 So let us just begin them. Yeah. The thing is, I cannot share the video. You cannot see my face because I cannot use both video and presentation. So for the sake of clarity, I thought maybe it would be better if I shared PowerPoint slides rather than look at my face. So nevertheless, I think we'll start. All right, let's start. I think we have bested enough time. OK, here we go. I hope you guys can see the screen, right? Yes? Yeah? Anybody? PowerPoint slide. Sir, yes. Good, good. OK. So here we go. Yeah, so today's discussion, right, is not so much about lecture on obedience, but then the main purpose of this discussion this afternoon is to discuss or ignite and bring to our attention some of the most relevant teams concerning the way we perceive and understand our role and responsibilities to the society. So in other words, the main purpose of this discussion today this afternoon is to examine the psychological factors behind society's obedience, or what is known as society's political obedience, and also look at some of the consequences of such obedience and how they are manifested in psyche and the consciousness of its people and society at large. In other words, the main question is that to what lengths, right, to what lengths people obey authority without question, right? What enables us, people like you and me, to thoughtlessly, right, blindly obey those we deem to be in the position of authority, right? These type of questions are very, very pertinent or very, very relevant in societies such as Nagaland and or even India, because in our society like Nagaland and India, we highly prioritize categorization, right? We like to categorize into tribes and the cast and the religion and so on. So asking such questions, right, gives us valuable insights into the nature of, say, for instance, social-political conflicts and tensions that continue to trouble such a highly divisive society like Nagaland and India. You see, for the purpose of this lecture, by obedience or political obedience, I mean performing an act, right? I mean performing an act or carrying out action because someone in the position of authority commanded you to do it, not because you want to do it out of your own desires or out of your own will. In political sense, it is an obligation towards the state or the group or your community, what more. So obedience in this context can be understood as a psychological mechanism that links individual actions to political purpose. It binds, for instance, it binds us, you and me, to a system of authority, right? And by far, we can argue that one of the most far-reaching implications, the consequences of obedience or submission to authority, is the disappearance of a person's sense of responsibility, right? Rather than assert, we may think that by obeying, we are asserting our responsibility. But then in reality, whenever we blindly obey, we are actually relinquishing our own sense of personal responsibility, to which we will return to letting the dog. So the thing is, you may ask, what is wrong with obedience? It is beneficial. Of course it is beneficial. In relationships such as a parent and a child, of course, obedience is very important. And of course, even in society, you need some sort of obedience from the citizen so that obeying laws or whatnot can prevent theft and murder, et cetera. But in some cases, and in some more important cases, obedience can lead to brutal outcomes. You don't even have to look five. If you just give a quick glance at history, you will find examples, so many numerous examples, such as Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where its citizens, during these times, remained obedient to the point of committing, and they did commit, some of the most atrocious acts, like that included murdering and torturing one's neighbor, friends, and completely innocent people and mass. This is something that gives me up late at night, thinking how easily such kind of atrocities can also occur, not only in India, but also here in Nagaland, where we are, where friends and neighbors can very easily butcher each other in the name of tribe, right? Very easily, if you look at the examples of Rwanda, for instance, in Rwanda, in 1992, you had this genocide going on between the Hutus and the Tutsis, right? People started killing each other. They started killing each other, not because, you see, not because they disliked each other, but because they belong to different tribe. Like, neighbors killing each other, even the church, even the Catholic church was involved, was complicit in the propagation of killing their own church members. Just imagine, even the church was involved. So in other words, our sense of affiliation with our group is very, very powerful, and which something that we all have to understand and examine very, very deeply, is that one can only watch in great horror and bewilderment the extent to which we, like you and I, almost with blind faith, obey those we give to the whole legitimate authority. And if you remember Freud, one of the leading us, scored our fingers in psychology, Freud recognized this and he was saying that we should never underestimate the power of the individual to need to obey, right? We need somebody to obey. We want to obey. It is more or less like an instinctual. But then it is also very interesting to note that most people are involved in such kind of, you know, acts, not because of any other personal one to, you know, to destroy each other, but because they don't want to be excluded, the fear of exclusion, right? They don't want to be rejected by their own group. This fear of being rejected or alienated by one's own tribe or group, right? To a certain degree, accounts for the fact that many people fail to recognize and acknowledge the injustice committed by their own tyrannical tribe or group or whatever, right? Because whenever you obey, whenever you do as obey and give your undying, faithful obedience to your group or whatever, you don't see such kind of a stupid blood thirsty act as something hideous, right? You don't see it as a crime, but you see you committing those acts as an act of loyalty, as an act of duty, right? Just look at them, just look at, you know, like how easily in Nagaland or like how easy it is in India, in the name of religion between the Hindus and the Muslims, they'll be willing to kill each other. Same thing, even in Nagaland, not too long ago, not too long ago, right? Such things did happen between tribes here in Nagaland, right? So it's always there. We have this powerful tendency to perceive and whole once groups, customs, traditions, practices as inherently and obviously true, right and good, regardless of what those beliefs and practices and mores are. We must also understand that if you actually think about it and if you actually observe carefully, many of us don't actually understand what we believe in, right? This is evident in the plan, conformism and obedience we find in society, right? This is visible, especially when individuals like you and I are in the group or when you and I are immersed in a crowd. As you know, Le Bon, the social psychologist of 18th century friend, 19th century social psychologist, Le Bon, most of the individuals, whenever you and I, like whenever you and I are immersed in the crowd, we become very, very obedient, right? All the best qualities of human nature such as anger and fear and aggression and dominance, it takes over and the individuals like you and I, we lose our conscious personality, right? We lose our conscious personality. And when they do lose our conscious personality, we also, as you can see on the screen, that's like some examples of it, we also lose this power to reason, we lose our rationality, right? This is why in a crowd, this is why the crowd is only capable of, for instance, bloodshed and destruction and chaos, right? They can never construct anything, right? So much so that, like given the most low abiding citizens in the crowd will act and do things which you would not otherwise do on its own, right? This is because, you know, what crowd provides is anonymity, right? Ananimity, as you can see on your screen, right? As you can see on the screen, the slides here, this is a slide during the ULB election, right? And this is, if you remember, I think this was in 2014 or 15, right? The lynching of an innocent person. You see, in such kind of things, it is try to reason out, you are in the midst of this chaos, right? And you're trying to say, okay, now, okay, my friends, let's not stop and think carefully what we are doing. Will you be able to say that? Of course not, right? Who listened to you? You will be swept by the sentiments of the crowd. I imagine over here in this lynching case, right? This innocent person was lynched. We're not even knowing exactly why. And in the end, now we now know that he was innocent, right, he was innocent. You can see all these things, all the students actually, you know, you see them. You can actually identify from which colleges they were, right? Oh, by the way, can you guys see my presentation? Can you guys see the slides? Hello? Can you guys see the slides? Can you guys hear me? Any reply? Can you guys see the presentation? Yes, yes. Visible now, and you're on the call. Okay, you can see the presentation also, right? Yeah, yes, we can. Yes, it's visible now. Okay, okay, okay. Okay. All right, so you see those, I mean, those are good examples of, you know, what happens, thank you. What happens, you