 For some of us from the media who began our careers, and we were at that cusp between 83 and 89, when large sections of our newspapers, even before the electronic channels came up, actually did the globalization dance even before any other sector did it. And the Times of India was responsible for this. And it was the mega corporation, which is today, and actually destroyed, on the one hand, security for jobs of journalists. And side by side, the independence and the integrity of journalists themselves. The point being that journalists, in one sense, and journalism actually was the epitome within India of what neoliberalism globalization can do to, on the one hand, take you completely down the consumerist path, dealing you from any base value of your profession and ideology, and do it in the name of actual independence and paying you better than stuff. So people didn't realize that actually delinking yourself from the Bombay Union of Journalists, the Delhi Union of Journalists, and the Indian Federation of Working Journalists were actually stopping, enabling you, protecting you from your job. And therefore you were much more vulnerable to the higher and higher policy, which many became victim stuff. You had telegraph, retrenching 700 people just two months ago, and in those times, retrenching 400 journalists. And you have very, very tragic stories with the media is not telling about what is happening to journalists who are being retrenched. I mean, they're setting pan on the streets, they're becoming casual laborers, and it's really a story that's not being told because the media is not there today to really tell a story. So I think it's very important to understand that a lot of what we see is happening with capital and the growth of the Hindutva right in India has also gone hand in hand with the state of the Indian media today. Because for me and for many of us who've been observing politics for the last 25, 30 years, 2008, 2009, was very critical, not just for the fact that there was a financial crisis worldwide, but it was the first vibrant Gujarat summit in January of 2009. First time you had kings of capital or kings of crony capital, if you like, not even capital. You were actually saying that here is our man who's PM-elect. He's prime ministerial material. And I don't think it's ever happened in Indian discourse before that you had so openly a crony capitalist class chose one man, not just one party, not just the RSS, but choosing one man from within the RSS to be the person that they want to head the country. And it was a journey up then, and I keep saying that therefore that 2007, 2008 period was very, very critical. Until then, even in the commercial electronic media, I don't think we should call it the national media. We should call it the commercial media. Very clearly, we should not use the term national media because they're not the national media. Until then, there were spaces. There were some spaces for decent discussion, decent debate that all went out of the window after 2007, 2008, his second electoral victory, and all of this also happening. Strangely, Modi phenomenon within the RSS and within Indian capital, the Modi phenomenon has also meant a contradiction within the RSS's core base, okay, which is the small business, which is your agarwal and your gupta who funds the shaka in Uttar Pradesh or in Madhya Pradesh or in Maharashtra, and suddenly this consolidation of capital into the hands of an Adani and an Ambani and a Tata. Even a Tata becomes a handymaiden of this politics. So how does this contradiction play out, and I don't think there's been enough work on this, and I think we really need to engage with this, even demonetization. You saw it happening, you saw the obvious hardship, and yet he was able to play a game, again with the help of a media to spin it in a different direction. So I don't think the victory of 2014 would have been possible without the capitalist media doing what it did. And even the particularly, I think the English media just riles us, but it's the Hindi media that's really doing the damage in terms of the numbers, and of course your WhatsApp and all these things which have been so well documented even in Nakul's film in Mozaffar Nagarbaki, et cetera, that what does that WhatsApp message do? How does it carry forward? It was playing a role even now in the Saranpur violence. So I think we need a little bit of work on this. We need to really look at this very carefully, that how is this consolidation of capital, which is what I want to come back to 2011 again, that period of the Gujarat model being sold as a national model. That you had a model of essentially high concentration capitalist finance being actually sold to the country as the development model for the country. You had a model of jobless growth being sold as the model for the country. And therefore on 28th August 2015, within a year and a few months of Modi coming to power, when you had a Hardik Patel coming out on the streets of Ahmedabad with no less than two lakh Patel youth, saying that we want jobs and we want reservations, I thought it was a very critical moment of understanding which we again lost because I'm not sure the Patels can get ever completely secularized overnight. They're a kind of community and a caste that has been within the power structure very close to the Hindutva right. Maybe they won't, but the issue, the fact that Patel youth are today saying that we are the victims of jobless growth was the most serious question visibly put to the Gujarat model which I think again we were not able to grab and understand. And for many of us who know Gujarat intimately and go there regularly quite apart from the very deep and painful communal polarization, the really tragic tale is the tale of labor. The state of labor in Gujarat is probably the most pathetic as in many parts of the country. You have labor bazaars every morning in the cities of Ahmedabad and Baroda where your markets where labor is sold. And this is not being documented. This is not being photographed. This is not being written about again because of the state of the media today. So I think these are some of the challenges we face because maybe unlike Erdogan and Trump as I'd like to posit, Modi started playing the poor card only after he was blamed for being a sootbootki sarkar and having a 10 lakh suit in January 2014, 2015 after Obama's visit. Before that he was clearly mocked Manurega. His pathetic words on the social work, rural works program of the previous government, it happened to be the previous government, it could have been any government. But his scathing words and Jetli's words on the kind of between most shameful legacy of the Congress had to be quickly retracted. But the point is that his now being portrayed as a man of the poor in the last one, one and a half years whereas that was not the case in the initial phase. So he was obviously compelled to make that shift and change maybe after the elections and the Bihar elections. But I think these are some of the issues that we need to very intimately grapple with because we know that the other issues which kind of are getting hidden today because of the state of the commercial media in the country. Big success of our opposition in October 2014 when they managed to stem the ordinance on land which was meant to overturn the 2013 act. But within months of that, when Maharashtra first, Rajasthan second, Gujarat third and Jharkhand actually get far worse state legislations in all BJP governments, RSS governments when they actually get state legislations that are far worse, you don't really have a national political oppositional argument to the fact that they've actually achieved through the concurrent list of the constitution. What you're saying the constitution doesn't always need to be changed because you have the concurrent list and they've done it through that route. So we are faced also with a non-slot on the economic front and the social front, a kind of assault on social harmony, attack on minorities, the shocking lynchings that are, I mean what really bothers many of us is that you had after a clerks lynching a national outrage. Today we have a national norm, a national norm that lives very comfortably with the lynchings and that brings me back to my favorite little story about the media is the complete collapse of big journalism. And I think that is one of the biggest losses that the media has suffered. And I think I'd like to, Lord Newstlick and many of us others were trying to, in some fashion bring back, for instance, the labor beat, say into the consciousness of our reader or our viewer, but what does the labor beat mean? What does the court beat mean? What does the university beat mean? What does the agrarian beat mean? What does the poverty beat mean? It means that consistently looking at these areas of the political economy, consistently, analytically, and bringing you stories in an interesting format to be able to showcase them, to bring them. So I think that is what I think is important to also remember today in what all of us are trying to do in different ways with the media. And Praveed keeps on saying, we should not call ourselves the alternate media. We should say we are the media. We are trying to set the agenda for what the media should be. Why should we call ourselves media?