 Good evening everyone. And amongst us, we have Dr. Tia Subramanian, the Dean of CMR Law School from Bangalore, and who has already taken a lot of webinars with us. And it's always pleasure connecting with us. Today, we had been receiving requests from the person at what are the qualities required for the research fellow and research scholar. Therefore, we made a request to Professor Subramanian who was kindly consented to share his insights on this beautiful topic. And we're quite sacrosanct that people will learn from it and march forward in their life towards the research. What do you say? Yeah. Very good evening to all of you. This is Vikas and you are tea. Now, when we take up this point, fundamentally, each research scholar is supposed to know what is research. Unless you know the meaning of research, it is very difficult for us to speak something about the traits or the qualities of a research scholar. So when we speak of research, there are various definitions which are given by eminent scholars. And not only the eminent scholars from various disciplines, they have defined research according to their convenience. Now, we shall adopt the simplest definition so that everyone who listens to the talk will be in a position to understand and appreciate it. No, research is action. Now, you may be interested to know what exactly you mean by this research is action. When we speak about this, research is action because it translates knowledge into action. So when the research which is being done by a particular person translates knowledge into action, the concerned research which is being done by the scholar should have a contemporary relevance. If it is not contextual, if it does not possess contemporary relevance, it is of no use to the society. The very purpose of making this statement is any work which is done under the title of research must be of some use to the society. You should not simply go back to the rex of the library and it is kept in the library and only afterwards it is left for the library staff to clean the dust over it, but then you should come to practical use and application. Now, having spoken about something about the definition of research, I just intend to speak to you one more aspect and this is very crucial. And all the research scholars should examine whether they should fit in, whether they fit into this criteria. Now, first one is who is a critical scholar? A critical scholar is one who restores tests. So what do you mean by a restores test? Now suppose, for example, you take up a topic. Having taken up the topic, you go and work in the library or libraries extensively. For example, I was a student of law at a research column at Javaharlal Nehru Street, New Delhi. When I was a research scholar at JNU in the Center for Legal Studies, I used to go to almost all five libraries. Now you may be interested to know which are these libraries. Now the first one is the JNU library itself. Now there, we used to get about 32 law journals then. I'm telling the story of 1990s. And you make a reading of this and you cannot make a reading of this unless you make a bibliography. Then from there, you used to go to the library of the Indian Law and Shoot and Indian Law and Shoot library. You have a lot of journals as well as test books and the reports of the Supreme Court cases and other journals and other books of varied interest in law. And having collected the material, then you come back to the Indian Society of International Law. And the Indian Society of International Law has wonderful, wonderful books in the area of international law. From there, you go to again, the law ministry library. If your supervisor knows some secretary there, you get an easy access to the law ministry library, which is in the Shastri Bhavan. And having gone there, you make use of the best books there. They order, they don't have dirt for money and make use of the sources. And then ultimately go to the Thinmurthy library and in Thinmurthy library, you have extensive materials on current topics which will be of use to you to develop the topic for a purpose of S position of the topic. This is how remember you just restoring the text. So anything which you write, anything which you state, anything which you substantiate must have, remember a textual information from where it is taken. That is where a critical scholar is one who restores text. Then afterwards, he edits the documents. Now, what do you mean by this? Now, he edits the document simply means remember when you go to the library, you go with the research cards. Unfortunately, most of the people, most of the research scholars these days when they go to the library, they don't go with the research cards. Now, recent card is remember just three times bigger than the postcard itself or four times bigger than the research card itself. And you go and look to a journal and journal may be related to your topic itself. Then afterwards, you try to find out what is it that this person is saying? Is there anything new other than what is known to you? Or is he propounding a new theory? Then immediately remember scientifically, you take down name of the author you write, then the name of the book you write, then the place of publication you write, then year of publication. Afterwards, if you take the paragraph, then after taking the paragraph in inverted commas, you put what is called the page number. That is how he restores texts. And then he collects the documents. When I speak about collecting the documents, remember the first and foremost, you will have to go to the libraries. Having gone to the libraries, you have to find out which material is of use to you, which is not used to you and which may not make use of it. I can just tell you, as students of Lloyd that time internet was not there. We will have written from this hand about 20,000 pages or more. And when you start writing, you require only about 400 to 400 pages in