know, these people, these students actually, you see, what, why, I'm sure these students, as you can see on your screen, there are some really good students, right, to give the benefit of the doubt, right? They're really good students, but then maybe they are kind of good students that you want as a teacher. But then in the crowd, you see, they become wild. They are like, they are unrestrained. There's no rationality. So in the crowd, this is what happens. This explains the chaos. You can't build anything. You can only create chaos, right? So, but in terms of our discussion today, such kind of crowds, right? They come to play an essential role. They come to play an essential role for tribal leaders, right? For tribal and communal leaders, and even for politicians, because it enables them to attend, it enables them to attend certain socio-political and economic goals. And these masses, these crowds of masses, they become a willing slave to the will of the tribal masters and communal masters. In the crowd, the individual loses his unique personality, his unique individual characteristics, which make you and I who we are. So in the crowd, that is lost, right? And when our unique individuality is lost, it becomes easier for us to be controlled by the tribal leaders and our communal leaders, wherever they are. That's why, you know, in Nagaland, for instance, this has happened so many times in Nagaland. Whenever, any kind of ban, ban augurs, or whenever there's some sort of a tribal leaders calling their tribal people to come and protest against something, what do they say? They always ask every member of their tribe to come wearing, to come wearing with their traditional attires, right? As you can see on the screen, this is what happens. And what happens when you do that? When everybody wears their own tribal attires, what happens? When this happens is that you are lost. You are no longer recognizable, right? What makes you, you is lost. You are now a number among many, right? You are now just a clock in the machine, right? You are easily replaceable. You are replaceable. You are no longer special, right? And you are in control without even you knowing that you are being controlled, right? Just like your mobile phones, just like your laptops from which you are using the laptops and the mobile phones through which you are listening to this lecture, all these things are replaceable. Just like that, just like your shoes, your pen, your pencils, right? Your mobile phones, you and I become easily replaceable. Even if you are lost, even if you die in the process, who cares? You can be replaced by somebody else from your tribe, right? So who cares? So if you're looking for a concrete example, these are the cases. You know, you look at the ULP election, all the Mela in about the ULP election, all the leaching case shared not just in Nagaland but also all over India, for example. You know, in this kind of things, no one asks questions, right? You don't ask questions. Indeed, the tribes, the crowd tribes are not asking questions. This is an essential aspect of being part of a crowd or a group. The space or the room for asking questions or even to think is drastically reduced and even violently removed, right? You are more or less not allowed to think. Just obey. Just obey what you've been told. Just like the one you see on your screen. You see, you see, you know, parts of ships, you know, they're all going along the, falling down the cliff. And then, wait a minute, something feels wrong. One of the, you know, mouths asked. And then what do the other tell him? They say, shut up, you moron. Do ask what you've been told. It's for your own good, right? This is what happens, right? In your group, in your own group, being religion or your tribe or whatever, right? This is what happens. You can't ask questions, right? If you want to be in the group, do what you are told. Don't ask questions, which brings us to examine some of the social psychological factors behind obedience, right? So in a series of experiments conducted in the United States, I won't go into the experiments because we don't have time for it, obviously. So in a series of experiments conducted in the United States, those experiments showed that when you and I are placed in a powerful social situation, right? Such as in a crowd or among our members of our own tribe or among our colleagues, right? Or friends, we will, we are willing not only to go against our own beliefs and values, but we are also willing to suspend our own judgment, right? This was one of the major findings that showed that, you know, like people like you and I, like you and me, we are willing to, we are willing and also prepared. Just imagine, we are prepared to suspend our own judgment in order to fall in line, right? In order to fall in line and conform with a collective view of the group, right? To conform with the group's false judgment. Even when you know that the judgment of your group is wrong, you still go along with it, just like the one you see on your screen right now, right? See over here, you have the balls and then everybody say, oh, yeah, wonderful, wonderful, come in, top notch, great idea, chief, you know, couldn't be better, I'm with you, all are brilliant, right? All suck ups, right? That's what, that's what we are, you still know. In a group, whenever we are in the group, do you think you can, when everybody agrees with the boss, be it in a university or college or an office, wherever it is, or even among your friends, do you think when everybody agrees, do you want to be the big, you know, man in the bottom who says, no, no, no, no, I don't like that idea, right? No, of course not, just like a student, right? Whenever the students, they may have questions in the classrooms, but then they don't want to ask, why? Because they're wondering what the other, the rest of the students will think about it. It's only, you don't want to look stupid, right? Maybe you think that in a crowd, you begin to, you begin in a crowd, right? In a crowd, you begin to doubt your own judgment, right? This shows how majority, right? How the views of the majority can exert a powerful impact on the judgment of the minority, right? Everybody wants to be the suck up, and everybody wants to say, okay, okay, fine, fine, let's go along with it, even when you know that it is wrong, right? Like just for instance here in Nagaland, because we're in Nagaland, right? In a tribal society like Nagaland, would you go up against the decision of your own tribe, right? Even when you know that they are wrong, would you be comfortable questioning the judgment and the intelligence of your tribe? Would you? Of course not, you won't. Or if you are working in your, maybe in your universities, in your colleges, or wherever in the workplace, do you want to go against everybody's wishes? Do you want to go against and point out that everybody is wrong and that you are right? Of course not. So here we are, this is what happens, and this is what exactly what the experiments show, right? So in this way, in this way, such conditions, right? Such examples, powerfully illustrates, you know, how easily ordinary people like you and I can be influenced into committing atrocities, right? Just look at Ravanda, just look at Nagaland also. You don't even have to look back, right? Few years back, I mean, to 10 years back, five years back, you will find such kind of examples happening. So I think we have to, you know, like look into these issues, I mean examine it carefully. In other words, what this finding suggests was that how social conditions, right? Or the circumstances which are actually shaped by our own groups or society's norms and values, they influence our tendency to obey and go along with the crowd, right? Go along with the group. Even when we know that the judgment of our group is falsely or wrong. So this partly indicates not only our tendency to fall in line and go along with the group judgment, but also the enduring and almost instinctual need to obey the command of our authority, right? Or your tribal leaders or your tribal political leaders, you may say that, especially those whom we see as legitimate, right? You see, in another experiment done in Harvard University, it was done by a famous psychologist called Stanley Milgram, right? The results of this experiment was very, very boring, very, very ominous, right? So what the experiment showed was that we are all capable, like you and I, we are all capable of violating, right? Of violating our most cherished values and principles when an authority perceives us legitimate, urges us to obey, right? Whenever those leaders whom you think are legitimate in your eyes, whenever they ask you to obey, no matter how atrocious their commands may be, you may think that you love your friends and your neighbors who may belong to a different tribe. But then if your tribal leaders says, you know what, they are no longer our friends, you know, to go and hurt them, then you will go and hurt them, right? You will begin to see your friend in a very different light. It is, you may think that I'm, you know, you may think this is just fantasy, but then if you actually think about it, this is what has happened in Nagaland, right? And I'm sure this will happen again. If we don't understand these issues properly and try to mitigate it, this will happen again. What the experiment also showed was that the substantial percentage of the participants or the people, right? They