 We were talking about this process of reducing the citizen to a subject which is distorting the relationship we have with the state in a constitutional democracy. We're no longer allowed to speak up. So I know that freedom of speech is, we are always referred to the qualification there saying that as long as it does not interfere with national security and so on and so forth. But look at the way sedition is being used for example. I think this sedition I think has never been so many seditious citizens before in our history. And I think sedition is something that perhaps we should have got rid of immediately after independence because it's a very dicey situation where people can use it at all times. Part of decolonizing ourselves. Part of decolonizing ourselves. But nevertheless if even if we got rid of it determined authority will bring back something of that kind. But I think that these kinds of laws and talking about law of course one also has to consider things like the judiciary which really in some cases in many cases has made judgments that one is not very proud of as free citizens. And this is again very, very. Because we're part of the Assam in RC process and did not cover themselves with glory. They didn't. Yes, yes. And I think that there should be a much greater consciousness on the part of those in the judiciary about the responsibility they have. Not just to the authority of the moment but for the future. What are the kinds of laws and legalities and judgments that you're making which will affect generations to come? And this is something that they seem not to be conscious of. It is entirely a case of this moment who's an authority, what is the issue, this is the judgment. This is a very, very narrow, almost regressive behavior on the part of those that really should be thinking of judgments in terms of the kind of society that we want, the kind of society that the future should bring. And is there a certain hesitation even apathy as far as the urgent needs of the moment. For example, the courts have been dilly-dallying on coming up with a response to the various petitions against CAA, NPR, NRC. What is stopping them? No, this is very worrisome and in a sense I think it's about time that responsible members of the judiciary should explain why it is that all these urgent cases, rape, CAA, anything of this kind, sedition, don't get settled fast as they should be. I mean you take the petition that we've been involved with, it's over a year now, it's getting on to almost two years when these nine people are in jail under arrest. There isn't even a series of trials going on, which you would expect. And there they will sit for years to come simply because the date is not being given. And I think that this is in some ways really making a mockery of a judicial system. If you're going to take so long, I mean there are property disputes which go on for 25 years, one generation dies and the next generation takes it on and does all the inheriting. And you sit there and say, but for goodness sake there are straightforward property disputes which can be settled quite quickly. Why is there this? Is it because there's a deliberate, I'll take a date three months from now, or is it because there is in fact a shortage of judges? Is it because there's a shortage of trained people who understand what the judiciary is and maybe now what we need is specialization? So that there isn't one judge who's sitting in judgment on a whole range of cases which he or she may not fully understand in some cases. But something has to be done because it is really beginning to become self-destructive in some ways. I just feel that once again this resort that alright I'll take it to the courts, I'll take it, I'll bring law into it. Now one hesitates and says oh my God I will be dead before any decision is taken. But Romula as a historian, you have to tell us what is the way to view this movement of people not only within the country as citizens, you should be allowed to go anywhere in the country that you want, but also from place to place. I mean surely this is the history of the human race. Absolutely. I mean whether we accept that we're all descended from the group that came with Lucy from Africa. This has been a constant. The movement of people has now become much more intensive in the subcontinent. Every part of the country that you go to, the labor, construction labor, building labor, whatever it may be, is generally from UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, places like that. I mean I've just been to the Punjab where you couldn't see a single Punjabi laborer. They were all from these parts. And understandably because they're paid better and you have the whole system of they go where they can get livelihood. Now this is going to change the whole demography of the subcontinent. And they don't understand that by bringing in these laws they are in fact interfering with the demography of the subcontinent as it would go under normal circumstances, which is economic circumstances if people are going to travel. It is not only going to interfere but it's going to contradict. I mean if suddenly you find a whole bunch of asemies, Muslims doing labor in let's say Garnatak, what are you going to do? How are you going to identify them? The second generation will be all Canada speaking, kids going to schools there and that kind of thing. So there's that. But the bigger problem for me as a historian is that when you look at the history of any country and particularly of areas that in the 19th century were specially earmarked as civilizations, European, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, you name it, what do you find? The civilization, the process of civilization is possibly one of the most porous processes that can be imagined. People kept coming in, people kept going out, ideas were exchanged, people were exchanged, customs, practices. I mean if you look for example, I've just been completing this little travelogue come diary that I've written on China, I went there 62 years ago, the whole Silk Route, Central Asia, it is an absolute mixture of people coming and going, including Indians. And so what are we going to do with this? How are we going to understand our own cultures if we're going to put up these barricades and say no, nothing from there came in here or was allowed to come in here, when actually the evidence is telling you that it was absolutely fluid, people just came and went. So the importance that is given to migration today, and we're not the only ones, I mean you've got this absurdity of Trump trying to build a wall separating Mexico and the Americas. And of course a wall was built to hide real people in slums in Gujarat. We have this obsession today, but it's an obsession which is denied by history and will be denied by history to come. It's not something that's going to last. I mean it's in some ways laughable for a historian to sit and watch this desperate desire to cut off people coming in because this has happened right through history. You know we've talked about ways in which the courts can actually engage with the situation as it's unfolding today. So in the case of Shaheen Bagh for instance, the Supreme Court has sent those three mediators and there seems to be some dialogue that's being initiated, what do you think? Yes, I think that I would certainly approve more and more of that both with Shaheen Bagh and also with the student protests. I think it's very necessary that responsible people, responsible citizens be sent to have dialogue and conversations and debates with people who are protesting. This is a civilized way of proceeding. And the Shaheen Bagh, one hopes that something will come of it. One doesn't have to take an extreme position and say lift the whole lot, remove them. You can say shift them to a particular area, let the protests go on and let the dialogue go on then, people will, they should go on talking. And that I think could be expanded further in other cases as well. I'm very impressed with the women at Shaheen Bagh and felt very proud of the fact that you had Indian women who were taking such a clear cut firm position. And then realized of course that in a sense it is women in this particular protest who would have to take a central role because whatever documentation you may have, after all eventually it is only the mother who knows who is the father of the child, Pitri Bhumi, and who knows where the child was born and when the child was born. That kind of documentation cannot come from paper, it can only come from the mother. And I think it's very significant that these protests are being taken up by women, apart from the many other reasons why it's... And of course it's women who suffered terribly in Assam because they got married and go somewhere else and where are they, show these documents and... And given the kind of confusion that's going on where you know the woman is declared a foreigner but not the child, this separation of families is one in which the women are the fundamental sufferers. And so it's very impressive that those that were being pushed way back by these laws are the ones who are coming out and protesting against them.