your thesis. And remember, most of the material are of no use to you. But then you should not regret, but then because of that, because of reading that, before going through that, because of taking down of those memory patterns, you learned a lot about the subject, that that virtually gives a grip over the subject. And that makes you a competent person over the subject. That is why a research scholar, if you use a critical scholar, first is he should know how to collect the documents. Then he should supply the sources. When I speak about it, supply the sources simply means, remember giving the bibliography. Now, in JNU, I remember my supervisor always would say, Prof. Ramadulakha, go to the libraries and prepare the bibliography. And when once you prepare the bibliography, on your topic, you come to me. And having prepared the bibliography, when you come to me, I can just tell you how many of them of the bibliography which you have prepared are original sources. How many of them are secondary sources? At that time, internet sources in India were not available. So in situations like this, remember for almost one and a half months to two months, you go to the American library. Having gone to the American library, it was in the Kasturi bar market at that time. We would collect the bibliography, try to make a framework bibliography for the topic. And once that was made, you go to the other libraries and you try to complete it. When once that was completed, you show it to your referee, your supervisor. Then he will say, this topic can be taken up because you will be in a position to give a good exposition to the topic. And you will be in a position to develop the topic in a systematic manner. Then remember, you will ask you to prepare what we call as a proposition. And the proposition naturally includes everything. The importance of the topic, where you have chosen, for what purpose you have chosen the topic. And is it a new topic? Is it a relevant topic? And is it useful to the society? Then afterwards you say, what is the hypothesis? What exactly are the research questions? And what are the contemporary writers? What are the writings which are made on these topics? And all of them you write and submit your synopsis to the supervisor. And he will make the corrections, then it will go to the committee for advanced studies for purpose of approval. Now that is why a critical scholar is one who restores tests, investigates the authorship, investigates the authorship, supplies the document, then edits the sources. These are the four qualifications which a research scholar is supposed to have. Now you may ask me, what is this? Edits the documents. What do you mean by this? Now when I speak of editing the document as a research scholar, you will be taking only those points which are relevant to you. When you go to the library, you find enormous materials. See, for example, on certain issues, certain articles which are published in Harvard Law Review or Yale Law Journal or Stanford Law Review will be 100 odd pages because they are big articles. And you have, remember, certain theories which are being developed. Now you cannot take down anything if you want to know the theory, only those part wherein the principles that are enunciated are being taken down. That is why when you supply the sources, it's very clear from where it is taken. The bibliography which you give is a conclusive proof. These are the four essential qualities of a critical scholar. Now in order to develop the critical scholarship, what are the qualities a research scholar is supposed to have? Now a research scholar, if he is going to be a good research scholar, or if he is going to be called by his professors as a good research scholar, there are as many as seven to eight qualities. Unless you cultivate and develop these qualities, you cannot be a good researcher at all. Now the first important thing is love of labor. Now if you're interested to know what is this love of labor, you know this. Now a research scholar should be in a position to work and he should be in a position to work hard. Now there are instances, remember, people take things casually and people if they take things casually, remember their research will not be of use. They may complete their PhD, but they cannot be knowing what they have written. Even if they know a bit of what is being written, it will not be read by anybody. Even if it is read by anybody, they will say it is all bluff. That should not happen. So first one is the willingness to work, love of labor. A research scholar is one who should be in a position to work and work. And then only if you have the willingness to do this, you can become a scholar over a period of time, not overnight. The second one is taste for the subject. A research scholar should have a taste for the subject. Take it this way, for example, you are given a topic by your supervisor and you feel that this topic is good for nothing. And in this topic, you don't have any interest at all. Now what kind of PhD it could be and it would be rather. But if you have an interest over a topic, in the area where you are working, naturally it is going to become a good thesis. First is remember you cultivate the habit of reading and developing some sense of ideas. Then cultivate interest in certain areas. And these cannot be done by your supervisor or by your teachers, it has to be done by yourself. Suppose for example, a student of science who is not interested in studying literature or arts. He cares to hoots for literature and arts. And if you, if anybody ask him to become a research scholar in the area of law, what he will be able to do? Because remember when you imagine, when you start writing naturally certain things are required which he should have been in a position to elaborate. And exposition is the most important thing where your mind should be fertile. And when the mind is fertile, you should be able to