Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
OK, now just because an invader has given it that name long back
in the BCS, does that mean that they own me now?
And that's a word which I shouldthink that it's a dirty word
because of the way we have been governed since the time of
Islamic invaders from medieval medieval nation.
Once they came, they made the territory in Delhi because see,
(00:22):
in the past, in the past, India,it was not Delhi centric, it was
mugged centric. That's ridiculous.
Please let the whole IT cell is trying to kind of project that
the sedation law has been removed.
What they have done is take it away and what put it in a new
bottle, then have come up with crime against sovereignty and
integrity and have made the crime a lot more harsher.
By the way. So sedition has not gone.
(00:42):
It has come in a very new dangerous package and I think we
should probably talk about the names because it is absolutely.
So high Gaurav. This is the first time I'm with
you, and the last time you were just so so much full of
knowledge that we had to do this.
Shoot again the Part 2 of this. Thank you so much for having me
again. And I'm glad that you got that
high in the first go. Yeah.
I think you're way more famous than I am right now in
(01:04):
Bhubaneswar because of that reel.
I'm just kidding. I'm fully like.
It's fine, it's fine. So like I don't know where to
start from because we have learning from various topics
but. Let's start from this basic
thing. I saw your Instagram story
yesterday, so let's start from that topic.
I will give some context about it that India versus Bharat.
Well, I think I will give some context like I will give those
(01:27):
sites I have read and you can. So there are two sides on this
topic that whole Bharat in India.
Well, I think that the BJP, theyare in the in their Twitter
handles, they're using that, youknow this minister of Bharat and
not India G20 invitation. They used Bharat and all this
stuff. One side it is saying that India
(01:48):
is a name which which is the right wing side.
He is saying that India is a name which is given to us and
it's a geographical name from the river Indus.
But Bharat is a name which is a civilizational name which we got
from our civilization, the Sanathan, Dharma, Indus cultures
and all that stuff. So we should retain our
civilizational name. And not Indio to a English name
(02:09):
which is given by by invaders. This is one side and another
side is which is I guess the lawyer Walla side that already
Article 1 says that India that is Bharat.
So this country already you knowIndia and Bharat are the same.
So there it's not also a point renaming it because already
India that is Bharat is there. So anyways you use India or
(02:30):
Bharat is the same thing, there's no difference.
So what's your perspective on this thing and?
What you think about these two sides And if you are a counter
for it, you know, explain it. I don't actually feel very
strongly about this topic. I feel that this entire topic
has been generated now just whenthe elections are on the corner
as a divisive issue. Because no matter which party it
(02:52):
is, whenever the elections coming around, there are these
points where you need to be on the left or the right of it.
So it's just, it's, I mean, but like my problem right now is the
fact that we are trying to create a scenario where the word
India is like a bad word. OK.
And I'll give you context regarding this.
In terms of the people who are supporting the change to Bharat
(03:14):
completely, the Constitution obviously calls it like India
and Bharat both. What is happening is there was
this whole assumption that the Britishers have given us this
name and we should decolonize ourselves.
You know, because the way Sri Lanka did it with Silon and
whatnot. And that.
There are many countries who have changed their names from
(03:34):
what the Britishers had given them.
Now at the very outset, this needs to be corrected that India
was not given to us by the Britishers.
OK, it was back in the BCS, it'sabsolutely correct.
It was a geographical linked name where people staying on the
other side of the Indus. OK, now this is the name which
(03:56):
we grew into and my personal opinion, when you're standing in
the stadium and let me finish, when we're standing in the
stadium and missing III like thewhole power that we get.
Okay. Now when you're trying to create
a divisive issue on Bharat and this thing, now what is the word
Bharat come from? The word Bharat comes from the
son of Shakuntala and Dushanth in one of our pranic stories
(04:18):
where after Bharat since he was such a great king, his tribes
became to be known as the race of Bharatas and the places they
eventually conquered came to be known as Bharat Bharat not
Bharat. In fact, India has never been
called Bharat Till recent it wasalways called Bharat Wash Now
(04:38):
Bharat Wash by the way is not just Indias legacy, it is Sri
Lankas. It is all the way to Sumatra,
Indonesia as well as Pakistan aswell as Bangladesh because at
that point of time, Jambudri, the original name which was
given to the Indian subcontinentin their rule over all the India
concept that we understand, yeah.
(04:59):
Like during the Maureen period, I guess no, no even for all you
know in the Mahabharata when they were doing all this are
see. Shakuni and all.
