So to summarise and conclude what I have tried to communicate very briefly in this session around women in contemporary India is first the idea that women are not a homogenous group. We've looked at several different categories of women, and the kinds of contests that each of them have been subjected to. We've looked, for instance, at Muslim women and the kind of issues around the personal laws affecting Muslim women. We've looked at poor women. We've looked at sex workers. And we've looked at lesbian women, as part of the LGBT movement. Now each of these groups of women have issues and concerns that are specific to their subject positions and what we then have to consider is the fact that gender is not simply about men and women, but men and women in particular situated within particular relationships of power. And this is important. And that those relationships of power may be distributed across other dimensions of identity as well, so across the dimension of class, if we're talking about women or across the dimension of religion if we're talking about Muslim women, across the dimension of caste if we're talking about scheduled caste women or scheduled tribe women. And this is significant for how we we might think about strategies or interventions to improve or advance the position of women. So, feminist movements within the Indian context have had to grapple with the implications of the instability of gender as a signifier. Yeah, so it doesn’t, gender doesn't just mean one thing. It means different things in relation to different categories of women. Gender's also an unstable signifier especially when we're talking about sexuality or sexual minority groups or sex workers. And thinking about how these groups, sexual minorities or sex workers, offer a challenge to heteropatriarchal constructs that are still quite deeply embedded within Indian social norms and values is an important task, an important task for not just the movement but also a part of thinking of how society changes over time. And then we've also looked at the role of the state in various ways. We've looked at how this state simultaneously invoked as a protector of women's rights as the agency or the institution that will advance the position and condition of women, particularly through legislation, but we've also looked at the ways in which the state can and does sometimes act in regressive ways and perpetuates inequality. So for instance when we looked at the kinds of reversals of judgements that the courts have been involved with many of the key judgments that I talked about, or in terms of the every day gender bias of the institutions of the state, whether we're talking about the police, the judiciary or even other institutions such as the educational institutions. So the State is important, but it's role is ambivalent in that it or let's say that it's, mixed it can be both positive and it can also be, it can also be negative. And in the context of thinking about the state we have to also recognise that while it plays an important role in advancing the rights of women through for an instance, say equality provisions, a point that was made by the report of the Committee on the Status of Women in 1974, the report towards equality, which is that the application of the theoretical principals of equality in the context of unequal situations only intensifies inequality because equality, in such situations, merely means privileges for those who have them already, and not for those who need them. This is important to bear in mind, in the Indian context. Because what we're seeing is the continued tension on the issue of equality, and I started this session talking about the constitutional equality that's enshrined in our Constitution. But pointing out also the provision that allows the state to make special considerations for women and other disadvantaged groups. Now, maintaining a balance between these two opposing sort of tensions has been and will continue to be key to the ways in which women's rights get articulated within the Indian context. In some cases we see that the articulation of equality does sometimes, equality provisions do sometimes intensify the inequalities. Whereas in other cases we're seeing that we do need to make those special provisions for women.