32:21there's certainly
32:22significant
32:23U.S.-China
32:25relations
32:26and competition
32:26issues
32:27that are at stake
32:29here.
32:29One,
32:30it's very clear
32:31that chips
32:32were illegally
32:34trans-chipped
32:35to China.
32:36And there are
32:38already people
32:38who are under
32:39indictment
32:40in different countries
32:41for engaging
32:42in those activities.
32:43So that was
32:44a clear
32:45criminal violation
32:46of U.S. law
32:48and the U.S.
32:49government
32:49is pursuing that.
32:51The other issue
32:52here,
32:52which we simply
32:53don't know
32:54the answer to yet,
32:56is what,
32:56if any,
32:57information
32:58Mr. Hong
32:59may have shared
33:00with Ms. Long
33:01about market outlook,
33:03about his discussions
33:04with U.S.
33:05government officials,
33:06including potentially
33:07President Trump.
33:08And if he did,
33:10and again,
33:10we don't know
33:11that he did,
33:12but if he did,
33:13did Xi then
33:14share that information
33:15with the Chinese
33:16government
33:17that we simply
33:18don't know
33:18either at the moment?
33:20So there are
33:21a number of aspects
33:22that certainly
33:23require
33:25additional investigation.
33:26Now,
33:27as far as
33:27when President Trump
33:28meets President Xi
33:30next week,
33:31I don't think
33:32this topic
33:32will be
33:33something that
33:34they discuss
33:35because ultimately
33:36President Trump
33:37could only say
33:38we don't want you
33:39to violate U.S. law
33:41by,
33:42for example,
33:42buying chips
33:43that are banned
33:44for export to China.
33:45But Ross,
33:46given how
33:48Donald Trump
33:49is defending
33:50Jensen Huang,
33:53it's highly
33:54unlikely
33:55that he will
33:55not erase it
33:56with Xi Jinping.
33:58Let me bring in
33:59Enes Nappinai.
34:00Ma'am,
34:01when a CEO
34:02controls a company
34:03central to global
34:04AI infrastructure,
34:06can a personal
34:07scandal
34:08become a national
34:08security threat?
34:10And where does
34:11corporate
34:11responsibility
34:13begin?
34:14So,
34:15this is actually
34:16a very complicated
34:17question.
34:18I'll try to
34:19simplify it
34:20as much as I can.
34:22The first and
34:23foremost thing is,
34:24unlike in India,
34:25in the U.S.,
34:26fundamental rights
34:27are absolute.
34:28So,
34:29you would assume
34:29that you would
34:30have a free
34:32right in terms
34:33of your free
34:33speech,
34:34expression,
34:35privacy,
34:35etc.
34:36But,
34:37having said that,
34:38what happens,
34:39and this is not
34:40something new,
34:41what happens
34:42with most
34:42corporates is,
34:44contractual
34:44responsibilities
34:45and liabilities
34:46are mounted
34:47on particularly
34:49top management
34:50because what
34:51they do,
34:51including in
34:52their personal
34:53lives,
34:54can impact
34:55the company,
34:56can impact
34:57its rights,
34:59its profits,
35:00etc.
35:01A critical
35:02case of
35:03causes of,
35:04you know,
35:04illustrative
35:05cases are
35:06where top
35:07management has
35:08been held
35:09liable for
35:10violation,
35:11though it was
35:11their private
35:12lives,
35:13where there
35:13were accusations
35:15of sexual
35:16harassment,
35:16for instance,
35:18where a
35:18company has
35:19very clear
35:19policies which
35:20says you
35:20cannot have
35:21a relationship
35:22internally.
35:23Similarly,
35:24when you talk
35:24about national
35:25security,
35:27always national
35:28security trumps
35:29all.
35:30And here,
35:31we are talking
35:32about a
35:32company which
35:33is involved
35:34in technology
35:35and the
35:36issue that
35:37has been
35:37raised,
35:38it is still
35:39subject to
35:40proof,
35:40so I would
35:41qualify it with
35:42that and say
35:43that we are
35:43still awaiting
35:44proof of
35:45whether indeed
35:46it has been
35:47a national
35:48security threat,
35:49but if it
35:50were,
35:51then the
35:52country would
35:52be well
35:53within its
35:54rights to
35:54initiate action
35:56and that
35:57could be
35:58contingent on
35:59what are the
36:00laws that they
36:01will be applying
36:01and what they
36:02say is likely
36:03to be a
36:04violation.