They are from that Afghanistan side.
So, yeah, So Shakuni is from Gandhar.
Gandhar is present in Afghanistan, very beautifully
put. So what happens is when you're
using a term and Bharata was there was an ancestor of even
the race of Ram as well as the Panda was in the Corvas.
(05:20):
Right now when you're using a name like that and that's but
you know when the constitution makers are coming up with the
name. And so interesting to note,
Jinnah at the time of Pakistan'screation opposed a lot that we
should not get the name India. He said that is Indus river.
He made the same arguments interestingly which the right
(05:40):
wing fundamentalists are making right now.
This is a geographical location named How can India take?
India should be just called Hindustan, land of Hindus.
But again Hindu is also geographical name now like from
Rivers Hindu exactly. I was just coming to that Hindus
the with the whole idea is the word Hindu.
Some people say from Sindhu river.
Some people also say that when people had to come over this
(06:02):
side from the Middle East, they used to cross a place called Sir
Hind Okay SIRHIND and from therealso the name could have come
about whatever it is. So if you're thinking and now
the same people who seem very proudly Hindu, Rashtra Chai,
Hinduism, Hindu, This word also is a word that invaders called
us because as Gargi in the previous interview said, we
(06:23):
didn't have a concept of religion.
Hinduism is a way of life. Sanatan dharm, correct.
But the word Hindu, which we allidentify ourselves with now is
the name given to us by invaderstechnically speaking.
But we have gone into it and we have owned it.
Yeah, Hindu. I mean, I am a Hindu, and I'm a
very proud Hindu, OK? Not just because an invader has
given it that name long back in the BCS, does that mean that
(06:46):
they own me now? And that's a word which I should
think that's a dirty word. No, it's a word I've grown up
with. And it's a beautiful word that
we all share a legacy. And the same thing goes with
India. And that's why the contribution
makers are very clear that both are our names now.
What happens now is when you make one name again, I'm going
back. Sorry, I'm linking this to the
previous interview with Gargi. The whole idea is when you want
(07:10):
to make something better, it should not be by putting down
something else. Say Bharat Gate Make Bharat and
a lot of places go for it. No problem.
But why are you giving India a dirty word?
And now by the way, but. I guess this happened because
the opposition alliance named, Ifeel why did they do that?
Because of. Which is the and they also, you
(07:30):
know, opposition did that because of this political thing,
the the, I mean BJP, the right wing said.
They always referred to as, you know, Bharat and all that stuff.
So they knowingly did that to create a, you know, a face off
and exactly so I'm just, that's what I'm saying.
Like I don't care which party has done what.
All I know is whatever is happening at that level, it's
all politics. And the people who will suffer
(07:52):
are people like us, where suddenly later on the future is
a possibility. Which by the way, I'll tell you
why it will not happen. Now I feel is that suddenly I'm
like I'm proud to be an Indian. I'm an Indian.
No, you. Can't say that.
It's like, OK, that's a dirty word that becomes an anti
national word. It's no longer like a word which
I'm succumbing to Britishers or something on those lines.
You know when Shahrukh Khan saidthat if you have seen the story
(08:13):
which I put up and he says that India.
Now here's the good development in my personal opening that has
taken place. They are saying Pakistan's lot
of right wing parties are now saying that TK if they let go of
India on UN, they will make a claim that they want the human
(08:36):
because they have always had this claim that in this is
actually their main government. Yeah it comes from our side but
because of the way that it is partitioned majority of the in
this in fact in this is their Ganga you can call it in that
way. So they say, how can a name
which is associated with the river be India's name and not as
in our name and not Pakistan's name?
I guess this was Jenna's argument.
(08:56):
But Murshid Khili Khan, he against Pakistan is a series of
singer like Pashtun and correct Pakistan and everything.
Yes, yes. So now what happened is no, but
did not did not want India's name for Pakistan.
It said that we should not take the name India.
You know, Indian name should go away from you know.
And which is interesting that the people who are supporting
(09:18):
Bharat now with his date supportBharat.
I am a Bharat here, but I am also an Indian that that does
not have to be this distinction.And see, you do not also look at
it from political angle. You have to look at it from the
backdrop of this whole thing, debate.
It has been going off in the imposition.
You know, Bharat is a Sanskrit word.
It's a beautiful word and we alladopted, we all think of it.