imagine certain things. And it is not exclusive imagination but it should be based on facts. Now such people may be very good in the area of science but not in the area of humanities. That is where it should be. And a topic which is chosen by the research scholar is of, it is not interested to him. He cannot produce a good PhD thesis at all. Now the third important quality that is being spoken happened to be the most important one, peace of mind, patience. A research scholar should have the maximum patience. When I speak of the maximum patience, we just think of it. For example, your orientologist, Salim Ali, a great orientologist of this country, he was just studying the behavior of birds, animals. When he was studying the behavior of birds and animals, naturally he will be spending, remember, sleepless nights, observing their movement, observing their copulation, observing how they remember, meet each other, and where they live, and how they protect themselves. No, these cannot be done overnight because you have to be after them, right from laying eggs and becoming small birds to till the death, it has to be captured. No, it requires lots and lots of patience because at times when you go and sit in a forest and you start looking at it, at that time the rain comes and you suffer from fewer malaria, whole thing gets lost and afterwards you may decide, I don't want to go to that forest. That is where, for those, for example, a particular student who is a research scholar in the area of physics or chemistry or bottom or solace, these scholars when they work there, when they were halfway through, they get the information on the topic on which they were researching a PhD thesis is produced. When they get to know, remember, they cannot just put an end to their life. Now they have to meet the supervisor and divert their topic so that some other areas are being discovered as new when they complete the PhD. That is why these are all the things which require what we call as, remember, a patient's maximum patience. And the fourth important thing that is being spoken is intellectual honesty. When I speak about intellectual honesty, a research scholar should be in a position to call a spade a spade. If he's not able to call a spade a spade, he's not going to become a research scholar because it misses what we call as objectivity. Now, for example, you take it this way for a purpose of analysis I'm giving you. Don't mistake me for telling these facts. Suppose take an instance, an instance relating to the modern history of the state of India. When we discuss the modern history of the state of India, there are several scholars who appeared in the scene and have gone that far and eulogized the great Mughals and other rulers of the century. Now, the facts are totally different. Now the point is you may read and the concerned book written by them may become a textbook, but then remember it lacked and it lacks objectivity. That should not be the case, especially in the area of research knowledge. For the purpose of reading you may just say and afterwards when you read certain other books you come to know this and these are the facts and these are the facts on which the concerned research scholar although has written a bigger book is totally silent and has not discussed anything about it and you are not in a position to accept these facts. That is where most important fact which I just wanted to bring in is objectivity. When I speak of objectivity, you should be in a position to narrate things which you have narrated based on the factual situations and the material that is available to you and you cannot misinterpret the facts because there will be somebody who will find out what exactly is the truth and this is something relating to objectivity. Now the other one is a research scholar is not supposed to suffer from a chronic disease. Now what is this chronic disease? There was a scholar by name Fraud, F-R-O-A-D and this person by name Fraud, remember always used to murder the facts. See if you ask him he would narrate the facts in such a way without one single mistake he would narrate and he had the art of narrating these things in such a lucid way. But then if you ask him to put it in writing he will murder the facts. Now there are plenty of such scholars even in India. Now suppose for example, if you are some of the good teachers who speak and speak so nicely as position and then synthesis all of them at their command but if you ask them to put it in writing they will commit murder of facts. So a research scholar is not supposed to suffer from frauds disease. And if you suffer from frauds disease remember you cannot become a good research scholar at all. Now the other one, other qualities which are being spoken is now haste is waste. Now most of the research scholars these days are in a hurry and they neither have the patience and not have the ability to sit and read and they can do it but they don't want to. Everything is in a hurry because everything should be over in just one and a half years that is not possible. First is remember in a place like JNU and you are students they would collect the materials for two years incessantly. And afterwards go and discuss with the professor. Then you have rewriting of your characterization. There afterwards remember start writing it and have a discussion in between. Then remember give the thesis to your professor he will say these are the things these are the mistakes which you have made which have to be corrected and which has to be corroborated and has to be corroborated with the evidence. Then you do it another for six months. By that time five years will have been over and it is MFIL PhD, two years for MFIL and three years for PhD. This is how it is being done. Now many of them see for example these days you have laptops, computers, you have gadgets and you have the storing facility all of them you have. But then you are always in