did, they actually did what we're told to do as long as they perceive that such commands comes from a higher authority. The one very disturbing, right? One very, very, very disturbing results or findings was that we offer unquestioned obedience with little thought as to the rightness and wrongness of our actions, right? Indeed, blind obedience becomes the norm. We see furthermore that when we do what has been urged by the authority, right? When we do such things, which is something morally depraved and wrong, we don't see such heinous acts as a crime. Rather, we see it as an act of loyalty, duty, and once attachment to the group and so forth. It's like you proving to your group that, oh, look at me, I'm so loyal to my group, right? Moreover, in obeying, right? In obeying your group, you also wash your hands of any sort of responsibility for your actions, for your heinous acts, because you simply reply back whenever you are being accused that you just reply back by saying that we are not, that I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm not doing anything wrong. I was just told to do this and hence I did it, right? I'm not the one responsible. So this state of moral vacuum, right? This state of moral vacuum where no single individual appears to solve responsibility for the consequences. For the consequences was rightly defined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt as the penalty of evil, right? The penalty of evil. What do we mean by that? It just simply means this, that what we call evil, right? We like to talk a lot about evil. What we call as evil is often and usually the end result of a chain of action for which no single individual appears to solve responsibility, right? Look at the killings that happened during the ULB election or the killings that happened in the lynching. Who is responsible? Those people who actually took part in beating up the innocent guy, right? And killing him, who will take responsibility for that murder? Or even for the killing that happened during the ULB election, who is responsible for it? Ultimately, if you think about it, no one, right? Because everything happened in the group. Everybody can start blaming, oh, it was not me, you know. I was told by this person to do this and whatnot. So nobody ultimately in the end, nobody bears the responsibility for the outcome. That's the penalty of evil. And what is even more shocking? And this is something that I want you to remember. What is even more shocking is that such crime, right? Or such act of evil are usually committed by ordinary average law abiding people like you and me. What you see in the movie, right? Of the villains are just fantasies. In real life, the villain, the evil people, right? If you have watched any kind of action movie, whenever you see the action movie, there's some villain, right? So the villain is you, right? In real life, the villains, right? Are average, ordinary people like you and me who are in fact, you may think that you are a very good person. I may think that I'm a very good person, a very good friend. But in reality, you and I are in fact capable of committing the most atrocious, the most depraved of acts in the name of our group, in the name of our tribe, in the name of our community, and in devoting our blind obedience to those leaders and authority we see as legitimate, right? If you don't believe me, ask yourself how many times you wish to have committed some sort of heinous acts, right? In fact, if there is no rule, if there's a breakdown of rule in society, you will, who knows to what extent you will go to carry out those repressed tendencies that you have, right? It is therefore not surprising that many of us unquestioningly obey the commands of our group, right, of our group and of its authority, no matter how oppressive and tyrannical, because it is a way of relieving ourselves of the burdens of freedom, right? But when I say freedom, I mean responsibility, right? You don't bear responsibility or accountability for your actions, right? You don't. You find somebody to blame for your actions, and that's what exactly happens in the crowd, right? Whenever you do follow your group, whenever you are in a group and you do something wrong, right? Who is going to blame you? Who will pinpoint you, right? No one, it provides some sort of that de-individuation, all right, anonymity, right? Hence, everybody can beat up the innocent guy. Are you going to arrest everybody, you see? So now the issue is that the most important question now becomes what does this mean, all this obligation, all these obedience conformism mean for the political obligation, but which we are speaking of? It essentially means this, it essentially means this, that we must bear in mind, remember that leaders and politicians have long realized, right? They have long realized that our population united is always stronger than those who rule over it, right? That's why, since the beginning of fully developed civilization, stretching back to ancient times, right? Rulers have, rulers have, have always asked the 16th century political philosopher, who is it? The Italian philosopher Nicola Machiavelli, right? So, as Machiavelli states that since the ancient times, right, rulers have always, leaders and political rulers have always sought, have always sought to divide the many, divide this population, right? Divide the many and lig in the force, which was strong while it was united through the use of those methods, which promotes division, right? In simple words, right? In simple words, this simply means that by dividing the population along the lines of tribe and class and religion and gender and political preferences, whatever, what not? The effect of crowd psychology, which we have been discussing so far, right? Whenever you divide your people, whenever you divide the people or population of a society along these tribal lines or religious line or what not, this crowd psychology kicks in. And when it kicks in, it renders any rational discourse from happening, right? It renders impossible any rational debate to take place within different groups, right? And why? Why? Because each group considers its own standards, its own norms and values as ultimate and indisputable, right? And if you consider, if you think that your group is the best, if the norms and values and traditions and customs that your group, that your society, that your tribe, that your community follows is good and ultimate and indisputable, then there's no way that you can discuss rationally with different group about what can actually help. There's no discussion. By saying that ours is the best you have, by that you have shut any sort of, any sort of rational discussion from happening, right? And when population are divided along groups, along tribes, along religion or gender, right? Which are naturally wrong, which are naturally inclined to clash, then this offers, this offers the rulers with a safe and secure source of their power, right? In other words, the more population you divide, the more secure your power is for the leaders. Thus it makes easier for the political and tribal leaders to control the masses, to control its people, right? And aim that sentiment, that sentiment, that crowd sentiment towards attaining certain political and socioeconomic goals. So for instance, like in India, you can see the caste system. And the caste system in India is huge. It's very, very sentimental, right? If you try to, you know, the caste system, people will start killing each other for that. In fact, you know, people actually kill each other for that, right? For caste. Or even look at, look at, for instance, the issue between Hindus and Muslims, right? In India. In India, Hindus and Muslims, they are used against each other for political purposes, right? For political purposes. They, you know, political leaders, you know, the religious leaders, they make use of that sentiments, that suspicious, the fear sentiments, and then they create tension. Even in Nagaland and tribal societies, the politicians that they have, all the leaders that you think of, the political leaders, even the underground leaders, they all make use of the tribal division to stay in power. They are in power. Why? Because they are in power precisely because they can make use of that division. If they are, if they can't make use of that division, they won't be, if the society, if the population is united, then all the present rulers, all the present leaders will not be leaders. They will not even, they will not be able to secure the seed of power. They can't. And they're precisely because they can, they make use of that, of the tribal divisions that we have here in Nagaland, or in India as well, right? Which is to say that, you know, in a highly divisive and oppressive social and political system, right? In such kind of system, leaders, they can only maintain and sustain its control over its population, right? They use a very subtle mechanism in order to control its population, in a highly divisive, in a highly divided and divisive society like Nagaland or India. What they do is, they try to control the minds of its people, right? You see, in a very subtle manner, in a very indirect manner, they won't control you directly, but they will control your mind. And the more you identify with your group, the more you identify with your tribe, the more you identify with your caste and your religion, the easier it is to be controlled by the tribal