 Today we are gathered this evening to reflect on the state of democratic freedoms during the pandemic in India. Our Piyambal spoke of many freedoms. It promised the freedom of thought, of expression, of belief, of faith and of worship. Implied here were also the rights to dissent, dissent against power, to form associations and to peacefully protest against the government. And also I think at its foundations the freedom from fear, the freedom from discrimination. It is perhaps not surprising that a slogan that ran through the 100 days of the anti-CA protests was the word Azadi, which means freedom. And it rang out in slogan after slogan alongside the reverential mass reading of the Piyambal of the Constitution. People spoke everywhere about their resolve to reclaim freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from discrimination, freedom from the politics of division. It was like a burst of brilliant light of hope and resistance, probably the largest since the freedom struggle that this country has seen. And then came first the Delhi violence and then the lockdown, the most stringent in the world. Symbolically perhaps on the first day of the lockdown, one of the first acts of the government was to whitewash the graffiti on the walls of Jamia, which young student protesters had painted. The question really was what did that have to do with a lockdown in a health emergency. We also saw the very quick and amazing communalization of the pandemic. And shortly after we started seeing numerous detentions, arrests, incarceration. More than 1400 people were arrested, much larger numbers of people were called in. And all of this was in the middle of a pandemic where they did not have access even to their lawyers. And there was their family members could not go. And through this period we've seen the building of an entirely alternative narrative about the anti-CA protests. And particularly young protestors, student protestors, people of Muslim identity among the young, particularly being targeted and women most of all. There's clearly a message there as far as we can see to criminalize and to crush the possibility of any future dissent. There are also questions that are relevant about how democratic was the decision of the lockdown itself. Who took the decision? Who was consulted? What was the scientific basis of that decision to have the most stringent lockdown in the world? Even China, at its peak, locked down 5% of its population. We locked down 100% with four hours notice. Was that a democratic decision? Who has explained any of these decisions? Who has explained the outcomes? Just as an example, we had a night curfew for many months. A night curfew in a law and order situation makes sense. A night curfew in a health emergency. Nobody bothered to explain was there some secret scientific information that they had that the virus suddenly became more deadly in the dark. And through all of this, you know, the suffering of the migrants, the burst of mass hunger, all countervailing institutions of democracy seem to have caved in. There's an enveloping darkness all around of foreboding and of fear. I believe freedom has never been as threatened in our republic as it is today. So I turn to my panelists this evening with the first of my questions. The question that I ask is, I believe, and some people believe that this is a moment in the journey for republic when freedoms are most under threat. Do you agree? And what do you think are the greatest threats today to freedom in India at this moment? So in no fixed order, maybe Satish, why don't you, would you like to open up with your response to this first question? In terms of the greatest threat to freedom today, I think is the fact that large numbers of Indians are feeling that they are free for the first time. That they are free from what they have felt to be false, a false kind of set of values, and they are free to be who they are. But at least this is the sense we are getting from what is all around us. And I think that that is really the biggest threat to our freedom today. What some of us are seeing as the throttling of freedoms and the targeting of particular kinds of people is being seen by others as the arrival of a new kind of freedom. And I think we have to be honest enough to face this, face the issue. It's not only if we believe in the people, then we must listen to them even when they are saying things that we do not like. And how do we do that when our language, the language that people like us speak seems to have lost almost all its resonance in larger society. And perhaps people like us are in a moment when all the reasons that perhaps we were conscious of or not conscious of that made people listen to us in whatever way they did before. All those reasons seem to have gone away. So I see the greatest threat to freedom as the belief of a large number of people in what is happening and their support for it, not just passive support but active support for it. We can argue about whether it's actually a majority or not and so on, but I think there is a large amount of support for this. And that's the first issue that I feel we have to tackle if we are to face this question. So Satish, that's fascinating. What is the unfreedom that this set of people believe that they are being freed from? Could you explain that a little more? It's more of feeling, Harsh. I don't think we can understand it in the realm of facts and empirical evidence and things like that. It's perceptions. It's what people feel or what they are persuaded to feel. So in a large sense politics is always the politics of persuasion. And certain kinds of persuasion seem to have acquired a new kind of resonance, a new sense of acceptance among people, while older kinds are losing their effectiveness. So when you try to understand what this sense is, I think it is the constant feeding of a sense of victimization or a sense of having been treated unfairly in their own country. And I'm saying this because this is not true only of India, but we are seeing the same phenomenon elsewhere as well. Groups from what are in every objective sense dominant majorities are suddenly feeling victimized, are suddenly feeling vulnerable and treated unfairly. And that's what I think we have to address in some fashion. Dr. Zewa Hassan, coming back again, do you agree that this is a moment in which democratic freedoms are deeply perhaps in unprecedented threat and in what ways? I do agree that never before had democratic freedoms and democratic rights under a greater threat. I think the last six years have seen a systematic attack on free speech, the execution of minorities, the integration of critics and shrinking press freedom. Which should come as a surprise for us given that the press has really been press-ganged, so to speak, into supporting the government. And I think some of this has gained momentum in the past one year as the government has shifted towards a sharper majoritarian agenda after its second victory in the 2019 elections. And I think there are three clear indications of that. One, the open involvement of the government and the state machinery in the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the evocation of Kashmir's special status and statehood, and the continued attention of the political leaders of the Kashmir one year round the line as we speak. And of course the Citizenship Amendment Act as you are so eloquently spoke about. So the point there is a particularly clearly the suppression of dissent, which includes the criminalization of dissent and declaring dissent as anti-national. Curbs on opposition and curbs on protest, crushing of protest. I mean clearly this poses a great threat to democracy. And I think what we've seen in the past few months in particular, and ever since is now, and to see a protest, that the regime has used a very, very handed approach to put critics and dissenters in their place, which is, as we have often heard, sedition charges and the UAPA have been very liberally used to arrest prominent intellectuals and advocates of celebrities, such as those accused of the Kolegao case. And also it has been so indescribably used to arrest young students from Jamia Mejia, and the Debala Nero University, who so wonderfully let the anti-CAA protest. But that said, in my assessment, I mean this is well known, I think the biggest threat to democracy in India comes from the institutional collapse caused by a systematic assault on, as you said, the counter-radiant institutions of democracy. The independence of the election commission of India, the sector bureaus of our investigation, the central recognition commission to the Reserve Bank of India, the right to information has been diluted, parliament and its standing committees have been severely undermined. And then, on top of that, institutionally, the concentration of power in one person, the checks and balances of constitutional government have clearly been very significantly weakened. The misuse of police, as we have witnessed in the past three to four months after the lockdown, has dropped tax and investigative agency against the political opposition, constraining very much the opposition from very bold forward in opposing this government. All these are clearly gross violations of the constitution, which actually put our democracy at risk. I would argue that never before have constitutional institutions had had to function