hurry. And when you are hurry remember collect the facts and you put it there and while putting it without your knowledge some of them get deleted. Or then instead of putting the button elsewhere you put the hook somewhere then most somewhere and it goes out. Now what else you can do? Can you retrieve? Even if you want to retrieve you will not be able to retrieve because you take the assistance of one to retrieve it. So that time is lost. That is why a research scholar should have the maximum patience. Only such people can become a very good research scholar. Then the other two important thing which I just wanted to speak to you happen to be a research scholar is not supposed to suffer from hypercritism. Now what do you mean by this? Now a research scholar is not supposed to suffer from hypercritism. There are some people, some research scholars who become research scholars not with the intention of doing research but with the intention of criticizing others. Now such scholars can never become researchers themselves. Hypercritism is always bad. Critism should not be for the sake of criticism. And criticism when it is made it is based on plain words. Why it is being done? Why it is being indicated? What exactly are the reasons for this criticism? And this cannot be done without making a survey of the entire literature of the subject. So hypercritism or a researcher suffering from hypercritism is too bad and he cannot produce a very good thesis at all with a fundamental point that is being harped upon. Now there are some scholars who lack the ability to criticize. And I speak about that the power to criticize is not innate in them. When they don't have the power to criticize innate in them they can again never become good research scholars. So you should have the ability to criticize but then the criticism always should be plain. The criticism should be only where it is required. And when that is being done remember your thesis naturally be appreciated by everybody. Now these are the fundamentals which are called the traits of a research scholar which is supposed to have. Now we have discussed three things now. One is what is research? The meaning of research. The then one is who is a critical scholar? Then the third part is what exactly are the qualifications of a research scholar? Then when we go to research writing when we go to research writing I shall just speak to you something relating to internal criticism. What do you mean by internal criticism? And what do you mean by external criticism? And having discussed internal criticism and external criticism I just intend to speak to you the good faith and accuracy of the author. What do you mean by good faith and accuracy of the author? Now these are the three things which a research scholar is supposed to know. When we speak about internal criticism now first and foremost every criticism begins to know the truth. What exactly can be accepted as truth in a research document? So that is why we say it is criticism. So you try to find out the truth in a document. When you try to find out the truth in a document at a later stage it may called as the criticism because the author who has pointed out has pointed out differently. But then what you have seen is totally otherwise. The factual situation is totally different. That is why it is called as criticism. Now every criticism in a thesis begins with an analysis. When I speak of an analysis naturally it begins with a meaning. Now suppose for example when I speak about this you take the paragraph. A paragraph which is written in a thesis has to be analyzed properly. When it is analyzed properly you just try to find out three types of meanings to it. One is the plain meaning. In the ordinary parlance how it is being called. That is the plain meaning. Then what we call as the literal meaning. What exactly? Thank you madam. Please keep it. Afterwards I shall answer. I am telling you from the point of the traits. Now when we speak about the external criticism is totally different. I am in the internal criticism. When I speak about the internal criticism see criticism speaks about what we call as the plain meaning. It has to be explained by the critical scholar. Now when I speak about the plain meaning remember it is an ordinary parlance as I just pointed out. Now you may be knowing the natural meaning may differ from place to place. And it may differ from place to place and from time to time. And when it differs from place to place and from time to time. Remember suppose for example you are a thesis scholar analyzing something relating to the Indian history, legal history. And when you analyze the Indian legal history of the state of West Bengal especially ruled by the British under the British presidency. Naturally we have to go to the state of West Bengal. And the words remember many Bengali words may be in force and may be in usage and it is being brought into the English language. So when it is brought into the natural language that is English in this context you should know that language which is used in Bengal may not be the language because the plain meaning which is attributed in Karnataka or in Delhi or in some other place it will be totally different. So that part remember a research scholar is supposed to know. Unless it is known to him he cannot understand what exactly and why it is being used. Now suppose for example somebody is trying to make an analysis of the Mansabdari system of the Mughals. Mansabdari system of Raja Todaramal that is the revenue administration of Raja Todaramal. Now when we speak about this if you go to the history naturally you find so many Persian words. Along with the Persian words you find so many what we call as the Arabic words. Now the historians who have written history are British historians at that time and these British historians have not given any meaning they have used plainly. But in a few cases they have used the English