(09:39):
But if you look at the recent trend and change in laws, law,
names here and there, whatever is happening, the way it has
been slightly done, you know that's an issue if in G20 they
wrote President of Bharat, OK, great, I love that.
It's amazing. But the norm always has been
president of India. Why?
Because internationally, India is known as India.
(10:00):
You know, Bhas is the name whichwe enjoy.
But only doing an international level, are you trying to give an
indication that something is changing and then suddenly you
have tweets coming out from, youknow, people who have supported
this very orchestrated Bharat Mata Kijai.
I love that line, Bharat Kijai. But I feel like now it's been
used as a war cry. So that is my issue.
When something which is done forthe wrong reasons, even if it is
(10:22):
right, I think it corrupts. The two names of the country are
become becoming too political. Ideology exactly.
And the divide and rule is something which probably the
Britishers did, did best. I feel that we are carrying that
on. It's isn't an issue which we
need to be divided on. That's the question at the time
when the country is faced with so many issues on our name, I
(10:44):
don't think and. Also at this time, like our
country is holding a summit likethe G20 summit and there are a
lot of important things that arebeing discussed there, but the
news headlines are not those important things about the about
the climate change and all those, you know, new offices
coming out in Gujarat and all that developmental stuff.
But the news is filled with thisdebate and that's what really
(11:05):
annoys me because it is such a proud thing that India is
hosting G20 and has done a greatjob in you know, clearing the
slums at apparently but just still making sure that the such
an international event like seamlessly.
But no one's talking about it. The world media is talking about
it, but Indian media is the onlyone who's talking about this
issue. But luckily recently what I just
(11:26):
heard in the morning that southern ministers were in the
cabinet have come out with saying that this is nonsense and
we're not changing the name. Because none of the cabinet
ministers said that we're going to change the name.
But again that those media and every that creating a hype that
in this coming September's Constitu, I mean Assembly
session, Parliament session, they will bring a resolution to
(11:48):
change the name. But it's nothing like, you know,
completely. Yeah, I agree.
But something tanks or people who are working in Delhi, some
of our friends, I heard apparently that the whole
possibility that Pakistan may even adopt the new India.
Can you imagine what a comical situation that would emerge.
You know, we keep saying to antinationalist apparent, you know
(12:09):
go back to Pakistan and whatnot.That's the whole idea what
imagine how to say then go back to India.
It's just ridiculous, you know. So I think that is one thing
which we didn't consider. I also think that I wish the
opposite. The opposing alliance did not Co
opt a name which is of the entire country.
Yeah, I wish they didn't happen also.
(12:31):
Just leave the names alone. Man is my thing.
Like, do your politics, but leave the names alone.
And you know, we are talking about these laws and stuff and I
will talk about this independentjournalism.
Well, I think OK, I saw a video of YouTube Nitish Rajput where
he explained very briefly. That none of the media houses in
(12:52):
this country is independent. Yeah.
Either it is controlled by a businessman or any political
party. But if you will see the history,
every newspaper or every media was like was created out of a
revolution. Yeah, to create a revolution, to
bring change. It's that's why it's called the
forebear of democracy and all that stuff.
(13:13):
But slowly, of course, it's getting ruined because it's no
longer. Doing it.
So it's all about just giving headlines and taking TRP and
stuff. I personally thought a lot about
this independent journalism. Well I think and I saw in
Twitter about a lot of people who do this independent
journalism. Well, I think, but I mean to be
(13:33):
honest like they are, their money is just getting dressed
and there is no in source of great source of income in that,
in that thing. So how do you think that you
know independent journalism, which is true journalism?
It we can bring out it in India because if you see the Western
media, the BBC and stuff, they charge a lot of money to people
(13:54):
from where they generate their revenue.
So that doesn't depend themselves on, you know,
businessmen and all this politicians and stuff.
What do you think? The Indian, I mean, I have a
lot, lot of respect for all the journalists.
But many journalists go with a certain mindset.
But they have to adopt that mindset because it is their
career. Is the solution according to
(14:17):
you. So comparing it with BBC becomes
a little unfair because BBC is this legacy news channel which
the UK has always respected by way of traditions.
If anyone has watched The Crown show on Netflix, they would know
that BBC is a very special status.
Plus BBC has various other sources of revenue because BBC
itself produces a lot of shows. You know, So what I have seen
(14:41):
the trend in any economy which is trending towards the OR
heading towards the capitalist direction, the eventual
crumbling of media, you know, the pillar of media as I call
it, into this whole bias from one way or the other is
inevitable. You know, in fact in the present
day world you have two kind of choices.