36:05But ultimately,
36:06everything gets
36:07pegged to a
36:08contractual
36:08responsibility or
36:10liability,
36:10which makes it
36:11easier whether
36:12it is in
36:13terms of
36:13corporate rights
36:14or with
36:15respect to
36:15national security.
36:16But Ms.
36:17Napinai,
36:17will that
36:18truth ever
36:18come out?
36:20Because we
36:21only know
36:22two facts
36:22here.
36:23First, I
36:24mean, what is
36:25there in the
36:25public domain?
36:26Of course,
36:26there is a lot
36:27of reporting
36:28which is
36:28happening of
36:29an alleged
36:30third affair,
36:31an alleged
36:32understanding
36:32that the
36:34lady in
36:35question has
36:36gone back to
36:37Beijing, that
36:38there was some
36:38underhand dealing
36:39between her
36:40husband and
36:40others.
36:41So it's
36:42very complicated
36:43and with
36:43every passing
36:44day, the
36:45scandal seems
36:45to be getting
36:46more murkier.
36:47Do you think
36:48we'll know the
36:48truth ever?
36:50What really
36:50happened?
36:51Was she really
36:52a spy?
36:53Yeah, the
36:53good news is
36:54that unlike
36:55physical world
36:56evidence,
36:58electronic evidence
36:58always leaves a
37:00trail.
37:00But I think I
37:01called it in my
37:02book, I call it
37:03the breadcrumb
37:03trail as in
37:04Hansen and
37:05Gretel, because
37:06if you catch
37:07the trail early,
37:08you have it.
37:09If you leave it
37:10too late,
37:10you may miss
37:11it out.
37:12Okay.
37:14Richard, come
37:14in now.
37:15If Nvidia's
37:16leadership is
37:16vulnerable, its
37:18supply chains
37:19are exposed and
37:20China is
37:21catching up,
37:22then can
37:23America
37:24realistically
37:25maintain its
37:26artificial intelligence
37:27supremacy?
37:28Do you think
37:29that is under
37:30threat now?
37:35Richard, if you
37:36heard me?
37:39I think we
37:40need to see
37:42exactly where
37:43this is going.
37:44This is a
37:45classic Washington
37:46scandal that has
37:47everything.
37:48It has high
37:50tech, it has
37:51high politics, it
37:53has vast amounts
37:53of money, it
37:55has sex, it has
37:56international
37:57affairs at the
37:58most intense
37:59layer.
38:00So we're just
38:01only now beginning
38:02to see where
38:03this is going.
38:04But it is
38:05entirely correct
38:06that this is
38:06going to have
38:07ramifications
38:08throughout the
38:10artificial intelligence
38:11industry, really
38:13throughout the
38:13global economy.
38:15We have to
38:15remember, Nvidia
38:16is enormously
38:18important for the
38:20creation of the
38:21so-called frontier
38:22chips or
38:24accelerators.
38:26It has got a
38:28dominant role in
38:30this.
38:3080% of these
38:32chips that
38:34essentially educate
38:35artificial intelligence
38:36models are
38:38produced by
38:38Nvidia.
38:39It has a
38:41capitalization of
38:42$4 trillion.
38:44So to the
38:45extent that
38:47Nvidia starts
38:48to look like
38:50it's in a more
38:50complicated
38:51situation, we
38:52are going to
38:53see ripple
38:55effects throughout
38:56the industry
38:57and onto the
38:59various countries
39:00in Asia that
39:01have essentially
39:02become aligned
39:03with it, whether
39:03it's South Korea
39:04or Malaysia.
39:06There are
39:06others that
39:06actually produce
39:07the physical
39:08chips that
39:09Nvidia is
39:10designing.
39:11And it all
39:12comes at a
39:12time in which
39:14internationally and
39:15certainly in the
39:16United States,
39:17there's a great
39:18deal of concern
39:19over what
39:19exactly
39:21artificial
39:22intelligence is
39:23leading us to.
39:24We see concerns
39:25at one end
39:27during the U.S.
39:28elections, the
39:29whole question of
39:30data centers
39:31had become,
39:32had zoomed to the
39:34top of the
39:35American public's
39:36concerns.
39:37And beyond that,
39:38the question of,
39:39you know, what will
39:41artificial intelligence
39:42do to our jobs?
39:43So if in the
39:44middle of all
39:45this, a scandal
39:48arises that
39:49has to do with
39:49the largest
39:50company in
39:51this sector
39:53with this
39:54dynamic
39:56leader who
39:57seemed to have
39:57an extremely
39:58close relationship
39:59with the
39:59president of the
40:00United States,
40:02it is going to
40:03have very, very
40:05interesting effects,
40:06to put it mildly.