parallel to it and the contextual meaning to it. But a student of law while analyzing in the 21st century naturally will have to go to that century and he has to find out whether it is the original document and the sources came from the original document or it came from the secondary document or whether it is really written by the author or it is written by another scholar who happened to be a court poet during the time of the Mughals. And naturally if he's a court poet or somebody who is in the Asthan of the Mughals he will be praising the rulers and it will have no relevance at all in such circumstances because he is employed by the court only to praise the rulers and the authenticity of the scholar and his writing cannot be accepted in legal writing. Now this is what we say. Now in internal criticism naturally most of the scholars especially Tasman language in his book Historical Introduction to Knowledge he points out every research scholar we in the adopts internal criticism a reader tries to understand the mentality of the scholar when he tries to understand the mentality of the scholar with what intention he has written with what purpose he has written to whom he has written to whom it is addressed who are his audience and to cater whose needs he has written the book all of them are to be taken into consideration when we address internal criticism Now when we take up this matter naturally the good faith and accuracy the author comes into the picture now what is this good faith and accuracy of the author now suppose for example you try to find out a particular statement and when you try to find out a particular statement you find that the statement which is being made in the research topic in the discussion that is being carried out is far from proof and when you analyze and you get the evidence that is far from proof you try to analyze with what intention is made now a research scholar when he makes a reference to this there are four or five instances that is being given one instance that is being given because he has written like that under the patronage of a particular ruler he has written like that under the patronage of a ruling party which is in power and he has written like that to please his community and he has written like that to please the audience who just reads and he has written with the intentional malice now these are the five things which are generally being spoken and this is being given by again the book on introduction to historical methodology now these are certain factors which is being spoken under this then we go to external criticism now when we speak about the external criticism it refers naturally to the author whether it is a real work of the author see you may ask me why this is required at this stage it is required at this stage because remember when you start reading a book you just try to ascertain whether it is really written by him if it is not written by him it is written by whom and if it is not written by him it is written by whom at when which time the 16th century or the 15th century or in BC and written for what purpose then you say whether the author was in a position to get the complete monograph of the subject or it is only a copy of the copy now these are the certain things which are naturally comes into the picture when you make the external criticism which relates to the book the author and his authorship now wherein he should be in a position to say it is not written by him and it is written and published from this source and as indicated by the author it belongs to not this century but it belongs to some other century and it is a copy of a copy with a result remember the whole purpose of writing the concerned book gets defeated then and there these are certain facts which a research scholar is supposed to know now when we speak about the other important thing is now every research a good research has four elements now what are these four elements which a research scholar is supposed to know the first element happened to be heuristics now you may be interested to know what exactly you mean by heuristics heuristics simply means the art of collecting documents so when I speak about the art of collecting documents I have said initially you have to go to the different libraries and collect the sources and put it into the research cards then you have to store it and when you start writing it remember split over as per your chapters then looking to the material and start writing the work now then the other one is criticism it is not enough if you collect the material the art of collecting the document however good you are but then you should be in a position to accept that this material remember cannot be used it is a secondary material it is not a original material now suppose for example you just go to the constitutional debates and the constitutional debates of this country have been interpreted by a series of call scholars now the scholars when they give an interpretation which was not visualized which was not thought which was not expected by research callers remember it cannot be accepted as good research because it is contrary to the minds then thought of what should be the constitution that part you should be in a position to say then the other one is exposition so when you collect the facts when you collect the facts you should when you start writing remember the exposition comes into the picture remember when the exposition comes most important thing is continuity of thought in presentation most of the research callers for example take it this way I have seen plenty of research thesis which come for valuation for example they take up a topic and when they take up a topic of research they bring in international law and international law analysis of their topic at the end rather it should come in the beginning now when I speak about the development of international law on their topic when it comes in then you