for political ends, and in such partisan ways, when there is no form of declaration of emergency. Thirdly, I would say the impartial, what I think has been the most worrying aspect of this institutional collapse is that the impartial function of the judiciary has been compromised, which is really the most striking element of this collapse. Over the last six years, we've seen a striking decline in the role of the Supreme Court as being the guardian of the constitution of fundamental rights of citizens and the rule of law. The previous corpus, the CA, application of up to, say, 70 petitions challenging electoral bonds, have been postponed to seek the government. But to me, the biggest indication of compromisingness, so to speak, of the judiciary is that if the courts can refuse to hear habeas corpus, then the courts mandate to protect liberty cannot be taken for granted, even though we know that individual freedom is at the very centre of the courts mandate. And finally, I think, which is a very, very important part of the story that we are discussing, and that is the mainstream media. I mean, I cannot say enough about the way the media has functioned and the way in which the media has been captured by an establishment outlook, and it has completely abdicated its responsibility of speaking true to power. I mean, the media has undoubtedly, especially television, as night after night, asking very tough questions, but only from the opposition and not from the government. Now, this is extraordinary when we compare our country or our democracy and the media, so to speak, with other countries. It's extraordinary because in most democracies, the media is the watchdog of the government. But in India, since the BJP came to power in 2014, the media is the watchdog of the opposition. Now, if we take all of these four elements that I've spoken of, and especially the three elements of the institutional collapse, and I'm sort of including media within that institutional architecture, there is reason for us to really worry about the future of our democracy and obviously the need and the need to really strengthen our efforts to safeguard democratic rights. Thank you. Kiruba, can I come to you next, please? Do you agree that this is a moment of great, perhaps unprecedented, darkness in our journey as a republic? Yeah. So, I see this pandemic lockdown as a new national emergency because if the government is expecting us to stop from being involved in all normal activities, the government should also stop from amending laws, bringing up new laws and they should also stop, you know, past the administrative measures. Whereas citizens were made to, you know, stay away from their day-to-day activities, whereas the government was keep on going on with its activity itself is more undemocratic in the present circumstances. And apart from talking about the arrest of Hanibabu and North East activist Lay Chomba and also not releasing women, female activists, like Devangana, Natasha, Gul Fisha, there were more important legal amendments that were made in the labour laws, which is, you know, missed from the discussions on the social media. So in the May 2020, there were a protest of labour unions and they couldn't gather in mass numbers because of the lockdown. And the protest was against the amendment to the labour laws, which was brought by Yogi Adyatnath, Adyatnath, let you pick on that, which made different to all the laws like minimum wages act and also industrial relations act and industrial relations act. And followed by the UP government, the Rajasthan government also increased the threshold of layoffs to 300 from 100 and working hours and overtime and, you know, other hours, regularities were overlooked. And the amendment laws actually allows an employee to work from 8 hours shift to 72 hours shift straight. And there is no break that could be, you know, availed by the employee. And also, apart from the 72 hours, there is also another amendment proposed that a woman is taking a maternity break for six months with paid leave. She can come to the work immediately within a week if she wishes. Though this term is seen as if the woman feels better and she could come to work, there are chances that all the private organizations or even corporations could force those women to come back immediately from the maternity leave, which affects women's labour rights as well. And since the industrial disputes act 1947 was relaxed and industrial relations act 1960 was suspended. It allows for demolition of entire labour rights tribunal and labour officers will not have any power hereafter and the labour unions will not have any meaning at all. See, if this had happened in a normal course, there would have been a national white protest, but because of this lockdown, the entire protest was in a way higher-crushed. And also, apart from this labour loss, the EEA, Environment Impact Assessment Notification, also National Educational Policy. So when the government says it is actually fighting the COVID-19 and pandemic struck and the government is not able to make any progress for the welfare of the citizens, why would the government introduce such national emergency policy, education policy and environment assessment policies in the time of pandemic COVID-19 situation? And because of this, I think all the labour laws, amendment and the EEA introduction or the NEP policy cannot be seen in an isolated manner. Everything is slept together. So in one way, they are giving permission to all factories, all industries to environmental impact assessment notification. On the other hand, they are allowing students from grade 6 to grade 8 to undergo vocational trainings. And they are also mandating a 10 days bagless period in which students from 6th class to 10th class could go to a carpenter and electrician gardener and they can learn all the vocational skills. And on the other hand, they are relaxing all the labour laws and union rights trade unions. And so everything is being connected and everything is well planned and it is purposefully implemented and notified during the pandemic, so that the government makes sure that the citizens cannot come out and they will not protest against any of their initiatives. Come now to Dr. Nandini Sundar. Nandini, how would you respond to the broad question of the situation of democratic freedoms at this moment? First, thanks for organizing this. I agree with all the previous panelists that this is really a moment of great danger. But I think one of the reasons why we feel that this is an emergency is because middle-class people who normally have the protection of either being located in a metropolis or class, etc., are being targeted. And that is actually a hallmark of an emergency. If you compare it to the previous emergency, again, that's something that we saw then because in a way, large portions of our population have been in states of emergency right from 1947. If you look at the Northeast, look at Kashmir, you look at the ongoing kind of situation of the Lits and Adivasis, a lot of it has been about the denial of freedom. And so the idea that there was never a sliazadi is something that we really should take into account. But having said that, I think that the comparison that is usually made between this period and the earlier emergency is important. Precisely for the reason that Satish pointed out that this is more dangerous because it's not seen as a top-down imposition. But it's something that people have internalized the degree of consent to what is going on now is much greater than it was then. At least, I mean, it's hard to say because there was a lot of support for that emergency as well, at least on the surface. On the 5th of August, in my colony, there was this loudspeaker going on opposite the Dargah, which apart from the usual, and it was just this constant chant about we are going to demolish more mosques, we are on our way. That was the constant refrain. And I think that this idea that people are feeling unleashed from the Constitution is something that is very serious. Now, I'm not clear whether it's a reaction, you know, it's often called say racial resentment or sort of uppercast backlash, white backlash, etc. But in a way, it's also a continuation of an ongoing system of domination which was briefly checked by the Constitution, briefly checked by Nairobi and socialism, and now we are back to that open-naked reassertion of Hindu dominance, uppercast dominance. So, I'm not sure, you know, in a historical framework, whether this is a moment of greater unfreedom, but regardless, it's a moment where we are certainly unfree, we are certainly facing an emergency. And I think we need to figure out how to be going to counter it. We're not going to be able to use the institutions of the media or the judiciary as Zoya pointed out. Those are not accessible to us anymore. We really need to think of avenues now whereby we can actually reach out in a variety of different ways, and I don't have answers. I don't think that this is something that, you know, will necessarily be one large effort. It's going to be many small capillary efforts. But I think really that's where we need to focus our attention now on how to survive under emergency and fight. Because we have to, I mean, we are all acknowledging that this is an unstated emergency. I finally come to a young friend, Gautam Bhatia, who's actually joining us from the