(15:03):
You either have a choice like China, but it's completely state
controlled and you have absolutely no freedom to venture
out. So you won't even have a
descending opinion or you have acase like India and US where the
media is completely bought out by corporate structures who are
also donating to move the parties by the way.
And then you can see that OK, one party is completely heavily
(15:23):
biased towards one media will becompletely biased towards one
party, the other will be completely biased.
How to bring about a change in this is something which I do not
know. My preference to read news is
newspaper and Outlook magazines because that is the one place
where I feel that it's true one article.
Journalism. Reading multiple newspapers.
(15:45):
Because you know like if you I will not take the names, but if
you will read 2 newspapers. You of the same news, you can
figure out the similar things and the similar things will be
the facts and other things will be the opinion, Correct.
I mean that is bound to happen because someone is writing a bit
of opinion at the end of the thing in the opinion section.
So that does happen. Now if you have the time to read
(16:07):
multiple newspapers, go for it. But generally we do not have
that kind of time. In fact people are not even
reading people these days. Everything is like on in short
or something. On those lines where news is
given to you in a very truncatedform, it's.
All about headlines, correct. You know, even like the Indian,
Indian and school they are started delving into the news
section because they know that people are just not trusting
news channels anymore because they have become like a Ekta
(16:29):
Kapoor TV show these days. You know with the whole Tam jam
they do and this is not something which is
unprecedented. US went to the exact same route
with the Fox News Channel completely turning into a
political party stools. So I think the way out would be
to have a council at the head who actually has teeth when it
comes to powers. And they can come down heavily
(16:51):
on these news channels when theybecome too partisan or when they
kind of indulge in something in a kind of tomfall tomfoolery,
which is just unacceptable. You know, like if you remember
the Sushant Singh Rajput case, which was a very intimate case
connected to a lot of fans of SSR and India as a whole because
(17:11):
it felt like someone was an outsider of, you know, you wish
that that tragedy did not happen.
It was very relatable to every person.
But when news channels start showing his pictures and
alternating it with Ria chakra, with his pictures where she is
just clad in a bikini and heavily focusing on her teenage,
you are kind of very evidently color the public's opinion.
(17:33):
It's too evident And when faced with such criticism, when the
news channel say that no, but she puts up these pictures on
her Instagram, that's a very flawed argument because that's
not the narrative which you're trying to show I.
Mean you are showing someone's death with that.
It's nothing similar exactly. It's not a fashion so or
something that you're trying to create this whole Femi fatale
(17:55):
image where you're trying to paint her as the vamp and that's
when fact starts to get diluted.Like even if someone is actually
speaking at facts, you know, thegullible would be not believe or
believe them and it just I thinkmuddles the entire thing.
So as Sky, you know, there are alot of TV organizations, I don't
know their names really they are.
They do have a set of guidelinesthat's supposed to follow, but
(18:17):
and they do come down heavily onthese channels when they are
breaching those rules. But the fines that they impose
is 0.00001% of what money they might have gotten from the one
episode. So it has no value.
You know, you know, that's why Islightly like the kind of stuff
Smita Prakash is hanging out with the Ana podcast like she
(18:41):
was, she's calling out a lot of people at the same time she's
calling out someone called obviously and at the same time
Someone Like You know Sai Deepakand stuff.
So she's calling out people from2 extremes and also from the
centre. So if the people have the time
to see those things so they're very easily they can validate
which is fact and which is opinion.
(19:02):
But should they should follow and they should not.
I mean that is the entire objective of a TV presenter or
someone who's conducting a debate is to be the moderator of
the conversation. But lately, as we have seen from
Republic TV and Goswami to actually every other new channel
I'm at pinning him though he started it, I suppose, where the
moderator speaks the most, the most.
And that is unheard of, you know, and like even in partisan
(19:26):
TV shows like the US TV channels, you really don't see
the moderator coming in and kindof scolding people who he has
invited, you know. And in fact, at some point of
time it became like a show wherethey just used to find two
Pakistani generals just so that they can go and scold him and,
you know, created the Marshall of it.
And violence is something which people and humanity, and she is
(19:50):
something which we enjoy. Be Game of Thrones, be the book
that I have written, you know, or anything with respect to like
violence. It kind of caters to our basal
urge. It's.
Very evolutional because we grewup from age through violence and
all this. So then when you see that on
news channel, you're like, OK, Ilove this.
