 It's been a year since the death of Dr. Amit Sen Gupta, a founding member of the Jan Swasti Abhyan and Global People's Health Movement. On this occasion, we remember his commitment to justice and health for all and his unwavering championship of scientific temper and reason. It's difficult for us to think that Amit left us one year back. But this is really one year since when we lost him. We had just thought that we will do a certain set of activities in his memory. And we start this today with a small discussion about his role in the People's Science Movement because apart from the People's Health Movement, of which he was one of the founders, he was also one of the key figures of the People's Science Movement. He was not only part of the organization, but also in the life of the person. We have a lot to say to the founder of this organization. But it is very difficult to say to the founder of this organization. So, I understood why people remember this person. That's why the person who we call as the founder of the People's Science Movement lived that person with his own people. That's why you can go to Jhabua, or you can go to any of the places you came from. People would do the same. Amit was unusual, not simply in the personality traits that we all sometimes got affectionately exasperated with and mostly were envious of that Asha described. He came with an integrating point of view that very few of us could put together, that very few people in the field could put together. To put together a point of view about biologic drugs that said something about their growing impact in the future, the empirical evidence about their side effects which would have consequences for regulatory action and improvement, their uncertainty of intellectual property rights and therefore the opening that provided us for a People's Activism intervention. And to understand all of this from both a biomedical standpoint, a regulatory activist standpoint and a drug marketplace standpoint and to pull it all together and say here is a new pressure point that needs to be put together in this landscape by activist movements. This is what the man was remarkably good at. So when the Indus civilization is discovered, everyone wants to know how does this narrative of India's origins which has been read off from the Rig Vain fit in with the material of the Indus civilization. And this is a debate that continues to, that is still ignited repeatedly in the public domain because there are these forced correlations that are repeatedly made between the Indus civilization and the Rig Vain. So it's important to spell out why the two don't overlap. So when you look at the Rig Vain, you see that it is this non-urban pastoral society with capital keeping as its central concern. The Indus civilization on the other hand we know was a widespread urban civilization in new cities writing external trade and the state. The other thing is everyone who's done middle school science, social science knows that the Harappans had this widespread trading network. So you would expect if there is some correlation to be made between what is contained in the Rig Vain and the Indus civilization that the Rig Vain would at the very basic level at least refer to areas that are part of this trading network. So, you know, Sindh, Gujarat, Oman, the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia, none of this finds reference in the Rig Vain already. In the Rig Vain, the rhinoceros and elephant are unfamiliar animals. But if you look at the seals that I've put up over here, you can see that the Harappan people were well acquainted with these two animals. An animal which keeps on appearing in the Rig Vedic material is the horse and at best the presence of the horse in the Indus civilization is contested. So, we have to look at what happened around 100 CE as a political development which happened and not as a result neither is divinely ordained nor genetically ordained and that's also significant. It has the caste system therefore there seems to suggest that it has wouldn't have had any rationality to exist in any way but it doesn't have any rationality to exist even by scientific new findings that have arrived. So, in any of these ways that you look at the new findings are significantly a step forward in terms of the understanding ourselves. So, why is there an opposition at all? Because it suggests new findings also suggest that the Arya Sanskrit Vedic culture is not necessarily the foundational source of Indian civilization but that it is an important source of Indian civilization. If you have to see the foundational source of Indian civilization you have to go back to the Hyrapian civilization. Now if any ideology that is based on the assumption that Indian civilization draws its sustenance foundation everything from Arya Vedic Sanskrit culture will have a problem with the findings and that's where the problems are but that's we have to go by what the facts say and not by what we would like to see and if you take the findings in their overall picture it's a highly accelerating thing to find. We have created a common civilization out of four different strands of migrations into this land of thousands of thousands of years and it's a great thing and as my book says we are all Indians, we are all migrants and we are all mixed.