say how far this law has become part of municipal law and what does the state law on the subject is saying and for this purpose remember first you discuss the international dimension and then you discuss the national dimension then you think about the law which is being enacted on the subject then you examine the cases that has been delivered by the Supreme Court of India the judicial interpretation of the subject then there afterwards you come to a conclusion and if you want to have an analytical study or an empirical study go and examine this in the rural area have an empirical study and then come to the conclusion along with the recommendations that is how thesis is being written the same analogy is being followed even while writing an article now when you write an article many of them they come to us they want to write an article they just say with what purpose the article is written and what exactly is the objective 99% of the articles you don't find this simply take it up just you start analyzing the first is to whom to for what purpose to reinterpret or to interpret or to bring in some kind of interpretation or bring in the new idea that has to come then there should be a position what exactly is the prevailing law and how it is contrary to the existing rules of international law and what changes are required what the court is saying on the subject and the court is what the court is expected to follow when that is being done remember your research article will be the best with a conclusion when you provide it will be respected and the comments will also come equally well this is what we call as remember research writing many many things ours together can be spoken but I just wanted to limit this and with which we go to the methodologies in research when I speak about the methodologies in research there are eight to nine methods of research now this what we call as research writing is dependent upon a particular type of methodology now one methodology which I just tell you so that you understand the point better is what we call as descriptive research now what is this descriptive research descriptive research is simply you take the facts into consideration and afterwards go on describing it now one of the best illustrations that is being given given by an American professor is he requests his students students at the PhD level just in the preliminary level to go and examine on an issue how do the students spend their leisure time so when they are in the university campus how the students spend their leisure time this is where they just give you a training a training of writing that is descriptive research you just remember they are also you try to observe them what they do some of them open there what we call as lunchbox some of them will be sitting in the canteen some of them will be chewing gums some of them will be taking what we call as hot soft drinks all of them they do any kind of active some of them will be going somewhere some of them leave the class and go somewhere for enjoyment all things and it has to be put in writing how the one and a half hours leisure which is being given during the noon time leisure time how it is being spent but it is just just observe and of course you describe and here there is no setting it is only descriptive method suppose for example you are asked to describe a piece of cloth how it is what is its color and this color has a whether it has a connection with any other colors how it is being done where it is being done why it is popularized whether this color has patented all of them you just describe that is what we call as the descriptive type of research then they have what we call as the analytical type of research analytical type of research remember when we make you try to analyze deep and deeper into the subject and analyze deep and deeper into the subject there should be continuity of thought in presentation if you miss the continuity of thought in presentation remember it will not be appreciated because they say it is not analytical research in all type of research remember analytical type comes into operation all types of research because always remember the analysis when it is carried on generally chronological method had to be observed which may be any subject it may be may be a subject in the area of law or may be a subject in the area of political science or philosophy now chronology has to be followed suppose for example you are working in the area of history and you intend to compare the administration of the guptas with some other administration so at that time genealogy is also very much essential so that gives a concrete scientific approach to the methods that is being spoken now with this I just wanted to speak to you now we speak of today methodologies several methodologies are there I shall speak to you in another lecture I just wanted to know whether most of the scholars of the 15th or the 16th century have ventured to know anything about this type of methods suppose for example there were wonderful scholars I just intend to bring to one or two people so that you understand the point better now there was a person who is known as Charles Dickens now Charles Dickens was a man who lived during the beginning of the industrial revolution in the state of England and his writings later became remember standard test works and it was appreciated applauded admired by everybody now this person wrote two or three books one happened to be David Copperfield other one is Black Hole tragedy in London now these two books remember later helped the Royal Law Reformers to reform the legislation now the writing of this man actually was depicting the society of the state of England and it was depicting the state of society England of the 17th century between 1600 to 1700 now people remember who are living in joint families started moving out they started working women used to live their homes and start working along