leaders, to the religious leaders, or by leaders who want to use you for their own benefit. And you don't even know, and you won't even realize that you are being used, you are being manipulated, right? That you are just a pawn, you are just a puppet. You don't realize that. But then that's the fact, you become a pawn. You are being controlled. So the leaders, they always try to control your mind, right? If they can control your mind, then they have secured the source of power. They have, and they will exploit that division, right? That division in a society to secure that power. And these leaders and rulers will resort to any kind of, you know, any kind of tribal and religious divisions, as the very famous George Orwell, right? He most famously said, political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectful. That is exactly what's happening, right? If you just give a quick survey of political landscape here in India or in Nagaland, it becomes evident that a fight for this control over the minds of its population, right? It becomes more evident, right? Political violence along religious lines in India, right? Or the inherent tribal tension among tribes in Nagaland, right? It's so easy. I mean, all those leaders, all those present, all the MLAs in Nagaland, all the ministers, MLAs in Nagaland, and all the tribal leaders, they are leaders precisely because they are able to make use and take advantage of that division, right? If there is no division, none of them will be in power. None of them will be leaders, right? Think about that. And they are able to become politicians and they're able to become ministers and MLAs precisely because they make use, they exploit the division in the society. Do you think whenever the politicians, and I bet you, all the politicians, I dare you, I can even, you know, I bet you, or every politician, you think whenever they say they are against tribalism, do you think they actually mean that? Of course not. It's a lie, right? Like George Orwell says, it's a lie. They don't believe that. In fact, they want divisions to happen. They want divisions to go on. They want tribalism to go on. Why? Because as long as the Nagas are tribal, they remain in power, right? Imagine there are some politicians who has been politicians for 20, 30 years and they're still there. Why? Because they're still there precisely because they're able to make use of that division. Without the division, they're nothing, right? We let them control us. So the ultimate question we must now turn to is, what can be done to become aware of our conditions so that you and I are no longer a puppet to be controlled, to be controlled and manipulated? The answer simply lies in you actually, right? The answer simply lies in you. You must free yourself. And when I say you must free yourself, you must free your mind. You must free your mind. When we realize that, when you and I realize that gaining control of the individual's minds, the most fundamental means of control, then it becomes obvious and clear that the first step to counter such a tyrannical force is to undergo the very difficult, so easy, the very difficult process of freeing your own mind. You must become free. You must become you. No doubt this process of becoming an individual with freedom of mind, with freedom of thought, it's not easy. It's not easy because in order to retain the freedom of thought, you must risk exclusion from your group, right? You must be willing to be excluded from your tribe, from your community. You must risk that. However, this is very, very difficult. How many of you or how many of us are willing to do that? How many of us are willing to be excluded and alienated and exterminated from your own tribe and community? Not many, right? You may talk high and mighty in front of public talking about how good you are, how bad the corruption is, how bad tribalism is, but whenever you actually must do something, whenever you must actually do something in action, it risks, right? You risk being alienated. You risk being excommunicated from your community. And when that happens, when you are faced with the risk of being excommunicated from your community, would you still believe in tribalism is bad? Of course not. You won't. And this is precisely what John Stuart Mill, right, the political philosopher John Stuart Mill, calls the tyranny of social pressure, right? The most dangerous of all tyranny is the tyranny of social pressure. I'm sure of it. And certainly no one, nobody wants to be alienated. Nobody wants to be excluded from our tribe, right? And hence you just simply conform, right? You simply conform and go along and go along with the people, right? You just go along with the people. You don't question. You become a sheep, right? So you must bear in mind. And I'll give you a very simple example. If, I mean, there are students I see like in this, for this webinar. If you may want to become something else, right? You may want to become a sports star or a singer, those students over here. But then whenever you do that, how many times have you faced some sort of resistance from your family or from your tribe or from your community not to pursue what you want, but actually pursue, you know, try to get, you know, try to pass the UPS exam, NPS exam and get government job. Even though you don't want to, even though you may not wish to go for government job, somehow you are pressured into it, right? How many of you are? And I'm sure many of you are facing that situation. So that's what it means by, you know, the tyranny of social pressure. You must be able to overcome such kind of pressure in order to become, in order to gain the freedom of your thought, freedom of mind. You must bear in mind that this tendency to obey is very prominent, is one of the most prominent features of man. But then very few, very few towards human history, even in the face of corrupt power were willing to stand up and refuse to obey. They were, they refused to let their minds be controlled and thus they refused to become a slave, a sheep, right? An undifferentiated atom. So the best manifestation, right? The best manifestation of being free is to remain true to yourself. You be authentic, be original. Don't copy, right? Do not try to be a pathetic copy of somebody by constantly mimicking others, right? Don't do that. Such individuals, whenever you try to free yourself, whenever you are free, whenever you are you, whenever you attend your authentic self, you become one less, you know, one less born in an oppressive system, right? And whether you are aware of it or not, whether you are aware of it or not, you will play a crucial role in the rejuvenation of the society, right? It's not an easy task to be yourself. It's not by any means. And this brings me, this reminds me of this, as you can see, this reminds me of actually, of an episode about, as you can see, this is Socrates, right, Socrates? You see, Socrates, whenever he was put to trial, right? In Athens, whenever he was put to trial for the, for impiety, for impiety, i.e., you know, not believing what the Athenians were believing and not worshiping the cause of Athens and corrupting the minds of the youth. By that it means Socrates was trying to, you know, was trying to make the individuals, make the young generation think. But what happened was that many people in Athens did not like it. They did not like the fact that Socrates was trying to enlighten and make the youths of Athens more critical thinkers, critical and independent thinkers. So they brought him to trial, right? Which they knew that they were going to punish Socrates whether, you know, come what may, but we are going to punish Socrates for this. So in return, Socrates did not put up a defense. He did not put up any defense, but he only said this, right? And he only said this, and I want you to, and I'll read it very slowly so that you, that you, you know, that you are, that you can be aware of it. He said this, they spoke to you, right? They spoke to you when you would most readily believe them. Some of you being children and adolescents, and they warned their case by default, as there was no defense. In other words, what Socrates was trying to say is this. Whenever we are from a very young age, right? We are from a very young age, constantly indoctrinated from a very young age, the virtues and the goodness of our group, of our tribe, of our kind, right? We just, we just said implicit way or an indirect way of saying to not question, just conform to what he has been taught, right? Just conform, just have a blind faith in your community and just have a blind faith in all those values and beliefs which we are trying to hammer into your tiny little head, right, don't ask questions. And if you are brought up like that, in the end, you will only believe that, right? You will only believe that no matter what others, no matter what, even if God comes and tells you not to believe that you will continue to believe your group, right? That's what Socrates was saying, right? And much in the same way, right? Our freedom to think independently, right? It's all, but you know, this is how we are being indoctrinated and this is how we are being told to think and view the world, however, right? However, maybe the only way, the only way to unshackle ourselves of this change of obedience, right? This change of obedience is to disobey, to not conform. These obedience become essential to push the society forward, right? And it is what