UK. Gautam, how would you respond to my question? Is this the darkest moment in our journey? I think I'm actually going to, I think, follow up on some of the points that Nandini made, and I agree with her in taking a slightly more qualified approach to this question. Of course, I'm coming at this from my perspective as someone who was engaged with the constitution, constitutional law and the judiciary in the last few years. I think the first question really is when you ask, is this the darkest time with regard to freedom, freedom for whom? And when you begin to, I think, probe a little deeper into that question, you do find that there has been, what I would say, an unfinished project of decolonization, in the sense that time of independence, decolonization was partial at best. It was something that wasn't extended to significant parts of the country, and I don't mean in terms of of social economic guarantees and social upliftment. But just very basic civil and political rights, rights of citizenship, large parts of the country didn't have representative government for at least 20 years after independence and many other things like that. And so, so for many years and even continuing to this day, there hasn't really been a complete decolonization. And what we see today is a dark moment for freedom, I think is, is what is something that we see as even an erosion of gains that were made. That's I think what the fear is. But just to specify a little bit more on that. So, I mean, if you look at some of the really important issues right now, let's take, for example, the incarceration of dissenters, activists, protesters, underloss to the UAPA. Now the UAPA has a very, very long lineage. Just this basic idea that that you cannot get bail. If there is a prima facie case against you, which in this case literally just means the police version. So you cannot get bail as long as the police version is simply internally consistent, no matter how persuasive or how true it is. And so you stay in jail until the end of your trial. That has been a staple feature of Indian laws from pre-colonial, pre-independence times, carrying forward into independent India and taking different forms in different ways, different laws. There was an original UAPA, there was the TADA, there was the POTA, and now there is a new UAPA. And when we talk about the judiciary and the judiciary's recent collapse into the executive, these laws have been consistently upheld over time. So, you know, we have this whole idea that the ADM Javelpur case during the emergency was the Nahrir of the Supreme Court where it completely gave into the executive. If you actually read the ADM Javelpur case closely, what you find is that the judges and the majority marshal a whole range of judgments of pre-independence courts and post-independence courts, all of which have consistently held that when there is an emergency, the courts can no longer intervene and there were emergencies during the war with China and so on in the 60s. There were judgments back then that pretty much hold exactly what the ADM Javelpur case does, but they don't form part of a, you know, lexicon because the emergency occupies for good reason that level of space in our historical landscape. So, something like the UAPA has deep antecedents that go far, far back. And so if we are to contest what's happening today, I think the first thing is to acknowledge that the problems we face are very old roots. Not only do they have old roots, but in many ways they are sanctified by the same constitution that we stand upon when we protest and when we dissent. Marx had this very famous phrase when he was examining the 1848 French constitution, where he says that every constitution has its own negation contained within it. That's true for our constitution as well in provisions that explicitly authorize detention that provide for wide-ranging restrictions on fundamental rights that in various places have phrases like notwithstanding anything contained in this constitution, which effectively creates a black hole. And the courts have held that that means that fundamental rights chapter is also excluded from consideration. So if you actually read the constitution, if you examine the moment of framing more closely, what you find is a very patchy story. You find that at the moment at which it may have been possible to decolonize completely, the efforts are not only partial, but also contained within them their own negation and destruction. And the history of constitutional interpretation after independence has been a contested story between the constitution's emancipatory impulses and its repressive impulses. And what we are seeing right now is the dominance of those repressive impulses, but a dominance that is traced back in a continuity across the years. So what I would say therefore is that, yes, it is of course a dangerous time for freedom. Is it uniquely dangerous? I don't know because not only have there been large parts of our country which have never enjoyed constitutional freedom in true sense, but also that the unfreedom we see today from a civil political rights perspective, constitutional perspective, is not something that has come about in opposition to the constitution itself, but draws upon constitutional terrain, just a terrain that is not conducive to emancipation. And so I think the solution therefore, again, and this is my perspective as somebody who engages with the constitution as document as doctrine. And so this is complementary to other forms of resistance and protest is to begin by acknowledging that the constitution itself allows so much of this and to then ask ourselves, what might an emancipatory constitutionalism as practice look like? Well, that's really interesting and valuable. I think what you've reminded us is that there are segments of our people who never enjoyed even the civil and political freedoms that we speak about, let alone freedom from want, the social and atomic freedoms. But the present moment is really has roots in failures contained within the constitution itself and in the practice that has followed. I think these are sobering reminders, even as we look at this moment. I still would, you know, before I come to my second question, I still have one question. I do know if if we still had had a moment where we had a government was using its unfreedom so clearly to destroy, you know, as a communal project as a, you know, where you were using your unfreedom, not just to remain in power but to advance an alternative, you know, imagination of this country itself. That I think makes this moment more dangerous just just for your consideration. I mean, that's, that's something I wanted to lay out. I don't see, I see the misuse of authority and power for both for remaining in power and for the advancement of chronic capitalism, but not for the subversion of the very idea of a country of equal citizenship, equal and humane citizenship. I mean, that I think is what makes to me this moment the most dangerous so far. The second question, and you know, in the second round, you could respond both to this observation of mine, and to a very specific one, which is the pandemic itself. And, and we're seeing, I wrote in a piece in the Hindu couple of days back that we're seeing an invisible humanitarian crisis. It's, you know, that we're seeing levels of mass hunger and unemployment and suffering, perhaps greater than in the last half century in its scale and depth. And yet it doesn't seem to be anyone's sort of anxiety or concern. As Kiruba said, many other things seem to be preoccupying both the government, but also the media and also the media class discourse. But I wanted to also reflect on whether all of this is not caused by the virus, it's caused by public policy choices that have been made in response to the virus. So have, you know, have the public policy choices that have been made consistently in relation to the pandemic itself also robbed us of our freedoms. Not what they did alongside, but in the response to the health emergency itself, did that in many ways destroy our freedoms. So I have two questions and I go back to the group. I thought I'd go in reverse order this time. So Gautam, would you like to come back to you? I think on the, on the, on the, on the issue, the second round of questions in the issue of the pandemic and the undemocratic character of addressing it that we've seen. So that the two or three things that I think are worth flagging. The first is that the constitutional scheme of rest upon the decentralization of power, not only vertically between different levels of government, but also horizontally. So the idea always is that, that you try and avoid the concentration of power in any one body by distributing it among various branches of the state that that answer to different kinds of institutional logic. So at the very simple level you have parliament, executive and courts, parliament frames law, executive implements it and the courts check for its constitutional validity. In, in parliamentary democracies, there is in general a blurring between parliament and the executive. So that's a feature of parliamentary democracies, but there still is a separation. I think that over the last, again, this is, and again, I think this is not something new over the last 20 or 30 years. There's been, I think, a shift towards what in the US they call the imperial presidency, which is that the