It's like art Pastime, you know?And I think that kind of not
(20:10):
only dilutes the news, it kind of effects.
You know, I mean I remember a dialogue.
I do Anand Ranganathan news. I remember saying something on
the on the Biceps podcast that he spoke once to a BJP minister
where he where he said that he said to that minister you can
easily speak out in the public that see we are doing this much
(20:30):
for the minority, minority community and it is too much.
So there is no need for you to feel insecure and all this stuff
we are already doing work for you.
So he said that that BGP politician said that yes, we we
are doing, but will not say thatin the public that yes we are
doing because our glegreen is here.
That's the point. People enjoy those things.
And I will speak about this Hindi imposition.
(20:52):
Well, I think I will speak aboutmy perspective.
Sure. What I feel is, you know, Hindi
has come out, you know, as a vast language in the North,
Indian and all this stuff. Presently I guess in our
education system we are given this in a first line English we
have to read of course compulsory and then second and
third language, second language we read on a regular manner and
(21:13):
third language like you know basics how to write and how to
you know, speak and understand. So I guess a Hindi speaking
person in North can be given this option.
To learn one of the South speaking, you know Telugu or
Tamil and the South speaking person can be given this option
(21:35):
to you know learn one of the North Indian languages and this
in this way the diversity can bespread all over through through
India which will you know which will not be like the Hindi
imposition. It will be like learning each
other languages for the sake of you know.
Equality and, you know, integration of all the stuff.
(21:55):
What do you think about? I don't think that's a feasible
idea because of if you look at it and isolation sounds great,
You know, of course you're learning different languages,
but you're still giving Hindi a lot more importance because
Hindi will be the third option in all these states, right?
Whereas when you go to the Northand if you're doing the I'll
give you actually, well, there are 100 things wrong with that
(22:16):
model, actually. First problem in the north, when
you're giving them the choice oflanguage, which language would
give them as an option? Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Oria,
Oria. Or there are so many languages
you know within these languages,which one would give?
Maybe you give them all as an option.
Each one chooses something different.
Dilution of factor. You go to the South according to
(22:39):
the model which you have suggested, the third language
will always be Hindi. I'm giving an example, right?
That is Hindi position. And also you're you're not
giving Hindi and you are giving them this, this, you know,
freedom to choose Punjabi or Marathi.
Then again, it's the dilution ofthings correct?
2nd and most important is that assuming a scenario where you
(23:02):
kind of crossover, the first problem, we can't look at this
in isolation the moment you try to get the South.
I'm using this as a generalized term.
They hate it. By the way, they are Tamil Nadu,
they're different states. But just because there's an
opposition and it should not be just South even.
Or yeah, people object to it when you're trying to drive
them. Say that, OK, learn a little bit
(23:23):
of Hindi. OK, the moment they say yes, by
mistake, they will start bringing Hindi as a whole down
all the way saying that you already know basics.
So now you don't have a problem.You shouldn't have a problem.
I mean, your language is still ahigher language, but Hindi, so
you cannot force them to learn that.
(23:44):
So that becomes imposition again.
Third, why? Why do you need this?
You know, see, in a world which is globalized, where the world
has become a lot smaller, I haveto stress this.
I cannot stress this enough. English is not the most spoken
language in terms of sure population, and a lot of
(24:04):
statistics have shown that it isactually Mandarin.
Which is language? Is the administrative language
in India correct? So that's what I'm trying to
give you a point, actually. Now, Cantonese and Mandarin,
sorry, is the most spoken language in the world.
OK, but why is English such a common factor across the world
when this one language is spokenso much?
Because this has somehow become the language that has made the
(24:28):
world smaller, connected. All of us.
OK. We the whole idea that we are
trying to give importance to each language of each state.
Hindi itself has so many dialects.
Yeah, Yeah, Mark, I mean, if youwere going with Sanskrit, you
know, I might say fine, because Tamil also has a root in
Sanskrit. Hindi also has a root in
Sanskrit. Every language.
Sanskrit is the mother of all language.
(24:48):
If you're going no, because halfthe population in the North will
want this, will never be able tospeak that pure Sanskrit.
The Sanskrit is a very difficultlanguage.
In fact, Sanskrit is called the most correct language because
you don't even have the concept of silent words there, You know,
because everything is a matter, you know, why are you going for
that? No, no one's going for that
because Hindi is a lot easier tolearn.
Hindi in fact was the caste language which was spoken by the
(25:10):
localized people. Sanskrit was the language of the
higher the texts and the you know, however it was.