40:07You have
40:08actually put it
40:10quite well when
40:11you said that
40:12this is a
40:12perfect Washington
40:13scandal.
40:14So Richard,
40:15help us understand,
40:16with Howard
40:18Lutnick also
40:19facing scrutiny,
40:21is this exposing
40:22a deeper
40:23failure in the
40:24Trump administration's
40:26China and
40:27semiconductor policy?
40:31In all fairness,
40:33these are
40:33difficult questions.
40:37The United States
40:38certainly has
40:38identified this
40:40kind of technology
40:41as an area in
40:42which it wants
40:42to maintain
40:43dominance.
40:44The question is,
40:45how do you do
40:46it?
40:46Do you essentially
40:47try to completely
40:49restrict provision
40:51of these highly
40:53powerful chips
40:54to China,
40:55and thus kind of
40:57keeping it further
40:58behind?
40:58But if you do
40:59that,
41:00aren't you just
41:00encouraging China
41:01to develop its
41:03own industry
41:04much more rapidly
41:05than it otherwise
41:06would?
41:06So these are
41:08genuine dilemmas.
41:10The question is,
41:11is this being
41:12resolved and
41:13analyzed in a
41:15straightforward,
41:16arm's-length
41:17kind of way,
41:18or are personal
41:19connections between
41:21Jensen Huang
41:22and senior White
41:23House officials
41:24influencing the
41:26analysis that
41:27we're taking
41:27to it?
41:28Certainly,
41:29President Trump
41:30has made it
41:31clear that he
41:32thought that
41:32Jensen Huang
41:33was a great
41:33leader,
41:34and he was,
41:35you know,
41:36really up until
41:37Huang's resignation,
41:38he was apparently
41:39urging him to
41:40stay on.
41:41Howard Lutnick,
41:42the Secretary of
41:43Commerce,
41:43has been the
41:44point man on our
41:45policy involving
41:46chips and China.
41:47And the question
41:50now is,
41:50did he essentially
41:51ignore the views
41:52of others within
41:53the United States
41:54government,
41:55of the Secretary
41:56of the Treasury,
41:57Besant,
41:58of Secretary of
41:59State,
41:59Marco Rubio,
42:00and really
42:02sort of push
42:04not to impose
42:05the kind of
42:06controls that
42:07other very,
42:08very powerful
42:09and senior people
42:10in the U.S.
42:10government
42:11were arguing for?
42:14Ross,
42:14so tell me,
42:15I mean,
42:16Jensen Huang
42:17has exited the
42:18company from the
42:20role of the CEO.
42:21I mean,
42:21at present,
42:22he's no longer
42:22the CEO.
42:24Donald Trump
42:25has taken to
42:26social media
42:27and has made
42:28this big announcement
42:29that it will be
42:30Tim Cook who will
42:31be taking over
42:31the reins.
42:32What happens
42:33to NVIDIA?
42:34And should
42:35the NVIDIA
42:36board have
42:37given Jensen
42:38Huang perhaps
42:39second chance?
42:42Had some
42:43kind of faith
42:44or perhaps
42:45even waited
42:46for the
42:46investigation
42:47to conclude
42:49without,
42:50with the
42:51investigation
42:51still ongoing,
42:53why ask
42:54Jensen Huang
42:55to resign?
42:59First of all,
43:00I would
43:00take with a
43:02grain of salt
43:03President Trump's
43:04comments about
43:04Tim Cook.
43:05I have no idea
43:06whether Tim Cook
43:07is interested
43:08in taking over
43:09NVIDIA
43:10or whether
43:12the NVIDIA's
43:12board is interested
43:13in him doing it.
43:14To me,
43:15that sounds like
43:16an interesting idea
43:17that the president
43:18had,
43:19but whether
43:20it will have
43:20any effect
43:21in the real
43:22world is
43:23something I
43:23would want
43:24to wait
43:24to before
43:25I gave
43:26any credence
43:26to that.
43:28You know,
43:30what the
43:31board of NVIDIA
43:32should or
43:32should not
43:33have done
43:33is a very
43:35complicated
43:36question
43:36because a
43:38firestorm
43:39has been raging
43:40internationally
43:41at the highest
43:42levels of
43:42politics,
43:43at the highest
43:44levels of
43:44markets
43:45around the
43:46world.