other branches of the state begin to lose relevance as the executive begins to encroach upon their their spheres and they are unable to resist. Again, if you look at the constitution, seeds of this are contained in the constitution and the institutions of governors, ordinance making plans and so on. The pandemic has put this in particularly stark relief because first of all, the government chose not to declare a formal emergency. A formal emergency would require application by parliament after a certain amount of time. Instead, they invoke the disaster management act. And once the act had been invoked, it effectively took parliament out of the equation. So after that the pandemic has been managed so to say through decree, executive decree and the state governments have replicated that in their respective states by in the Epidemic Diseases Act. The only state that went the other way was Kerala, but even Kerala passed an ordinance. So it's not as if the Kerala Assembly met the state government passed an ordinance. And so, so parliament is out of the equation. There's no scrutiny and even parliamentary committees are out for a long time. And so effectively you had the rule, you had ruled by decree. So it was a top down rule by decree that was coming from the executive. In this situation, the role of the courts becomes even more important, because one of the three bodies has been taken out of the equation. So at least the part of its function is that has to be fulfilled by the remaining body. But what you've seen is that the courts have have refused. And I would say the Supreme Court primarily some of the high courts have actually not not failed in this fashion. The Supreme Court has refused to perform its constitutional function of holding the executive to account. For example, your night curfew, right? The example. Now, that is a classic case of overreach. And the court has to at least ask this basic question that, okay, what are your reasons for a night curfew? And if the government can't even bring out a coherent reason, then that is the very task of the court to say, okay, this is arbitrary state action. And so it has to be struck down. Things like that. So what we've seen is that, and this is again, I think it's important to distinguish between the courts stepping in and managing the pandemic and kind of, you know, encroaching upon the state's functions. Nobody's calling for that. But what the court does have to do is to ask whether the executives act past the very basic tests of rationality, proportionality, you know, and so on. And a good example of this is the Odisha High Court. So there was a situation where the Odisha government basically banned all vehicles and they were confiscating vehicles during the pandemic. And the answer they gave in court was that, look, you can just walk and get your groceries and emergency items if you need to. And the court then asks that, okay, what about disabled people? What about disabled people? What about old people? What about women who in certain areas may not be comfortable walking to get their essential items and need vehicles? And then it caused all these exceptions from that ban. So you can see that a court doesn't even need to start becoming the NRC court that was that we saw for the NRC where it starts to become the executive. Just some very basic questions will will lead to a fulfillment of its role, which has not happened. So I think that in that sense, the pandemic has led to a democratic deficit in the sense that there's been executive management unconstrained by the other constitutional bodies. And that is what is the institutional collapse that I think people have mentioned and that's something that we need to address going forward. How do we, how do we design institutions that can withstand this kind of seemingly inevitable march towards centralization that we've seen not just in India, but other places as well. So Nandini, so to you, as I said very quickly to two questions for all of you. Firstly, I still, you know, I still would say that what makes a present moment the most dangerous is that it is, it is not it is a taking with our of our freedoms for a communal project, which is contrary to the very idea of India. Do you agree with that. And the second is, is the, is the handling of the pandemic also has it reflected a decline in democratic differences. I agree with your harsh that the situation is different, because we now have in power organization, the RSS, which has never believed in the Indian project for them. This is, you know, 100 year move to establish a Hindu duster which they seem to want to, you know, finish fairly fast. I mean, the establishment of it. So, I think that, you know, clearly we are in a very dangerous situation as far as the project of India goes. It's also what makes a difference from other authoritarian countries because if you look at, you know, other countries around the world where you have people like Erdogan or Trump, etc. Most of them are individuals who because of their charismatic power or through other reasons have managed to, you know, exercise power in this fashion. However, in India, it's not just Modi, even though he is, you know, the most charismatic face of the whole project, but the RSS, which is actually managing things and so if Modi goes, there will be somebody else. There'll be Shah or Yogi so in a way where in a far more dangerous situation than any other country in the world right now, as far as authoritarian regimes go in terms of the pandemic. So yeah, so just sorry to finish that. I think we need to fight against the RSS. I mean, really need to focus on that as the primary problem. And in a way, that's also part of the lack of assiazadi because if you look at, you know, to go back to the way the constitution was framed. In fact, the Hindu right was pretty dominant at the time of the framing, you know, people like Munchi or Shamaprasad Mukherjee had far more power than a lot of other people, you know, the socialist weren't even there, the communist weren't there. So these were in fact very powerful voices in the constitution and there was a lot of the Congress was also, you know, heavily influenced by the Hindu right. So I think this is not something that is unique to the RSS. But because the roots go much deeper, this is going to be a much harder long term project. In terms of the pandemic, I think, apart from, you know, the use of particular acts to or the disaster management act or the way that governments have handled it. I think what we're seeing in society is the use of fear and faith to actually silence and, you know, silence all opposition, silence any alternative check on the government's actions. People are, you know, desperate for some kind of faith to rescue them for Modi to be the super god who will somehow save the country. And they're also scared of each other now they're scared of every, you know, they're scared in a way that they really have no political alternative to so even if you look at all the resident wealth associations locking up the gates of the colonies. And like the night curfew, this is something that has no logic. It's not like, you know, the virus is going to come in driving through certain gates and not through other gates. But it's a way of keeping people out establishing a siege mentality. And I think that's really what this government is also counting on the fear and the faith aspect to support its, you know, authority and agenda. Not only by decree but also rooting by fear, a certain normalization of fear, and it's mainstreaming that we are seeing. But also I think the earlier point and we need to come back to that is that the true battle is against the RSS. And what it is the RSS that makes the India project actually much more dangerous than what is happening in Trump. I think of a Ku Klux Klan which is legal and available and working openly in every neighborhood, supporting Mr. Trump's politics and what would that have made Mr. Trump. I think that we need to recognize that danger and when we speak in the third round about resistance. That's also something that we need to bear in mind. So Kiruba, my two questions and how would you respond. I agree with what Galdapatiya told about how the government is drawing above from the constitution. In fact, that is the reason why Dr. Rambit said that he shall be the first person to burn it out. And we also believe this constitution does not suit anybody. And he also went on to say that the greatest harm will come by injuring the minorities and that's what we are witnessing today. And I think the present BJP government as Nandini rightly pointed out, it's trying to make, I mean the government institutions are already dynamical. But the present BJP government is trying to make structural changes in the building of Indonesian which cannot be reversed by any other government even in the next five years or ten years when they come to power. So I think it's a clearly well-planned thing and even from what Tejaswi Surya raised on the day of Ayutthi Ram Temple foundation being that he says the government, the state power should be controlled for the sustenance of Dharma. So I think it's a long standing plan of the present artists has led me to be government to make all the states into union territories for the better administration of the government and to make it a Hindu nation. And this sort of all Hinduization, saffronization is