 My life, to be the mind of it, and I'm sure many of you have seen it in the media for a very long time, is not agreeable. You know why? If we don't just pour the importance of media into people, as like the 17th century, the main focus of the world has been one of the most important pillars in the world of democracy. If you look at the road of media in India and the rest of the world, the reality is that we can't start making it. We follow the trend. And our media in today is going to evolve its shape. It's evolving, it's ever changing. It's kind of like, we used to have one channel, now a multiple channel, multiple interpretations, multiple perspectives. And the most important thing is the role of media in places where there is conflict and places where there is not a conflict. Because in a conflict zone, a mere report, a news report, could be a dead body, could actually translate into dead body sources. Whereas when you report in places where there is not conflict, it could be different ideologies and new perspectives, but not necessarily end up in dead body. The first thing that I would say along with the humility of the government is that once we enter the field of journalism or anybody else, we know that it sees humanity like us politicians or businessmen, and infallible to perspectives, biases, and like any knowledge we have chosen to do it. So what does the government represent in a conflict? Does it represent a side in the conflict or does it represent truth? And this truth, is there a monolithic concept of truth? There is one truth or are there multiple truths depending on what you're doing? And what does a journalist report in the news? This is a big question which I think is staring at the faces of journalists with limited expectancy. That who do you represent in the country or who do you represent in the truth? Who do you represent in reality? And what is the reality? Are they creating a perception or are they reporting reality? I have stayed in conflict in J&K both as a non-politician and as a journalist. I don't know how it could have been worse. And I've been in government for three years, I've been in government for three years. And I've seen the worst types of journalism in the whole system. Many times we did not know whether we are fighting the people on the streets or we are fighting the media. We're so divided, we're in a situation of creating. We're a small state, we stand six countries today. We use a big small state, in essence, somewhere in the north. But the work between them in terms of news, is a lot of the argument. And he did a lot of debates and people who, even I, being a politician, being a public light, I would see them in the community and all the TV channels, and speaking nonsense against the government. And the rest of the country was taking these rooms as representatives of the history. So they were actually taking the rest of the country in the history. So we lost it in the TV. We didn't know who are we fighting. Are we fighting? The people are putting stones on the street. So are we fighting the media? We had no idea. We didn't know what had happened. So when you report a conflict, it's been divided in line. And if you cross it, you become a party to the conflict. I think in our country, we might have a long-distance cross-strait line and become a party to the whole country. There are 90 DRP's. There are a lot of DRP's. There are a lot of DRP's. What you call the classroom radar or cells and such. Because on one hand, we want free streets. On one hand, we don't want sensors. And on the other hand, we actually end up in the government party. There are so many things. When you talk of patriotism, when you say the terrorists are here, when they fire, when the bloodshed are made, we all feel that. We all feel very, very sad. When you now become the spokesperson of the country, you represent India, India as India. Even the concept of Indianness is not sad. Take Britishness. A hundred years back, the stereotype of Britishness was someone invited. In the past, today, Britishness is an Asian also. The Pakistanans, the Muslims, the African, they are all British. Similarly, in the Indianness, what it meant in 47, it is not written in 1689, and it's not the same what it was in 1860. Now, even if you look at media, if you take our conflict in the table, we shift into violence. It happens somewhere between 90 and 80. We are alive. 87 lives. 87 is one of the notoriously weak relations. Somewhere in the name of national interests, the media actually allowed authorities to walk on the murder. It was important that there are happy regains, there are happy regains, but the reality is that it is what you see today in 19. You just cannot believe it from 98 to 77. The same media, which allowed authorities to walk on the murder, are now setting the last stakes of Indianness. But every Christian or every other country, a JNK or others, if we look at, even look at 80s, there may be something happening this week in the name of national interests. The truth is that, why does that matter to the media responsibly? I remember when I was a small boy, a student, the government were grown with the incumbent rights. I learned a lot from here, and it was Indian express, the kind of media that used to get the newspaper at 4 o'clock a.m. It did more than just a community. It was a people of a particular community, an active people of another community. So there was some responsibility, when it came to rights across the country, but really to JNK state, again there was this