But we don't want that. So when you go for this, the
necessity of this is just not there.
It is just a way of the north imposing itself again on the
South because of the way we havebeen governed since the time of
(25:31):
Islamic invaders from medieval medievalation.
Once they came, they made the territory in Delhi.
Because, see, in the past, in the past, India was not Delhi
centric. It was mugged centric.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, partly.
Putra was the literally the center of India.
In a way, yeah. And you know, all the Kingdom
beat the Guptas and everything. Everything.
(25:52):
Uttar Pradesh, Kanodj, all of these, that area.
The Kingdom should go from there.
And then came the South where the Vijayanagar Kingdom became
the most mighty empire. Cholas kind of conquered
Southeast Asia. So S became like a one of the
most powerful Kingdom, Then Marathas again in the centre.
But once the medieval invaders came in, they started ruling
from Delhi at the point because.And they also used now Persian
(26:14):
and Urdu as a language which is a lot similar to Hindi, correct?
It's not not similar to. I mean it's you know if you are
speaking Hindi, it will be easy for you know to speak Urdu
because of lot of Urdu is in fact a amalgamation of Persian
and Hindi exactly because of a joining of this language.
Hindi was like a lower language again.
Similarly Persian or Persian andUrdu as well have the same
(26:37):
relation as Sanskrit and Hindi. You know Persian pure Urdu was a
little lower class and then ultimately Persian went away
Urdu became higher class. So languages keep changing but
why this issue? Why do we need this India the
whole see India is on the is themore special country across the
globe. And I'm not saying this because
I'm an Indian. It generally is genuinely is
(26:59):
because of the diversity that wehave.
Why do you want to eliminate thediversity by trying to have one
language across when so many people don't want it.
You know why? Because of the north can enjoy.
Why there's no need. Is the world functioning well
because of like if the Hindi thing is not in the South, is
(27:20):
there any problems that are being caused because of this?
That's not happening. But if you try to impose Hindi,
do you realize the problems thatwill happen?
You know, this is a very hypothetical situation.
I don't know if this is going tohappen or not, as you after you
know 20-30 years a Prime Minister be coming from South or
(27:42):
even Orissa. In fact, you can take the
example of Nirmalaya, Sitharaman, all those, you know,
Kargai and everyone who is therefrom South in the parliament
too, they do learn Hindi there and they have to do it because
all the speeches and everything they give it's, you know, it's
basically in Hindi. So isn't it?
(28:04):
I mean, whatever you do, I mean,I guess always be Hindi will be,
you know, little. High language then?
No, I mean, like, sorry, I mean.Not higher, but you know a
largely spoken or anything. So it's imposition or spoken.
What happens is unfortunately orfortunately, UP is on the like.
(28:26):
It's the biggest state in India.As far as I hope that has not
changed, no? I mean in population, in terms
of population. So what happens the its
representation in Lok Sabha? See in representation in Lok
Sabha is its ocean. At the state population.
State population. Yeah.
So UP has the high. Like honestly, when Indian
elections take place, if you've got an UP, you're you're kind of
assured now you're going to havea big.
(28:46):
Yeah, yeah. Because you suddenly have
captured the meet and the same thing happens in us as well.
Like, maybe Hillary Clinton would have won, but Donald Trump
got Texas. Yeah, you know, And then Texas
has like a big swing. It's called a swing state or
something on those lines. So you.
Also in Texas had a lot of African American who voted for
(29:07):
Trump. So, you know, the minority vote
also correct. So that also happened and there
are a lot of Republic Republicans there.
So when you have a state and so whenever a Prime Minister come,
they're trying to reach out to these people because in the
South as well, Central Party does not win.
If you think about it. So when you're saying Prime
Minister is coming up and speaking in Hindi or something,
(29:28):
that's because the National Party is constituted of winning
in all these areas on top because there's one party which
can win across In the South, each state has its own prime
regional party. So there's no unity, you know,
because they all have different,different parties.
True. So practically speaking, we
can't happen. Now let's say the South had one
language. I'm telling you for a fact we
(29:49):
would have not had a Hindi speaking Prime Minister.
Yeah, it's true. So.
But since the South never calls itself S, they say no.
Get different states, different States, and if you look at no
one party has I. Mean period had his arguments of
you know, creating a Dravidian state and everything.
But again he was you know he wasa way more like extreme period
(30:10):
in his Yeah. So yeah, so you know, recently
the laws, the criminal laws are changed the.