reflected in the labour laws, again the education bill and you know in Tamil Nadu I think in the High Court of Madras, lawyers were not able to bring cases before the courts because they had no access for internet. And after the protest from March, only just two weeks ago the Madras High Court Association arranged for an internet room where lawyers presented cases. So when this is a circumstance that digital India is not a reality and it's not accessible enough. I think the dangerous danger has already been there and this pandemic is just multiplying it into different levels which has gone out of the hands because of the curfew, like you said night curfew and total curfew on Sundays. I think you're underlining the dangers and one of the dangers actually as you're saying the union territory notion that you gave I think that one of the freedoms that have been crushed is also the freedoms of the state to exercise their powers which were as imagined in the Constitution itself. And there may be flaws as Gautam said in the way that that was both imagined and protected. But I think that federalism itself is also one of the in a very diverse country like ours. Federalism is also an aspect of constitutional freedom itself that we need to recognize the experience of Bangladesh and its separation from Pakistan and the importance of people of their language of their culture of their autonomy. And that also stands in danger. So if I could come to you with your response to these two questions. I want to respond to what you have said about the present conjuncture. I said I'll respond to that. I agree with you and also with you that this is I mean we have to recognize what we are in is something very different from anything that has happened in the past that there were many wrongs in the past. There were many compromises that were made in the past is beyond is beyond doubt. But I think the point is that we have to recognize that this is a uniquely different political conjuncture. And why is it different for the use of UN and Mandiri? Because this is the first time that we have a full fledged right wing government. Even at a very large size government was was different because it was a coalition government. This is the first time that the BJP has formed a government with 303 seats. It's extraordinary and it is much more than an absolute majority. Secondly, secondly, this is a government that for all practical purposes is controlled by the RSS. There is no getting away or getting away from that. And I think so therefore my point of agreement with you would be that while in the past we can point out many compromises. But what is now underway is a programmatic. You see, one thing is pragmatic compromises. The other is programmatic attempt to establish an authoritarian Hindu state. I don't think the issue is just a communal project. It goes beyond that. It is actually the establishment of an authoritarian Hindu state. That is what is underway and that is what will threaten democracy. That is what will threaten equal rights and equal citizenship. And surely the compromises of the past pale in comparison with the political actions of the present. And I think there are two issues which generally our response to this is so much more difficult. One is that you know, I mean we don't often discuss the party system. I mean if we compare let us say USA and India, I mean look at the response from the administration and their successes from the media, from the institutions as well, from the party system. Now, our party system is very different. It's so fragmented that it leaves very little possibility of a united opposition to authoritarianism or to this government. Secondly I think and I feel that this is a major issue and it affects all of us. I think we simply do not recognize what we are up against. We seem to treat this as any other political party as any other government and we keep on saying that all this has happened before. Now, if all of this has happened before, there is no reason for us then to be walked about it or to have said about it or to organize and protest against it because presumably this moment will pass because after all all such dark moments and as a lot of people seem to think that there's continuity. I want to emphasize that there is a fundamental discontinuity between the present and the past and until and unless we recognize the discontinuity, I do not think for those of us who are really interested in resistance against this, we are not going to get very far. Thank you for the question that you have circulated about the pandemic. Well, I mean much has already been said so I don't want to really repeat that except to say that it's significant that this whole COVID-19 crisis which is disrupting global politics happened at a time when democracy as I think the truth was pointed out and perhaps Nandini also pointed out at a time when democracy was very under stress and under assault in many parts of the world. This virus provided an opportunity to several leaders to accumulate unparalleled powers as part of their attempt to contain the spread of the virus. So interestingly on the one hand the virus strengthened the regimes of leaders like the one in the Philippines or the one in Turkey. And on the other it has skewed the relationship or the power relationship between governments and citizenry in favor of the former in countries who were not as authoritarian as Turkey, Philippines and so on such as for example India or the United States. So I think this is the context in which outbreak, I mean this COVID outbreak happened is important and the pandemics amplify the ability of political leaders to craft authoritarian measures more justifiably so to speak to deal with this crisis and I am not going to all that has been done by way of consolidation of power by authoritarian leaders or even by democratic or populist leaders in curving individual liberties, respecting the space for civil society and so on. Now in India I think in India since March 25th when the first nationwide lockdown was announced and until now I think it is significant that the virus curve hasn't flattened. In fact the case load as we speak is rising steadily and the official toll of 45,000 deaths is fairly high even though the government and its spokesmen remind us every day that the fatality rate in India is not higher compared to other countries. I think the significant point is that when this polarity of the pandemic hasn't really survived it but the political costs and consequences of this complete lockdown on democratic rights have been very high and I would say that I would just say put it very briefly I think the consequences from the standpoint of democracy and democratic freedoms can be grouped under three subheads. One, the state led subversion of rights and liberties. Two, the exposure of disadvantaged and vulnerable populations to unprecedented economic hardship. And three, the suppression of information through curbs on media and on dissemination of intervention. And we can see that first of all a point that I think has already been made that bears the underlying idea that the government's care put an end to the most remarkable protest that India has witnessed ever which was a protest against the CAA. And after the outbreak of the pandemic the government moved in very quickly it acted very swiftly to remove the sit-in protests of course in Shaheen Bagh and Lucknow and in many other places and so on and so forth. And of course as a significant government act went against after activists who participated in this movement and has gone on to there are so many of them who are associated with this. Second, I think this is back on the lockdown. Perhaps the most stringent lockdown anywhere in the world and as you said for example China at any point in time only 5% of its population is affected whereas it was 100% in India and for weeks on end it was not as though this lockdown lasted for 3 weeks as the Prime Minister initially announced. It went on for nearly 2 months and even though we are in un-lockdown now there are still so many restrictions that are still in place. So we are far from normality so to speak. So I think this back on the lockdown that was imposed at the 4 hours notice which did not happen in any other part of the world has clearly widened inequality in the past, gender and religious divides in India which mainly meant the leader in discrimination and inequalities. I mean we are a world leader when it comes to discrimination and inequalities and then the pandemic on top of that as I said aggravated and exacerbated those divides and inequalities. And I think nothing demonstrates that demonstrates that more than the condition of thousands of migrant workers who we also are working hundreds of kilometers on their homes that is perhaps the most steamy indictment of the state's apathy and I might add even a far more demographic interference if I might put it this way. And obviously the government's hurried announcement affected the likelihood of over 50 million workers of absolute normal life. In a country where social protections are so limited unlike other countries which were imposing lockdowns. Look at the social protections and also look at the way in which those countries in Europe, I mean we have imitated Europe and so on in imposing lockdown but we are certainly not imitating those countries and providing the kind of social and relief