with their husbands in some other place when they reached they would come home late hours and working hours at that time was almost remember 15 16 hours a day it is not eight hours as we have today now so many difficulties so many problems taking care of the children all of them came up and the type of schooling was very tough teachers would never go to the class without kids because there was a joke which was given recently wherein they would try to snub the students by hitting them spare the rod and spoil the child this was the type of attitude now these were depicted written and publicized in his novels even after his death that actually remember gave an awakening call to the law reformers and law reforms came in in the 18th century and began in the 18th century and in the 19th century a series of law reforms that passed and they became law at that time now the point is I am just intend to bring to you his no he was not a scientific researcher but the mind was actually scientific he just wanted to expose the need in society the atrocities that were perpetrated the difficulties which the poorest the poor were undergoing and they had to encounter these difficulties how and what type of solution should be given to this ultimately was left to the law reformers this is one that that type of instance which I I just wanted to tell you now another person happened to be a parliamentarian and this parliamentarian happened to be Edmund Burke Edmund Burke a British parliamentarian was supposed to be the greatest parliamentarian and this parliamentarian was a witness to the beginning of the French Revolution the French Revolution broke out in 1789 it broke out for several reasons and it broke out against the monarchs it was against the successes of Louis the 14th of France it is against the power that was enjoyed by the nobility now this person had visited and he came to know the real situation in the state of France and he was a great debater also in the parliament and a wonderful scholar also and he wrote a book in the year 1790 just one year after the beginning of the French Revolution now in this book he was just simply saying the event that is taking place in the state of France since the preceding one year is not good for the health of anybody this will not lead to well-ordered progress ultimately this country will be taken over by a dictator in France see he just said if the same thing if the same problem were to continue for many more years ultimately there will be a problem of law and order and when there is a problem of law and order the country will be taken over by a dictator in the state of France remember in 1793 Napoleon Bonaparte became the general of the state of France many people said he must have been a born astrologer he was not an astrologer remember the kind of scientific thinking in the mind and now that virtually led him to make this conclusion no they were not after any methods scientific methods all these things now these are the things that are taught in the classroom but they were great scholars by some sense they were able to imagine they were able to foresee they were able to predict if this happens like this what will happen ultimately the state of France requires a great ruler a stern man to dictate and Napoleon came in in the year 1793 and he became the emperor of the state of France in the year 1804 and he ruled the state of France till the battle of Waterloo in the in the year 1815 now that a part now another scholar who was known for his writings and these writings are most of you know him I just wanted to speak to him now this person is known as Will and Ariel Durant Will and Ariel Durant happened to be a great scholar who wrote the story of civilization in 10 volumes and wrote the 11th volume which is known as the lessons of history so 10 volumes remember running into 800 pages to 1000 each volume so each volume ran into 800 to 1000 pages and all of them he collected he collated scientifically and ultimately put it to the public and after completing the 10 volumes he wrote the 11th the lessons of history and in these volumes remember many scholars go to the extent of pointing out the language actually overtakes the subject if the language that is being used overtakes the subject you miss what we call as the essence of research there what you intend to communicate or what you intend to communicate to the public or to the reader naturally will be missing see for example when you are saying oh when you was discussing something one volume is about the the roman empire there's the first volume is the story of Greece the second is the story of Rome the third is relating to the age of faith begins the age of reformation the age of renaissance the age of water the age of Russo like that it goes each volume now in these volumes remember language that is being used so eloquently but then the matter which ought to have been conveyed is not conveyed this is the major criticism which is being levelled against this man now these are a few factors which I just intend to bring to you tomorrow again there will be other factors for example what is action research what is prognostic type of research and what is creative research will be brought to your knowledge thank you thank you sir but this is only one command because you have if they have questions we can ask them to share any questions yeah yeah i'm just checking it out on the youtube any questions i'm just checking it out not even on the youtube and chat because you have dealt with so extensively that i don't think that anyone will have a i've said that you have dealt so extensively in fact there's a comment that there's the brilliant idea but ideas shared with you and same is on the youtube there's someone by gst it says remaining part i'll speak tomorrow because if i start the other one no because it will take time for one hour it will be more than one hour right sir we will connect with you