IPC and the CIPC will not talk about the names that are
changed, will talk about the laws that are actually changed.
I guess the Sedition Sedition Act was removed and all.
That's ridiculous. Please.
Like the whole IT cell is tryingto kind of project that the
(30:31):
sedition law has been removed. What they have done is take it
away and put it in a new bottle,then have come up with crime
against sovereignty and integrity and have made the
crime a lot more harsher, by theway.
So sedition has not gone. It has come in a very new
dangerous package and I think weshould probably talk about the
names because it is absolutely ridiculous.
I have taken higher Hindi loyal.I'm an audio but I have taken
(30:51):
higher Hindi loyal when I was studying and I have difficulty
in getting the name right. You know, India has always had,
by the ways, Hindi, no matter what we say Hindi, slightly more
supreme in terms of the attention it gets because every
law, the central legislation comes out with will have an
English format and will have a Hindi want always.
Whenever you open any act, you will see in English and then you
(31:11):
will see the second in Hindi, noother language.
OK. This has always been the case.
In fact, the Constitution also says that every law will have a
English heading and in Hindi will have a Hindi heading.
Yeah, when you try to give a Hindi heading to a English law,
what are you trying to do? In fact, the Code of Criminal
Procedures heading, if you translate it, it says something
(31:33):
like law for the well-being of the people.
What? That has nothing to do with
procedure. So you can clearly see it was
even a lazy effort to come up with a label.
You need to again play the division.
Why? Why change it?
You know the sections. We could have just added it.
They have no idea the nightmare this is going to cause.
(31:53):
Everyone knows 302 is murder, 420 is fraud.
Now there are laws have based onit.
There has to be a rationale for completely overhauling this.
You know when the sexual harassment Nirbhaya case took
place and when they came out with new section because of that
sexual sexual harassment, protection against that law kind
of was introduced. Section 354D was added by way of
an amendment. You're not coming out with so
(32:14):
many changes. In fact, the new law is 80%.
Similar same only I guess only 303 laws are totally changed
everything other. I mean Amisha told this that
only 303 laws and everything is the same exactly.
So why do I change the section? Why do you have to create this
bureaucratic nightmare for no reason?
And why do you have to change the name?
Imagine some people so I can't pronounce it.
(32:36):
Now I'm supposed to say my Lord when I'm arguing for the court.
And I say, my Lord, under 302 ofIPC or under 420 of IPC.
This has to be done now under 4/02 of Bharatiya Sanhan
something. And I have taken Hindi.
I know Hindi, Hindi slightly different accent, but I can
speak Hindi. Think about the people who have
no idea about Hindi. How will they pronounce this?
(32:58):
How will they learn this? This is live in my opinion in
the position. Why do you need to do this when
you anyway have a translation ofthe language in Patna?
A lot of lawyers speak in Sanskrit, you know, Lakhna by
the way, they come and say Mahatarma, you know to the lady
judge and they will completely say in Hindi, nothing stops them
because it's a Hindi law as well.
But when you're putting Hindi now in English, you're creating
(33:19):
a big issue and now that too we are doing it in such a blatant
manner. How can Code of Criminal
Procedure, which deals with procedure of crime, have
something like a well-being of the people or something that's a
translation of the code of criminal Procedure.
It just likes more linkage of the contents.
(33:39):
So yeah, it's AI, don't know. I wish we focused more on the
development bar, but the whole idea as you very rightly put.
Have you read The Two Laws? No how completely.
So basically what I was asking what is there any important laws
that were changed in this act? So I'm not completely done a
comparative analysis about the law, but I did look at the
sedation part because I became very happy that the sedation was
(34:00):
finally taken off and then I sawthat it was completely
repackaged and made harsher. So I did look at the laws with a
V mob lynching, and that's a good thing that has come aboard.
But again, there's no clarity because let's say a mob goes and
kills someone. Each one of them could be given
a death sentence. OK, which even if someone has
not been actually involved in hurting that person.
(34:21):
So these things will require clarity, but I just wish that
they amended the existing law rather than, you know, do this
whole thing. So, so now we will do a little
segment about questions from your books.
OK, So the first one is you speak about badass women in
ancient India as one of the driving themes of your book,
right. And why so?
So there's been an interesting thing about ancient India.
(34:42):
Now, if we talk about women warriors in Indian history,
we'll come up with a lot of names.