packages that those countries have provided by way of cash transfer, by way of salaries, by way of so much social support. Countries which already have social stability and in addition to that governments have announced huge relief packages whereas our relief package, the less said about it, the better. And then I think of a point that has already been made and I don't want to already, that is the muscling of critical media and the point that I think Truba made in her opening remarks which is suspension of labour laws which is really to deal with the pandemic is very serious and it's very clear that several state governments took advantage of the pandemic. Of course the leader in all this has to be the state of UP which took the lead followed by of course many other state governments as well. They were quick to dismantle our protection for laws but interestingly the pandemic hasn't stopped, I mean while all of this has been done the pandemic hasn't stopped the government from going ahead with major policy initiatives like the national education policy, the giving approval for the Central Wester project we must not forget that, that all this has happened now and of course not to speak of the grand Bhoomi Pooja for the grand Nam temple. So I think rather than clearly getting two sides to this pandemic which is two sides to it which is to say how governments have used this to introduce even democratic news and news systems and how the government has enhanced its executive power and on the other hand going ahead with policies without any discussion I mean the national education policy I mean it's just been discussed on I mean there have been two or three current discussions on generation the day it was announced but with very little possibility of mobilization against this promise. Thank you for discussing before you went into the discussion and answered it. Satish finally for the second round may I come to you with your response to both questions. I think the question we can legitimately ask is whether the handling of the pandemic was done in a democratic with a democratic sensibility. I think some amount of coercion cannot be avoided in dealing with situations like pandemic so talking about procedural democracy in the context of a pandemic may not be very useful. There are very important questions to be asked about it but I think we get confused when we are also talking at the same time of questions of Azadi and so on. So in my opinion they should be talked about differently. Coming to your question about communalism and whether we have had this kind of regime before I think once again the very term communalism means something to us and which it does not mean to large numbers of others. And we have our the language that we used to speak of communalism and things like this its power or its effectiveness was largely an inherited effectiveness. It was not something I feel that we as users of that language had actually helped to build on the ground and now that inherited sort of capital if you want to put it crudely the capital inherited from Mahatma Gandhi as a persona has in a sense lost its value and we have to forge a new language which will have purchase on our current reality and just as examples until we this is an analogous example it's not exactly the same thing communalism is not the same thing as dealing with demonetization or the migrant labor long marches that we saw recently but I feel that until we have a language that can make sense of events like demonetization causing widespread destruction to lives and yet not bringing about any political opposition of any size and similarly these migrant workers walking hundreds of kilometers home saying what a great job Modi Sahab had done until we understand these phenomena, until we have a language that understand these phenomena I think even on the question of communalism we will be ineffective as we are today. You know the third round actually the question that I had planned to ask converges with a number of questions from the audience as well so let me read out what I was going to ask but then also bring in a number of perspectives that have come in from the audience on this which is largely about resistance how do you think that we the people of India need to what we need to do to prevent India from its decline into an illiberal democracy which is hostile to its minorities we also have a range of as I said other questions that have been raised in the chats one is what are the possible avenues to resist this is from Vandana Srivastava while there are a number of people currently supporting the present government as stated by Professor Deshpande we may be surprised by the number of people wanting a change to put it mildly the NAA NPR protests took many of us by surprise that does give us some hope and there are a few other people who have asked about most of the opposition parties have not been vocal about the acts of the government which go against democracy would it be realistic to expect from them at this juncture to lead us in any resistance and how do we work without them if they are not going to be there another Hina has asked how do you see the freedom to protest in the time of pandemic when online protests are being organized but whereas mass mobilization still influenced by the Gandhi era of mass movement doesn't seem possible Noor has asked don't you think there should be a network of WhatsApp and social media groups flooded with fact checks peace committees of responsible citizens collection of video evidence justice forums civil society alone can shorten this curve of human suffering it will continue as long as politicians find it electorally beneficial and there are many other questions of the same tenure largely how do we resist in these times both in the context of the restrictions on our movement because of the lockdown and the pandemic but also in the larger context of a significant popular support by significant sections of our people for these policies and the failure of the political establishment I think those are the questions I could make out so let me sort of change the order again maybe Nandini would you like to start you know there are many things that need to be done there are many people who are much more qualified than I am because they've been doing some of these things like Harsh has been working on the ground to change things so you know you'd have a much better sense of how to go about it but let me just give you my wish list of how we should proceed right this is clearly not something that is necessarily going to happen one is I think the left party should all come together and they should issue a mass membership drive and we should all join the left because the left parties are the only parties right now who are supporting the constitution on the Ram Mandir question on Kashmir they were the only ones who have taken a member to a stand the DNK also has taken a good stand on Kashmir but every other party has been compromised and I think these are the two issues which clearly show up where you stand on the constitution so I think I don't trust any other political party and I think we really need the left to get its act together as a political party and start thinking about how it can win elections and fight on the ground not just you know be a little secondly clearly there's a problem of money the BJP, the RSS has out-moneyed everybody in terms of the kind of money that they're getting and the fact that they're closing up everybody closing off everybody else's avenues of funding so that's something that we really need to think about how to you know get enough to resist thirdly and I think you know maybe we should all start for those of us who can afford it sort of keeping aside the set amount of our salaries because this is that moment of crisis when really you need to act in an organized fashion thirdly I think we need to provide an alternative narrative and there have to be a lot of young people who are savvy with the media savvy with different kinds of ways of speaking who have to get involved in that and the CAA and TCA protests were a great moment for that and you know we have to abandon fear I think that's the most important thing that we have to somehow and I succumb to it all the time as well this kind of especially with the pandemic you know okay when the pandemic gets over I will start getting active kind of feeling so that's something that we all feel and we're also all scared especially with now what's happening in Delhi and the mass arrests but you know there has to be a way of keeping an alternative language going and develop it further fourth we need to start you know doing what the RSS has been doing all this time which is something that we forgotten actually going out there talking to people you know house by house setting up small institutions so there's going to be no simple way of doing this there has to be a variety of different ways but we have to take this threat seriously we are in a situation of fascism and you know possibly there's no way of counteracting it through any other way and but we can't hope for world war two to come and rescue us that's not going to happen so you know we have to start acting wherever we can Kiruba your your wish list about how to be resist with no offense I think the first tip is to realize that the protesting or digital media campaigning is not going to help as a person who has