, vice-chairman of Morgan Stanley , not only has a ringside view of the world of finance, but also the global geopolitics, thanks to his association with the US Democratic Party. The former deputy to Hillary Clinton (when she was the Secretary of State) in an interview with ET tells what’s in store for India , and how terrorism threatens global economy . Edited excerpts:In a country of a billion... you got to be here. The reason we want to be here is we know that you can’t be in a global capital market without being heavily invested in India. And you have to play long-term. This is a very important country, for political stability in the region, as well. Not only important economically, but politically, too. It is a complicated neighbourhood in which you live and having a very stable democracy is attractive.Every time I am here I am just amazed by the country. The opportunities are phenomenal, and challenges are what they are. You can’t be a global investment bank like Morgan Stanley and not be optimistic about India as a country. It is impossible. The governance of Prime Minister Modi has sent a strong message to the US and to Europe that he is serious about reforms, making it easier for businesses like us to do business. Expectations were high, obviously. I think he has all the elements to be enormously successful. Obviously, people want to see things delivered and that’s a government’s job to do so.I think what the prime minister is doing is setting the stage for long-term growth in India. And you do that by taking some tough decisions. He obviously reduced capital spending to lower the debt which I think is the right thing to do. He has made enormous amount of statements vis-a-vis opening markets to outside investors. He has sent a clear message on the importance of the rule of law and strengthening of contracts. He understands that he can’t be just talking to the world. I think what he is sending is the right message, between the mixture of fiscal discipline which is important, and opportunity, which people need. The combination of the two is well received in the West. He hasn’t been a PM for very long. As time goes on, and economy improves, people hold them accountable for results. All indications from the perspective of the West are that he is setting the table for the long term. He is not making shortterm decisions to get instant gratification.The ease of doing business for all of us is important. The issue of corruption and getting things done are very important to many people, like our clients who are doing business. Everyone of the executives I am meeting here has said over and over again that they are seeing a dramatic change in how the bureaucracy deals with business leaders. Clearly, there is an understanding that the prime minister’s office has zero tolerance for corruption. It takes a lot of time.Well, I do not know if it is shrinking. It was a by-product of some laws of financial crisis in 2007-08. You can quibble about different rules and the benefits of some of the rules. But the reality is that regulations have made Morgan Stanley a stronger company. We have a stronger balance sheet. At Morgan Stanley we are more than happy and capable of managing our business with the new regulatory environment that has been put in place. I cannot say that for everyone. We do not spend a lot of time complaining about it because it is what it is and the reality is that I think Morgan Stanley as a firm is a stronger firm now than it was. It might not be able to do the same returns in the short term as it did before the crisis, but I think over the long term our returns will be as good if not greater than they were then.It is outrageous, it is depressing, it is complicated and we as democracies need to fight against these terrors who basically want to stop democracy as we know it. There are people who want to stop the way we govern; they for whatever reason, whatever sickness there is, don’t want to allow democratic freedoms. It is imperative that we as nations work together to try to stop what is happening. It surely has an impact on the economy because people become concerned, nervous. The last thing we want to do is close one’s borders. That is not good for commerce. That is not good for humanity.First, it is up to the Indians. Every country has positions that they need to take; every country has things that they should not want to give up; they have to assess continually the benefits and the downsides of these kinds of trade deals. For countries like India who had many bilateral agreements already with different countries within the region, it is complicated. I fundamentally believe that free trade done right is economically helpful. You can argue about whether we should lower the duty on this particular commodity, and the impact it has on jobs and my country. That is a legitimate right. But lowering barriers to trade generally will help the economics and the population of India. How you get there through a 11-country negotiation, or a few bilaterals, I am not smart enough to tell you what is right for your country.