43:46I'm not sure
43:47that simply
43:48trying to
43:49ride it out
43:50and say,
43:50well,
43:51we'll wait
43:51and see
43:51and we'll
43:52do our
43:53own
43:53investigation,
43:53which will
43:54take time
43:55and a law
43:56firm engaged,
43:57et cetera,
43:57would have been
43:58really feasible.
43:59We're already
44:00seeing in the
44:00United States
44:01Congress getting
44:02engaged.
44:03They're seeking
44:04to subpoena
44:04Jensen Huang
44:05to testify.
44:08Complicated
44:09legal issues,
44:10including criminal
44:10liability,
44:12seem to be
44:12raised at this
44:13point.
44:13So I'm
44:15not sure
44:15that it
44:15really would
44:15have been
44:16feasible to
44:16say,
44:17well,
44:17we're just
44:18going to
44:18wait and
44:18see.
44:19Okay.
44:20Ross,
44:20what do
44:20you think?
44:21Ross Feingold,
44:22this is a
44:23question to
44:23you.
44:25Well,
44:25as far as
44:26the interactions
44:27with the
44:28board,
44:29yeah,
44:29a lot of
44:29people are
44:30saying that
44:31the board
44:31of directors
44:32should have
44:32given Mr.
44:33Huang a
44:34second chance.
44:35But like so
44:36much else
44:37surrounding
44:38these events,
44:39we simply
44:40don't know
44:41what the
44:41discussions
44:42were between
44:43Mr.
44:43Huang and
44:44the board
44:45of directors.
44:46So to
44:46give one
44:47very direct
44:48but simple
44:48example,
44:49if they
44:50had asked
44:51him,
44:51is there
44:52anything else
44:52you need
44:53to tell
44:53us?
44:54Any other
44:56extramarital
44:57affairs or
44:58other things
44:59you have
44:59done that
45:00might affect
45:01the company,
45:03the credibility
45:03of the company
45:04in the public
45:05markets,
45:06reputational
45:07risk for
45:07the company,
45:08and if you
45:09didn't disclose
45:09those,
45:10but then
45:10hours or
45:11days later
45:12we had
45:12this news
45:13about a
45:14relationship
45:15potentially
45:16with an
45:17employee that
45:18reports to
45:19him,
45:19then there
45:20are going
45:20to be
45:20people on
45:21the board
45:21of directors
45:22who would
45:22say,
45:23well,
45:23we asked
45:23you a
45:24question,
45:24and frankly,
45:25you weren't
45:26forthright with
45:27us.
45:27And that
45:28would be an
45:29offense where
45:30you'd have to
45:30say that the
45:31board of
45:32directors would
45:33terminate him.
45:34So we
45:35simply don't
45:36know what
45:37the discussions
45:38were and
45:39what information
45:40the directors
45:40had that
45:42prompted them
45:43to then say,
45:44well, you
45:45told us
45:46something, but
45:46we still feel
45:48we have to
45:48protect the
45:50company and
45:51the shareholders,
45:52and thus we
45:53have to push
45:53you out of the
45:54company.
45:56I think we'll
45:56find out
45:57eventually if
45:58that was the
45:58case, but
45:59it's certainly
45:59a possibility.
46:01Okay,
46:01try and sum
46:03it up for
46:03us, you
46:04know, because
46:04I'm trying to
46:05understand, has
46:06the board,
46:07NVIDIA board
46:08cut its
46:08losses by
46:09seeking the
46:10resignation of
46:11Jensen
46:11Huang, or
46:12have they
46:12landed
46:13themselves much
46:13in trouble?
46:14Because here
46:15is the chief
46:16executive, who
46:17is the
46:17founder, who
46:18is the
46:18visionary, who
46:19is the
46:19chief salesman,
46:20he is
46:20everything that
46:21NVIDIA is
46:22today.
46:22And for
46:23him to
46:23exit what
46:24will be
46:25NVIDIA
46:25without
46:26Jensen
46:26Huang.
46:32Miss
46:33Nappinai, if
46:34you heard
46:34me.
46:35Yes, I'm
46:36sorry, I
46:37thought the
46:37question was
46:38to someone
46:38else.
46:39Well, you
46:41know, in
46:42terms of
46:42corporate
46:44responsibility
46:45and the
46:46way a
46:46corporate
46:47entity is
46:48structured,
46:49first and
46:49foremost,
46:50whether you
46:50are a
46:51founder or
46:51a promoter,
46:52once you
46:53have
46:53shareholders,
46:55external
46:55shareholders,
46:56once you
46:56are answered
46:56to others,
46:57then that
46:58role that
46:59you envisage
47:00as a
47:01founder gets
47:03diluted.