been on the ground by strongly believe mobilization of masses is going to bring a productive or it could be you know more productive than hashtagging sitting somewhere and the second step is that I think I disagree with Nandini Siddharth because the left party supported EWS reservation and they also supported Ayodhi Ram and their thing and we as ballots and marginalized sections we don't trust left parties anymore I can trust DMK but I can't trust communist party of media there's so much of you know discussions and debates that have to be me and also I think all this protest should be led by the Brahmin elite upper-caste work liberals and we are also not going to sacrifice our lives anymore we have already been fighting for our life we have already been fighting for our survival and all the upper-caste work liberals they think if there is a protest near India gate or the beach they would come but for a CAA protest that's been happening in a Muslim neighborhood or in a slum they won't participate so their protest model itself is something which is more elated which is not connected to the ground reality so I think this has to be brought into consideration and also the other thing is about who is setting the agendas of this protest for instance CAA was led by Muslim women and it was one of the most powerful protest in the recent times but still a Brahmin woman called Gayatri was the focus of the entire arrest thing when she draw a column in Chennai and she was arrested there were many other Muslim women Muslim artists who were arrested but the entire agenda was set by these people and there was a press meet here where many people were disappointed but because the entire press meet was not about CAA but about a Brahmin woman getting arrested so this sort of layers has to be addressed promptly and the upper-caste elite work liberals should fight on our behalf they should lead things and they should sacrifice their privileges and then the people at the margins will join together and let's take this protest forward and I honestly you know appreciate the efforts of people who have been trying to protect the democracy and the constitutional rights we have been fighting for and also wherever I talk to my community I talk about how constitution is interpreted in a very different ways that is not being meant for and also how Ambedkar wanted to build the constitution and how a constitution is not a only protective instrument that we have at our hands so we should have the understanding that constitution is not our holy book it's not the holy trail and it is also was made for the benefit of the ruling class Brahmin ruling class so this sort of nuanced understanding of the reality and coming together with more acknowledging more understanding and acknowledgement of privileges and under privileges and giving way for leadership for marginalist communities like we did give leadership for Muslim women in the CAA protest would be the only way that we could take this fight forward. So great, so leadership for oppressed people themselves with solidarity from people of privilege but you were saying also and Gautam that's why I thought I'd come to you holding the constitution in one hand but also challenging it in the other as part of our resistance so what thoughts do you have about resistance at this moment I'm going to defer to what the others have said because my primary work is in institutions and institutions are not in the best of shape right now so I'm going to defer on that on the broader point what I just say is that I think it's correct to take a critical view towards the constitution as an instrument or as a terrain on which power is negotiated and so I think so while I think it's very important I found it moving and important that the CAA protests took the form of constitutional language and especially the preamble because the preamble I think the beauty of the preamble is its universalist in its scope and so it's something you can adopt for yourself no matter who you are because of the principles that it lays down so I think that was important and at the same time I think as Kiruba has said and as I tried to say in my initial remarks once you get into the nitty-gritties of the constitution what you find is that it has repressive and emancipatory impulses that are in conflict and the manner in which it has been implemented over time has been such that the repressive impulses have gradually almost overshadowed its emancipatory impulses and so I think that a vocabulary of resistance that uncritically rests on the constitution is a problem because even if such a resistance movement was to prevail it would risk reproducing the same problems that confront us right now only in different gazes in different and different guys and so I think my limited contribution here would be that a vocabulary of resistance has to take a critical approach towards the constitution and ask itself in what ways has the constitution actually been a repressive document and in what ways can we reimagine a constitutional framework that would avoid those pitfalls and of course as Kiruba said the leadership there should be from those people who have borne the brunt of the constitution's repressive impulses Thank you Kiruba and Gautam on this I must say that while I completely agree in principle I worry at this moment because I feel that we have our backs to the wall with a regime that is hostile to the emancipatory elements of the constitution itself but if we open up a discourse in the public domain which questions the constitution we might not amend the repressive elements but we might actually lose the emancipatory elements at this point of time I mean just it's a worry that I carry Can I just briefly come back on that because it's a fear that I've heard many times and I think it's to address that I think it's a very valid concern and that's why I think that at least for me because I'm not advocating in kind of a abandoning the constitution in my approach I think it's careful to distinguish that I think what is concerning me is that if we limit ourselves to an uncritical resting upon the constitution then even if that movement is to succeed its success will lay the seeds of its own failure I think that now that we do as you said backs against the wall we do have a chance to reimagine things in a more fundamental way than before it's actually a good chance to do that without abandoning the anchor of the constitution I'm sorry Harsh I would like to make a small comment I mean I do believe in the constitutional values and I as a lawyer practicing in the constitution of course I look for reliefs through constitution constitution in any manner but there is a notion prevailing in the Dalit communities that constitution is drafted by Dr Ambedkar and it is a you know super protective instrument and you know they think when the constitution is existing we are protected enough we don't have to protest against anything and even if BJP is trying to dilute it through different amendments or through various amendments we still believe in the spirit of the constitution so I think this critical lens to be you know how this constitution can be diluted and how it can go in a way that it can't protect you anymore is more important when we are mobilizing people against regime like you know RSS and BGP Nandini I think you wanted to also come in on this yeah I think what was important was that people were reading the preamble and we can all agree on the preamble the rest of the constitution we may or may not agree on specifics but I think we can certainly hold on to the spirit of that of the preamble and secondly to respond to Kiruba on the left I agree that I mean I'm not saying that the left is any great you know and I know that they have betrayed people in all sorts of ways and but I just think that we do need some kind of organized political force whether it's a coalition or forces whatever it is but one needs to start getting serious about achieving political power and not just in the sense of you know having different movements and it's not going to happen like that of course Nandini that is why I added that there has to be more debates and discussion on how to come together as left movement right I totally stand with left parties but I have problems with them and I appreciate them coming for discussions with other state parties like DMK and other marginalized sections I'm not even a party member or anything I totally agree we have problems but they are the ones who have at least raised their voice at this moment with hope you know the preamble just to finish up on that point because I was in protest actually almost every day in some corner of the country and you know I could not hold back my tears when a young girl would stand up and read the preamble and people would repeat after it and when you say some of those words in Hindustani for instance they just have a different resonance so in saaf justice, azadi, liberty equality, barabari, samanta fraternity, bandhuta they mean something they resonate somewhere and I think people really know that that is the imagination of a country that we need to hold on to so I think holding on to the preamble is maybe what we need to say but critically view other elements of the specific details Zoya you are a political scientist as well so my wish list is five elements, one I think we need to continue the struggles and protests in