national interest thing, and they played down what should I have been played out, and we have been played out. Now even today, while our heart goes out, I have seen a death in my own family, a violent death. So I can very well understand, more than the other Latinos who are not seeing death in their families, while I have received the death body of my father, so I know the pain, the pain of the grave, the martyrs, what their families are going through at this moment, what happened to them. I honestly don't want to live, I don't want anything to do with it. Until somebody says it's a clip on the phone, and it's all tied. But I was in the TV lounge, and I was coming today to this program, and I happened to watch one, but there was a TV, there was a TV there, and there was a news program. And I was surprised, they already declared war. They had declared war. And it's the reality that even Pakistan, that I think is under the control of air defenses, this is totally new thinking. They are also taking the media seriously. And they are also on a higher level. We press-passed, the media that we press-passed into a territory that simply does not belong to, and conflict reported. I don't believe in Libya, it was born in the 80s. The traditional media sign, I think at that time, was not to focus too much on collateral damage, not to focus on the damage, there was a deep internal force. I think this was in the 80s. She took a life in conflict. And I think she was sidelined later on within the media. But she decided not. I'm going to show what it is, a certain part of the conflict. But, conflict reported, I believe, is not as easy as reported the rest of the world. It is not. It's a different volume, it's a different science. And I really think a country needs a policy on conflict reported. I really think that all our TV channels need to subscribe to a group of other people. Because if I tell you that the news in modern times has met their bodies in the media, I would not be that way. I would not be, I would tell you a reality or truth that at least five to six percent is the last of you. With five to six percent their bodies that we see in public influence have resulted from news, calls, or truth in newspapers, in news channels, the room of news coverage or the network. The bigger important thing, the biggest problem I was there in this region is that we spoke in so true that when we want to give each other food, we are alive and beautiful. We find out that the person who is interviewing us and they ask questions and we don't know what to answer because the question is simply you know, it actually doesn't make any sense at all. It's very important. They present a reporter in a one-page form in the midst of one-page, in the midst of media reporting, be empathetic with the psyche of that reporter otherwise, if you ask me at least in our country, in the state of JNP, I would say other people speak as now in our country trespassing the gravity where they become a part of the problem. We don't want them to be a part of the situation but certainly they could consistently not become a part of the problem. I remember in 2004, I was somewhere and they said, how many people are there? Somebody said three. There were some people who were there. He said India, Pakistan JNP, and the media. We don't know what they are coming from. So, he says the point is that they actually started at the beginning. They now sacrifice not at one more point. Be very honest. How did you make a decision? You made a decision and there is an identification because you see a decision because you see you see nothing they are Muslims also which is shown on the media but has anything been there? I will focus on the fact the number of experienced who have laid down their lives in line of beauty for their country, for India the number of experienced who have died fighting for their country is not less than 50,000. That is not the reason why the police are asking the political leaders and the political workers the number is around 20,000 to 25,000 who were killed for their committed crime of fighting elections or electionary to steal your money then there were people who were non-state actors but believe in the power of India they have never facilitated the army and other school reports 20,000 people were killed so 50,000 to 50,000 our political party who have moved which civil community has sacrificed more 50,000 people of a particular Brazilian state and who have sacrificed their lives when there is anger because some Indians some Indians, some despicable people out there 100 to 200 or 500 videocrats celebrations of the barbaric ethnic place Pujino Facebook which is having a bad impact maybe in June and many other places like I was there when 30-40 audience because we've been branded generalized as one community as one of this need to fight the patterns of the war being fought in jail for India is being fought to great extent by Kashmiris no one talks about he's the unsung hero even the government takes care of the families when a Jama'an in duty whether it's a French man a C.R.P. personnel or an army when they die in action we have monetary action the government takes care of them there are mother men there are other things our state our Jama'at naki gets it compared to the other the other the other other problems so I would just say and conclude and say that Manfred the poet is a scientist don't treat it as like you're quoting a woman or quoting a new response it's much beyond that it's about life and it's better to have no PRCs