is most required, as is mentioned by the psychologist, Eric From, right? That those with the courage to disobey are not only the protectors of freedom, but they are the ones who move the society forward. As he says in your screen, as you can see, man has continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only with his spiritual development, not only was his spiritual development possible only because there were men who dared to say no to the powers, but also his intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient, disobedient to authorities who tried to suppress new thoughts. OK, so with that, I end the talk, and I will be willing to, you know, and I'll be, I look forward, actually, I look forward to criticism, especially criticism, observation questions, but also criticism. I like criticism. So yeah, so here we go. OK, thank you so much for your effort. I was having some internet issues, so I couldn't join in the beginning. I apologize for that. But yes, I was able to listen to you very clearly, and I'm sure there might be some questions, and at least we can take up. So I open the screen for the question. If there are questions, we can take up. Before our forum talks about the question, I just remember the quote from Moom Chomsky. I hope I'm audible. So Moom Chomsky, you mentioned that smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to keep them in the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within the spectrum. What is your view in this context? Dr. Anirudh, can you, can you, you can also use this chat, because I'm not very clear with the thing, yeah? I'm not very clear with your question. I mean, the network was not clear, so I cannot hear you clearly. So can you repeat that? Okay, okay, I will, okay, okay, okay, sure, sure, sure. Yeah, and also I ask if, like if you are, if you are not very comfortable asking, you can just type in your questions, right? So that would be good too. Yes, yes, go ahead, can I send to you? Yes. Hello, am I audible? Yes, yes, very clear, very clear, yes. Okay, thank you so much for your wonderful presentation. It was really engaging. I am a student of Hector College, the fifth semester at German political science. Yes. My question is that if you go to the meeting that you have mentioned, I guess if I'm not mistaken, it is March 5th and 7 months. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes, when we got to that, I was just wondering that the students who were involved in that, like nobody was responsible for that very, but then what do you think about, you know, that the education system in molding or shaping the minds of the student is our education system doing enough in molding or shaping the minds of the young minds, like me or my friends? Thank you, Kili said you. I think, yeah, thank you. That's a very good question actually. And yeah, the education system has to be blamed really, not be honest, because the kind of education you get, trust me, I mean, I feel so sorry for your generation because the kind of education you're getting is just, please forgive my language, but just pathetic really, they never teach you anything outside. No, you're, first of all, the syllabus is very, very all outdated. Second, for your generation, you're not taught any sort of critical thinking. You're only told to follow, you're only told to obey. What is a good student? A good student is somebody that obeys the teacher, but that's not the case. You must be told how to think. You must not only believe what your teacher says, because most of the teachers, what they say is wrong, right? They are wrong. They're just fully completely wrong. And this brings back to the issue of what you were saying, what you were discussing about that students are interneleaching. You see, nowadays, your generation, especially the younger generation, the youth generation, you are more or less indoctrinated about certain way of viewing the society, right? Certain way of viewing the society, certain way of perceiving the society. You are, I mean, right now also in your own personal life, can you disobey anybody in your life other than your siblings, younger siblings, right? Nobody, there's nobody that you can go in and disagree with. And if you disagree with somebody else, you are, you know, very quickly put down, right? So much in the same way that what you saw, what you saw in the lynching process is that that the sentiment, the vile, savage, barbaric sentiment about your own group, right? Oh, you did this, you non, and you know, you non-Naga did this to a Naga group. You got a point, right? Nobody was able to reason, right? No reasoning, you were so. Because you and I, we are so indoctrinated from a very young age, oh, you are Naga, you are distraught with this community hands. If anybody does anything to you, you should take it personally, right? So that's the kind of mentality that young, that your generation, that, you know, that your generations are indoctrinated into. You don't even know that you're controlled by your community, right? So those young stupid students, right? Yeah, of course they're stupid. Who told them to be there, right? They've been indoctrinated, oh, it's Naga and non-Naga. You see that thing, the boil, it just shoots up, the blood just shoots up into their head. So there's no point, you can't reason with them at all. Moreover, whenever individuals like you, like you, especially like youths like you, whenever you are immersed in the crowd, whenever you are in the crowd, you are just, you are no longer you. What made you you, what can you set you, right? What makes you, what makes can you set you, can you set you, is lost. You are now a part of the crowd. And whenever you are in the crowd, you gain some sort of power, right? Yes or no, right? That's why you want friends. Whenever you walk with your friends, you have some sort of power with you, right? So once you are immersed in the crowd, like I said, the power of the reason is lost. And moreover, in the crowd, there's so many people, right? So it gives you an anonymity, right? You can do things without people finding out, right? You can do things without letting others find out that you have done it, right? Unfortunately, for those stupid students, you need the pictures are everywhere in the internet, right? If you just check it out. So what happens is that in the crowd, because the crowd gives you anonymity, even a good person becomes very, very bad. Things which you would never do when you are by yourself, you will do in the crowd. That's why in the crowd, right? Whenever you are, whenever you see in the protest whatnot, the most violent people are the most low-abiding citizens. Just imagine that. The most violent people in the crowd, right? The most violent people in the crowd are the most violent citizens, right? Just imagine. But the thing is this. If you are, but here's the thing. If you truly know who you are, if you are not trying to mimic others, if you truly know who you truly are, then you will not be manipulated. Even though you are in the crowd, you will maintain your sanity. You got one point, right? You will maintain your sanity. So that's why be yourself. But the thing is, the education system presently in Nagaland and elsewhere in India is that we don't teach you how to be you. You got one point, right? That's the failure of the education system. If we teach you who, if we teach you to be you, then even though I place you among a group, you will still maintain, you will still be you. You will not do stupid things. You got one point? So I hope I've answered that question for you. Is that clear? I mean, did I answer your question? Can you, can you set you? Okay, okay, good, good. You guys, can you hear me? Yes, sir, yes, sir. So, yeah, so my, my, actually the thing is the thing is my network just crashed. So, Dr. Anirudh, can you kindly also please, please restate your question, because it's called now the question which you have, you know, so, religion, religion, religion, religion. Hey, I understand, I understand, but you are in, but even I want to take a break. Oh really? So we both share the same subject. Okay, anyway, I was just thinking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. No, Chomsky, somewhere mentioned about, you know, the best way to keep your classes, you know, is to limit the scope of their opinion. Yes, yes, yes, yes. At the same time, lively debate, right? So on the one hand, you are allowing people to talk, but they are keeping a very narrow scope for their arguments, right? So how do you see such a grand political, psychological complex? I mean, this is exactly what democracy is all about, don't you think? You are allowing people to talk, but you are, you know, giving them or a very small spectrum. Who is giving them a small spectrum of voice out? Oh, well, this is what, that while limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion, allowing very lively debate, right? On one hand, you know, the limiting, the spectrum of acceptable opinions there, and on the other hand, it's also encouraged, right? Don't you think? I mean, what I mean is that rather than voice out, your opinions are respected, your opinions are not denied, your opinions are restricted, right? Okay, so I apologize, Dr. Anirudh. Connection, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but from what I can catch, I'll probably question this, yes. Yes, Dr. I'm sorry, Noam Chomsky. You bring up a very good point, John Noam Chomsky. Chomsky, in