You know, Rani Lakshmi by UDA Devi, Pasi viranganas, all the
Dalit Viranganas that we have. And if I speak about women
warriors in our mythology, we'llcome up again with, you know,
maybe Madurga and Makali, goddesses of war.
It's amazing that India has a goddess of war.
(35:03):
But if I ask you to actually name a mythological character, a
woman who was involved in warfare, you will not come up
with any name. It's bizarre.
You know, Sita was completely trained in the art of fighting,
but she never actually fought someone, you know, rescued from
an army, but as a charity. So it struck to me as a little
(35:25):
odd that with the history of such a resplendent female
warriors, how come we don't havesomeone in mythology which is
something like that? And then I saw Krishna's third
wife, Satya Obama. She flew on the back of Krishna
and fought A Rakshasha king in the northeast.
Presently Assam, at the time, Krishna actually fainted because
of an attack. And Satya Obama fought with her
(35:46):
sword and killed Narcasor the demon king.
And to me, that was like, absolutely badass.
You know, stories about Indian women have always been about
them overcoming patriarchy, damsels in distress, overcoming
issues. I wanted to speak about damsels
who cause distress, you know? So from there, Satya Vama was
born. In fact, the woman on the cover
(36:06):
of the book is actually Satya Vama, OK?
And it deals a lot with her story in the.
And other one is you have a Cunningan pirate Princess as one
of the main characters. Why Kalinga?
I mean, I'm from Orissa, and actually I have a loyalty
towards Orissa. But when during doing the
research of the book, I discovered that Kalinga has such
a rich naval history, You know, it's amazing how so many Orias
(36:28):
do not know this. That the Bali Jatra that we
celebrate in Cuttack every year is a tradition that has been
going on for thousands of years to honor our ancient Mariners or
sailors who used to take these beautiful swan ships called
Boitas and travel all the way tosoutheast to colonize it.
In fact, in a very interesting way, we were the Britishers of
the ancient world, you know, Java, Sumatra, all these
(36:52):
islands. We used to bring back so many
riches that Kalinga used to celebrate our sailors.
That changed a little later because of silting of our
harbors, like Chilika used to bea major harbor, Konak used to be
a major harbor. But that changed over the course
of time because of geographical reasons and that's why Bengal
became the major port. Otherwise it was always Odessa.
So when I saw that, I wanted to bring this about.
(37:13):
But you know, The thing is when you try and tell someone this
information, it kind of feels like, OK, someone's trying to
tell me GK. But when it is Procreed by way
of an entertainment medium, either through a Bollywood movie
or through a book, that's when it stays.
So I thought I'll create a fire Princess character.
Do you think, Why are you hiring?
You're constantly looking here. And then I'm.
Like getting this check. It's like, is everything OK?
(37:33):
OK, cool. So the last question is do you
really think that the, you know,the fantasy books are the hype
of fantasy books is increasing in India?
I hope so because after the popularity of Game of Thrones,
people have woken up to the possibility of slightly bigger
books which have a lot of world building in it.
The thing is, in a post Chetan Bhagat era book and nothing
against him, he got a lot of people to start reading.
(37:55):
We as a whole have kind of movedaway from the Arundhati Roys and
the Vikram Said books, you know,which were like really fat and
chunky books. The reason why they are fat is
because when we dive into them, it's an entire world of their
own where we get lost and we're travelling and that's why it
stays with us. You know, when I was trying to
get Sanzo Backness published, the whole idea, they loved the
book. They were saying split it into
(38:16):
two and I can't do that, you know, because I am trying to get
Game of Thrones in India. I'm trying to get Lord of the
Rings in India. You know, India has a very
interesting business model. Whatever works in US, we kind of
try and get a better version of it.
Uber became Ola, Amazon became Flipkart, right.
But somehow, despite the successof this amazing franchise, Lord
of the Rings the highest earningmovie franchise, one of the
(38:38):
highest at least. And same goes for Game of
Thrones as a show. If I haven't India captured on
this yet and it's because the publishing industry has not
taken the leap of faith. So even my book, I ultimately
self published it. But then Bloomsbury, UK, not
India. Bloomsbury, UK The same guys who
published Harry Potter loved thebook and they picked it up and
it came from London to India, you know?
(38:59):
But the reception that it is receiving, I hope that it opens
doors to a lot more fantasy readers.
Thank you Gaurav for this amazing conversation and I would
recommend people to read your book of course.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
It was a great pleasure, Sir. Cheers.