47:03So your
47:04rights or
47:05your entitlements
47:06get subsumed
47:07to those of
47:08the larger
47:09group.
47:09It could be
47:10of the
47:10stakeholders,
47:11it could
47:11be of your
47:12vendors,
47:13the customers,
47:14etc.
47:15So today,
47:16when you're
47:16looking at
47:17it from a
47:17legal perspective,
47:18I don't want
47:19to venture
47:19into the
47:20political
47:20aspects of
47:21it and
47:21there are
47:21quite a
47:22few nuances
47:22there,
47:23but sticking
47:24to the
47:24legality of
47:25it,
47:25he has
47:27exited.
47:28So it's
47:29kind of
47:29like a
47:30bloodless
47:30coup,
47:31but whether
47:32that's going
47:32to spell
47:33well for
47:34the company
47:34or not,
47:35only time
47:35can tell.
47:36But again,
47:38an exit from
47:38a particular
47:39role may not
47:40necessarily mean
47:41an exit from
47:42the company
47:42itself.
47:42He would
47:43continue to
47:43be a
47:44shareholder.
47:44he would
47:45continue to
47:46contribute.
47:47The issue
47:48really here
47:49is, I
47:50think the
47:50takeaway here
47:51is this.
47:52When you
47:53have a
47:54technology
47:54company,
47:55when that
47:55technology has
47:57far-reaching
47:58consequences,
47:59when you
48:00have customers
48:01who are
48:01probably
48:01government
48:02entities,
48:03your role
48:04and
48:04responsibility
48:05is much
48:06higher than
48:07that of
48:08any other
48:09CEO or
48:10a top
48:10management
48:10person.
48:11You need
48:12to exercise
48:13an extra
48:13level of
48:14caution as
48:15an individual.
48:15The company
48:16needs to
48:17exercise a
48:18higher level
48:18of protective
48:20measures,
48:20guardrails,
48:21through their
48:22policies and
48:23internal
48:23functionalities
48:24and cross
48:25checks and
48:26verification
48:27processes.
48:28And any
48:29external entity
48:30including a
48:31government which
48:32engages with
48:33such companies
48:34as a
48:34vendor will
48:35have to
48:36evaluate the
48:38what we
48:39call, you
48:40know,
48:40the weakest
48:40link in
48:41the technology
48:43chain too.
48:44Is this
48:44going to be
48:45a weak link
48:45and how is
48:46it going to
48:46impact them?
48:47I think these
48:48kind of
48:48preventive
48:49protective
48:49measures will
48:51go a long
48:51way in terms
48:52of assuring
48:53cybersecurity,
48:54in terms of
48:55corporate
48:56permissibilities,
48:57some, you
48:59know,
48:59transparency and
49:00clarity in
49:01terms of what
49:02happens when
49:03something goes
49:04wrong and
49:05having a
49:06process-driven
49:07methodology
49:08instead of a
49:08knee-jerk
49:09reaction,
49:09would be a
49:10better
49:11alternative.
49:12Just 30
49:13seconds to
49:13you, ma'am,
49:14as well.
49:15Do you
49:15think the
49:15artificial
49:16intelligence
49:17ecosystem
49:17changes
49:18forever?
49:20With this
49:21case, I
49:22don't really
49:23think so.
49:23We have
49:24seen so much
49:25of AI
49:25bias already
49:26talked about.
49:28we also
49:29know that
49:29AI bias can
49:31be manipulated
49:32and that's
49:33the kind of
49:34situation we
49:35are looking at
49:36today.
49:37Does it
49:37mean we
49:38are going to
49:38eschew this
49:39technology?
49:40Certainly not.
49:41This is here to
49:42stay.
49:43AI is here to
49:44stay.
49:44Usage and
49:45adaptation to
49:46AI is going to
49:47continue.
49:48How far we put
49:50in guardrails,
49:51how careful are we
49:52going to be is
49:53something that I
49:54hope will change,
49:54but I am very
49:55doubtful that it
49:56really will make
49:57a difference.
49:59All right.
49:59Thank you so
50:00much for your
50:00time here,
50:01Ms. Napinai,
50:01Ross Faingold
50:02and Richard
50:03Sanders.
50:04Of course,
50:04there are several
50:05chapters in this
50:06scandal which is
50:07yet to unfold.
50:08A story we'll
50:09continue to track
50:10very, very
50:10closely.
50:11Thanks so much
50:11for watching.