one of his writings, he turned what is known as manufacturing consent, right? By manufacturing some sort of consent, right? But then the consent is not a consent of everybody, but then they are trying to limit the scope of what is, who can say what, what can be said, right? Where it can be said, so all the limiting, oh, so it limits the criteria of what you can actually say. So this is all the opinion that in a democracy, like us in India, like democracy, especially in democracy, by having, by some sort of limit what the population or citizens can say. That is exactly the point, because sure, even in a very tribal society, or you would know, because I think you are the one who studied in, who specialized us in that caste system with the unbacker in studying. So you see, even in caste system, or in religion, or in tribal system, right? You are already limited to what you can do on what you can say. What defines you, the thoughts that you can hold, the beliefs that you have, right? What are good, what are bad, what is good, what is defined as beautiful and true, they are all limited. Imagine that even between the Hindus and Muslims, in for instance, in political spectrum, in political context. It's already defined that, you know, you can't do this, you can't do that. In India, you cannot have a prime minister who is like implicitly who is a Muslim, right? Imagine a tribal politician becoming a prime minister of India. That's not possible, never, right? Even when the world comes to an end, it never happened, right? So much in the same way, everything is limited. It limits you from saying, it limits you from truly exercising who you truly are. You are limited to what you can actually think and say, because by limiting those spectrum of legitimate voice or opinion, you are already, those who have framed the criteria of what you can say are already controlling you. So your opinion does not really matter. And moreover, in the tribal society and even in the caste system, you actually don't have anything, I mean, it's sad to say this, but then we think that we are individuals, we are free, but then we are not free. In fact, even those people who are here, right? And those people outside, they think that they are free, but they are not. Why? Because the view of the world, the opinions that you hold are not yours. It's your opinions, your beliefs are something that has been told to you, that has been indoctrinated into you, that has been hammered into you, right? Most of you, if you are a Hindu or a Christian, you are a Hindu or a Christian because you were born into a Hindu family or a Christian family, right? Most of you, if you are what not, right? You may say, oh, I'm this tribe, I'm that tribe. Why? Because you were born into that tribe, not because you had a say, and you can't even have a say, right? The same thing is that, you can't even have a say now. Right? So much in the same way, we are already limited and even our worldview is already limited. That's why we are no longer free. There's a limitation to what you can think, how far you can go. It's already limited. You cannot truly fulfill the human potential that you have, mainly because you ascribe to your own community or to your own group. So I hope I have answered that. If not, you can ask me again, a clarifying question. I'll, you know, you can type it actually to ground roots and I'll, you know, explain it better, I suppose. Anything else? Any questions? Any criticism? Any observation? Yes? Can I come in? Yeah. Yes, I can come in. Hi, can I come in? Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, I mean, yeah, thank you very much. That was a little bit of a very interesting observation. Yeah, but not so much of a question, but rather a curiosity from my side. The examples that you have cited about the proud mentality and all this. I was wondering if such behavior comes to your conformity rather than the end. I just want to hear your thoughts on that. Okay, okay. Should I repeat the question, Dr. Sallikio? Yes, yes, repeat. Okay. I was wondering, I'm just curious because this is not my area. The examples that you have cited of mob lynching and the proud mentality. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was wondering if this is behavior comes nearer to conformity rather than obedience. I mean, when we... Confirm, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, I got your point, okay. That's actually a good point, but I think you see, I think conformity and obedience is more or less the same. Psychological perspective is more or less the same because to obey requires an element of conformity, right? You obey, why? Because everybody else is doing it. You're trying to conform. Why do you obey? For instance, whenever you're in the university, you obey to certain rules and regulations. Why? Because you can't be the only one in the university or the college or in the workplace that does something else. When everybody's following, conforming to certain way of doing things, right? And if you try to diverge from that, if you try to disobey, then you are not conforming, right? So from a psychological perspective, from a psychological perspective, the issue of conformity and obedience, they have the same underlying roots of it. They have an element of each other in it because you can never say that you are obeying without an element of conformity. Obedience has as its roots the element of conforming, right? You are conforming to a certain standards of way of doing things. You are conforming to a certain way of thinking. Whenever you obey your tribal leaders, whenever you obey your tribe, you are conforming to your tribal traditions, to your tribal beliefs, right? You're conforming to that. It has more to do with, I think it is wrong to need big, when we speak of psychological factors because they are closely related. They are closely tightly interrelated. You can never separate them. So you can never speak of obedience without saying some sort of conformity. Whenever you obey, you are conforming, right? You are conforming to it. So I think that's, I think if I've clarified, or if you want me to clarify again, I'll be willing to do that. Sir, I would like to put up a question. Daniel here. Yes, Mr. Altamey. So thank you very much for your support. I am not concentrating on the things that I'm thinking about. I just want to make sure others should make the microphone, only let my microphone be open then the voice will be less. No, no. So my question is not like on the basis of Nagaland's Moblin link, but like the abrogation of 370, article 370, we have seen recently. And at the same time, they have government as bandit, internet. In the same time, government use the Preventive Detention Act in order to defend those politicians so that they cannot influence the mass people for mass agitation. So, yeah, this is this is a democratic country because like freedom of association, freedom of expression is all about like pressure groups, you know, we need pressure groups. So that pressure groups will put, continue to put pressure upon the government, so democratic system will function smoothly. So, suppose people due to any reason they come in, you know, as a group and they agitate against the government. So, yes, in the group, anything can happen because their motive maybe do have a non-violence way, but it can turn into violence because we cannot give guarantee thousand, two thousand, five thousand, five lakhs, people gather together. So, there might be non-violence also, take place, you know, so, but agitating against the government is also very important, you know, in this manner. I'm not talking about an agilent issue, that is different, that is a different thing. So, what I mean is, it is also against the human rights what the government has done against the 370, article 370 removed very good, but using that MISA, under MISA that maintenance of internal security, under MISA Act, and then under TA-DA, Terrorist Detention Act, all this. So, I feel like in a democratic country, people should be allowed to, you know, hesitate like this. What do you think? Yes, you're right. I think in a democratic country, you're allowed to agitate and you must be allowed to agitate. But I think whenever I speak of, but then if you think about the crowd in general, like protesting, whenever you have this catering mass protesting, if you actually think about it, it's always there to stop something, right? They're never there to build anything. They're always there to stop something. We have to stop the citizenship amendment act, we have to stop the farm bill, we have to stop this, we have to stop that. We have to stop the ULB election, we have to stop. There's nothing about building anything, right? It's always about stopping something. So, what I was trying to say is that, yes, in a democratic country, and you're right, you must be allowed to come into associations and then, you know, have some sort of a pressure towards the government. But on the other hand, sometimes, especially in a very tribal society, in a very highly divisive society, they have a very diverse society like India itself and India Nagaland itself, sometimes this gathering is not the solution, or maybe it's, you're never going to get anywhere with that. I don't think so, and I don't think you'll get anywhere. And what they did in terms of, you know, the government trying to remove, whenever they remove Article 370, and try to restrict the, like you rightly