defensive equal rights which were embodied in the anti-CIA protests and hopefully we can move from online action and online protests to on ground protests as is happening in many other countries despite lockdowns I think we understand that things are different but nonetheless look at this protests that are happening in so many parts of the world and I think we have something to learn from the black lives protests in America, I think we do want to really study that and learn some lessons learn some lessons from that second to our point but I mean I am not denying that there is a considerable public support for the present regime and particularly the leader of the government I mean there is no denying the popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi but at the same time I think we must not forget that 62% people did not vote for the BJP and Prime Minister Modi despite an extraordinary campaign that he had mounted in 2019 and despite the fact that the focus was on national security after the Balakot air strikes and yet 62% yet they got 38 or 27.5% of the vote now this is something which is significant before we get very far. My third point is that the opposition must unite left should unite most definitely but the left uniting is not going to take us very far I mean sad, I mean I feel it breaks my heart to say this but the fact of the matter is that the left is not a significant force and ours is an electoral democracy and in an electoral democracy we need parties which have electoral support left's electoral support right now is really speaking limited to Kerala and that is about it not even West Bengal as was the case in the past so therefore I think what we need is opposition unity and what we need is a united front against a present regime and I think France is very very instructive in France most political parties, just about all political parties united against Marine Le Pen in 2017 all parties in France supported Emmanuel Macron in order to stop Marine Le Pen in the second round of the presidential elections in France now that is because they recognize the dangers posed by somebody like a far right leader like Marine Le Pen now clearly the present I mean our presently a leader popular as he might be certainly belongs to a far right and therefore we need the same kind of unity here the same kind of opposition opposition unity to take on the government and my first point is that I think civil society has to work with political parties I agree with Nandini I mean civil society is extremely important and the kind of work civil society is doing is important but ultimately in an electoral democracy parties can't and there is really no alternative to a party based democracy and therefore he has to work with parties to strengthen the opposition the opposition unity is what civil society needs to struggle for is what Zoya tells us Satish your wish list for resistance and for change thank you I am happy to go along with everybody's wish list so far because I don't really have anything substantial to add to that what I am interested in really is modalities whatever it is we do how do we go about doing it and there are two elements that I would like to emphasize there one is what I think already mentioned by one or two others including Nandini we have to operate at the level of the everyday there is a sense in which protest in inverted quotes is something special something exceptional in our language and whether we are conscious of it or not we tend to romanticize it slightly and we need to get away from that and start thinking in the RSS mode of the everyday of a long drawn out continuous thing the second thing which is equally important and this refers a lot to what Kiruba has been reminding us so effectively whatever we do must be infused with a new sense of self reflexivity of attention to what we sound like to others who we are what we represent to others there is an over easy sense in which we have people like us particularly those privileged by class and caste and so on we tend to assume that we are representatives and that we speak for you know the people of India or other such phrases I would like I would want all of us to be a little vary of using phrases like the people of India and so on when we speak and we need to be very very conscious of who we are and what we sound like to others it's only when we speak to others not for others that I feel we can get ahead but in terms of actually what is to be done I'm very happy to go along with the other panelists so thank you I think just before we close one round of last comments just a minute or two each about anything that you feel we need to take away from this discussion Satish why don't we start with you thank you I mean I know we all feel that this is less than something else but if this is what we can do we should do this and it's important to survive this phase there are times where you just need to last out you just need to endure this is one of those and we should help each other do it Kirupa what would you like to say so what I would say might amount to Satish but still I think things will definitely change and oppressed classes have always raised against any you know the sort of very fastest regimes so I'm very optimistic that all the oppressed classes will come together and they'll fight this fastest government but it is quite possible only with the solidarity of people who have voices in the institutional level and in the policymaking and also in different places so unless they realize their contribution in making this country more democratic our fight it's going to end up with more blood and you know more bodies so it's on the hands of the people who have spoken to liberals how far they want to take this protest in a non-violent manner but do you feel hopeful Kirupa? of course of course we have already been fighting we have been fighting for our survival we have been fighting for our livelihood I as a lawyer have been fighting for 11 years just for my recognition and look at the Muslim communities they have been crushed like anything and you know we are oppressed communities are always willing and we are always ready to come to the streets and of course that's why I keep reiterating that we are going to bring true independence to this nation but do you want to participate in it do you want to benefit out of it it's your choice very nicely said Gautam I agree with everything that's been said before at times I just remember there's a wonderful line by Tony Ben the former the late British MP where he said that there is no final defeat just as there is no final victory I think that's something worth remembering at all times Zuhira? well I think I want to thank you for organizing this wonderful discussion and I hope we have more and I certainly hope that we will as I said earlier move from online action to street action secondly I certainly hope that we will work together to fight against fascism and thirdly in fact as you know lives and lives on fear and so some of we have to really fight fear so to speak because that is what is preventing our public action so I think also but I don't think that the basic issue with me is in North India and not first in India I do not think that the rest of the country is so invaded or colonized by this communal of Hindutva thinking and the BGP have found a near permanent home in North India and that gives them a huge political constituency but I mean what India is not just U.P. and Ravassana and and there is a lot of political and so I'm sure there are possibilities of organizing and the diversity and that's all. Thank you. And Sundar, Nandini? Yeah I'd just like to thank you Harish and thank the other fanatists and I mean like everyone else I'm hopeful we don't have any alternative but to hope so thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all of you I mean your presence and your words and this is a moment where you know locked up in many different ways and seeing an event like the Ramandir extravaganza a few days ago when hope seems begins to look fragile it is important for us to come together I think these conversations are valuable the expressions of solidarity and in the end hope I somewhere had said you don't fight fascism because you will win you have to fight fascism because it is fascism and I think that's the beginning point and whatever happens we have to continue to resist there's also Martin Luther King who said that the arc of history is long but in the end it bends towards justice we will need to see together and lastly something that got me into trouble and why the Delhi police wants to lock me up is something that I said to the students in Jamia which I said in the end I don't think this is going to be resolved it's the question of what kind of country we want to leave to our children it won't be resolved in parliament so I said but I still worry about our political opposition it won't be resolved by the courts it will be resolved by we the people in their fullness and as Kiruba says by your trust people and by people of privilege standing in solidarity with humility with them but most of all I think it is going to be resolved in our hearts, your hearts and my hearts whether we've allowed both hate and fear to get out of our hearts over the love and freedom is what we what we locate in our hearts that's where the ultimate resistance is so thank you all of you very much for this evening