mentioned, they tried to restrict the organization of people forming into groups and protesting against government, is I think that, you see, the government, we cannot really say that the government is good or bad, but then they are, in a sense, trying to limit people, right? From stopping, from stopping the government, from not, they're trying, they're not, they're trying not to let the people interfere in the government, in the workings of the government, whatever that may be, good or bad. I think we make a constant mistake that the government is always there to do good. But in politics, I don't think the government is there to, I don't think the government is there to do good. We say, we use the term, democracy, but then democracy in actual sense, don't happen in India. It doesn't happen anywhere in the world, right? So you're right. I think we have, in a democratic society, we have to maintain certain sort of right to form a situation and then, you know, have pressure, we must, we must. But then sometimes it is good, like you said, it's right, but also sometimes, I don't think it is good also, right? I don't think it is, because in I, it only exists whenever people do come together in this kind of form in groups, it only exists and it only certifies and solidifies the divisions in the society. That's my, that's my, that's my feeling, that's my idea. That's why I'm not a big fan of crowds because, and I'm not even a big fan of those protesting because in many cases, protesting won't get you anywhere, right? I mean, we have seen during the Citizenship Amendment Act, right? Many people were protesting everywhere, but what happened? Nothing happened, right? Even in Nagaland, you know, so many protests happened, so many protests and ban happened, right? What did they achieve? Nothing, right? They only did to stop something. They never did to construct anything, just stopping something. And that also, it's colored with tribal colors, right? The tribal colors. I mean, in those kind of scenarios, right? Even me, I'm afraid to even go and see also because who knows what may happen? It's very, it's something that I don't, that I feel like the crowd is not only a democratic, it's not only a force of democracy, but remember, most of the authoritarian government came to power by using crowds, see? Look at Hitler, look at Stalin, look at Mao. Even look at Modi himself, right? He's a populist, right? Even Donald Trump, he's a populist. You can never tell that they are truly democratic leaders. They are not. They are more or less a populist. They use the crowd for their own kin. And that's precisely my point. You use the crowd. That's what politicians do. That's what leaders do. They try to exploit that. And they come to power with the power of the crowd because the crowd cannot think. You just tangle meat in front of them and then the crowds are stupid. So we just go and grab them, you see? So that's, that's the thing. So yeah, yeah, so you're right. 371A in return, I'm sorry. 370s, the government should not have, I don't know, but they may have a better reason. But yeah, in democracy, yes, you are supposed to be in your, supposed to have freedom to form associations. But yeah, in democracy, yeah, but then that becomes a forming of a situation that becomes actually a way to anarchy, you can say that, or a way to fascist, like Moti, right? Like Hitler, like Stalin, so, yeah. Thank you for the question. If you have more, and if you want me to clarify. Sir, I think- Yes, yes, yes. One of the students also asked about one question and we said, like, critical study is very important. But I really like that because of this music. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, you're right, yeah. I think critical study is taking the example of whatever is happening around, in and around the country or outside. You should take the example and explain to our classes. That is one of the need, actually. And that's another thing like- Yes, you're right. TADA, another act like TADA, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Preventive Act. There also, BGP government has made a lot of amendments, like they have made it very, very strict. Now, anyone can be declared as Terrorist if you are found, you know, linked in certain things. So, it was not like what it was before during Congress time. They just recently, last year, they have changed it. In the same time, they also change RTI, Right to Information Act, you know. Now, we cannot get A to Z information. They also, they have not made some changes in amendments where people cannot access all the information. So, what do you think? No, if they continue like this, so I'm sure in future, there'll be more bigger kind of, you know, this one, I would say. Vegetations, you know, by any group. Yes, you're right. So, we cannot take it as, it's a wrong movement by the people, whatever they agitate, because we love our country. So, we have to go against the government. And government is a, it's not this one. They cannot run the country through democratic centralization process. Now, BGP government is doing like the way it is happening in Russia or China, democratic centralization. Now, the 62 crore farmers in India out of, around more than 50% people are farmers in India. So, the farmers build, they do not even consult with any farm, farmer associations and all. So now, people are, farmers are agitating. Likewise, I think government, whenever the government follow the democratic centralization process, like Indra Gandhi also did some time for the national emergency calls. So likewise, I think this is the right of the people, because Article 19 gives us that power. Because we're a political science teacher, we'll be teaching students freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of writing. And in the same time, we will say that you are like that. You cannot attain the pressure groups. I don't know how to connect with people. Yeah, I know, I mean, to get back to your point, I think the thing is, how many outside of like us know about all the changes that have been, all the changes that has been made with regards to their result? Not many, right? You see? You get my point. Not many people know that. Only you and only people who are here know that, right? So there are crores and crores of people who don't know that their lives have changed, right? The rules have changed, but they don't know. And it's in the interest of the government of authoritarian power to do that. Because it's better to do things hidingly, right? And the thing is, once, like you rightly mentioned, that those changing by changing the laws they've made, they've made changes so that it restricts you in so many ways, right? It restricts you. But the thing is this, the government is trying to, how do I put this? By restricting what you can say, they're also trying to put up some sort of, how do I put this? Some sort of, some way to distract you. You see, distraction, it's very, very essential in trying to control anybody, to control your mind, right? To control the mind of the population. You must not only restrict what they can say, what they can do, but also you distract them. So that if you're distracted here, if you're distracted here, you can make their scope of freedom even lesser, right? And they wouldn't even know it. And that's exactly what's happening with this government, right? And then this government, the BJP came not because of democratic power, but because of populism and whatnot. And then what they've done is that they've made sure that they will distract the people of India like this and then when everybody's watching over here, they'll slowly reduce the freedom of expression like this. And in the end, you will not even know, that's why I mentioned in the discussion, that we will not even know that they're being controlled, right? We will not even know that. And that's exactly what's happening. We don't even know that our lives, our freedoms are being limited day by day and then we're just distracted over here. So that's, and that's why I feel like, and I may be wrong and you may be right, but I feel like there won't be any protests. And even if there's protests, it'll be like very few, because many people are distracted with something else, not with this. And in modern society, in modern democracy, in modern democracy, people care more about this dangling distraction than the actual freedom. And in fact, like I said at the beginning of the lecture, that we try to, the burdens of freedom is too much. Because when I say freedom, by freedom, it means responsibility. That you must be responsible for your actions. You must be responsible for your life. But many people nowadays, they don't want freedom. They don't want responsibility. They want things to be given to them, right? They want things to be given to them. They don't want responsibilities. It's too much to bear. That's why who knows and I may be wrong. And you may be right. Later on also, whenever our freedom is limited more and more, we won't even protest. That's my fear. That's my fear. So yeah, but yeah, you're right here. Okay, sir, thank you. I think they're taking us in this way also. Yes, yes. Yeah, yes. Thank you very much. Okay, is there any other question we can take up? Thank you. I think Gabriel wanted to... Gabriel has, yeah. Hello, good evening, sir. Good evening, good evening. Sir, yes, I joined in late yet. I find this point very, you know, something which is to be bonded upon. So you did mention about, you didn't mention three points that is true to oneself, be authentic and do not mimic others. But sir, see, in our Nobel Society, we live in a pretty conservative society where we are asked to follow the legacy our ancestors have left behind and, you know, those times restrictions, like direct restriction, plain restrictions. And so, I mean, everyone has their own ways of understanding, but through my understanding and through my own point of view, I say what I feel is that we are mimicking, I mean mimicking as in we are, I find it we are mimicking our ancestors. And then by authenticate, I think what I feel is like authenticate as in being another. And then, sir, so with the changing generation comes or like there's the same with the changing generation, there comes or demands changes. So, can we change a little with those demands? Or like, I mean, getting straight to the point, my question is, how do you suggest to be oneself in a society where our society is always that broad follower or, you know, as you have mentioned about, I think, sir, I hope you can link or connect the points with your with my question, sir. Yeah, a good point, Gabriel. I think you bring up a good point, actually. The thing is, whenever you ask that how do you be, how do you remain true to yourself? How do you be, how do you, how do you, how do you remain you? So, it's, you see, it's not going to be easy. Never think that it's going to be easy. That's why that's why many people don't like to be themselves. Why does it start easy? Because to be you, it requires and it gets and maybe the solution and maybe if you are, if you really, really, really like press me on giving the answer, then it's very, very personal to answer, right? To do the topic, this political opinions. It comes back to the very personal level of you, of you, the person inside of you. To be you, you have to stop being a shallow person, right? But it's not easy, right? It's not easy in a world where you're surrounded by shallow, superficial people. Where the world worships material things, where the world worships, you know, or I belong to this tribe, I belong to that tribe, I belong to that clan, right? It's very, very difficult. It's also very difficult to even stand up and even tell your parents, the closest one, not forget about your tribe and your community, but even to your own parents, you can't even stand up and say, oh, you know what? I don't want to become this. I want to become this, but you're wanting me to become this. And you know what? I'm going to follow my dream, but you can't even say that. And even when you say that, your whole family, your whole clan, your village will come and beat you up and you have no choice but to follow that. You see? But even if you're willing to do that, if you're willing to get all the blame and all the whatnot and still follow your dream, that requires some sort of courage, right? That requires some sort of authenticity inside of you, in you, that you want to follow your dreams. You want to follow the kind of person that you want to be, even though you will have so much, so much pressure given to you by your family, not just by your closest family, but by your family, your friends, your tribe, your community, maybe your village also, right? So the thing is this, it's not easy. Never think that it is easy, Gabriel, to become you. But then it's difficult, but you must. And the only way to become you is just be you. Don't try to do or say things that is not you. Never accept what I'm telling you right now in its first value. Cushion it. Whenever somebody tells you something, don't just blindly accept it. Even if it comes from me, from your own family, from your own trusted friends and families, don't blindly listen. Think. Think yourself. Is what I've been told relevant, right? Relevant? Not just relevant, but does it correspond to the reality of my life? Does it correspond to the reality of my own life, of my own society, of my life? Don't just simply accept it. Cushion. Cushion more, right? That's how you become you. That's how you maintain yourself. And once you start cautioning, then trust me, even if I put you in like an answer to the first question, even if I put you amongst the crowd, you will still retain your individuality. You will still retain your unique self. You will not follow the crowd. And you can't because you are you. Right? And you can think. You can caution. Right? So if you can do that, that's the best way. The best way is to start cautioning. Right? Start cautioning. Because right now, the beliefs that you hold is not yours. You have just mimicked your ancestors, your tribe, whatnot. I don't know. The beliefs is not your belief. The norms are not your norms. The customs are not your customs. You must start asking that question and see if that's relevant to the world, and see if that's relevant to your own life. In other words, in a simple term like Sir Daniel has mentioned, critical thinking. Think critically. That's what I say. Think critically. Ask questions. Then you will become you. It won't be easy. It's never easy, but you must. I'm not sure if I've answered your question, Gabriel. If you want me to clarify again, I will. That was to the point, Sir. Thank you so much. Thank you for the clarification, Sir. Thank you so much. So I've got another question over here. She says, I'm just curious. Her question is, what is the solution to your argument? As long as society remain, leaders will be there. As long as leaders would be there, obedience will naturally be there. So what do you think? So that's obvious, right? So obedience will always be there. Yes, obedience will be there. I'm not saying obedience, we should never, you know, I'm not saying that we should get rid of obedience. Obedience will always be there. But then whenever, but in most cases, in most cases, like I said, in some cases, like parents and children, obedience is required. Sometimes you have to beat the children to make them straight. But sometimes we have to remember that whenever we talk about these things, right, political things, because it is very easy to, it is very easy, I found, and with all the talks I've given, I've realized that it's very easy for people to simply generalize and say, oh, what you're saying is this, no, no, I'm not saying that. We must remember it is contextual, right? Never forget the context. Don't simply generalize to everything. Whatever I'm saying, don't generalize. It's never meant to be generalized. You have to be kind of idiotic to say that, whatever I'm saying has to be generalized. It has to be contextual, right? Context of what? Context in the society that we live in. Context to the group that you belong to, right? The norms, the values, the customs that you believe, right? In that, whenever you follow somebody blindly, I'm sure, I'm sure that you obey, right? I'm sure that you obey. But do you think that by obeying you're doing any good to your own society or even to your own, even to yourself? Ask that question carefully. You will find that, no, you're not doing that. And I'm talking about, I'm talking about obedience in that context, where you don't have to necessarily blindly follow the leaders, blindly follow the customs. You must ask yourself that question, right? If you feel like that by doing this, it's wrong, then don't follow it. But if you think that it's right, right? And if you think that sometimes the group will not always be wrong, sometimes they'll be right. If they're right, go along with it. If they're wrong, say that, hey, maybe this is wrong. Maybe we need to do this. That's what I'm saying, right? That is the whole point of obedience. Obedience also requires that you don't blindly obey. You obey the question, right? You obey it by understanding what you're obeying. That's the whole issue, right? You can't simply say that, that means always the leaders are there, always obedience. So what do we do? The solution is this. Don't obey blindly. Even if you obey, right? Understand what you're obeying, right? Don't blindly obey. Because right now I can show you, if you go out and listen, right? If you go out and listen to anybody and ask their beliefs and even ask about the religious beliefs and whatnot, you'll find that many people don't even understand what they believe in. So if they don't understand what they believe in and they still obey what they believe in, then they are blindly obeying things. I hope you're getting the subtlety. Because Nagas don't get subtlety. Trust me, Saka and Nagas are the worst people to understand subtleties, right? So the thing is, you obey, but then you understand what you're obeying. And if you understand what you're obeying, then you will know when to obey, when not to obey, right? That's the issue. So I'm not sure if... I've answered your question. If you want me to clarify, I'll clarify again. But that's a good question. Sir, I want to add... Sir, thank you so much. Sir, thank you so much. Now it's almost the time. It's almost the time to... Hello? Am I audible, sir? Yes. So it's almost time to say goodbye. Because it's almost 4.40 almost. And I really apologize that my... But whatever I could do my level best to listen to you, I have really done... Once again, to... And such a great one more time. Thank you so much. On behalf of... I express my humble gratitude. And say thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you for the questions and comments. Thank you. Thank you.