Salman Khurshid, Dr. Vikram Sampath, Sai Deepak, Pavan K Varma At Times Now Summit 2022

It is always a pleasure to host a debate with luminaries in a public forum like this. One often finds oneself talking to these distinguished gentlemen through uh vsats and all sorts of other recording equipment where they cannot see each other face to face, but it is very nice to be here among all of you in an appreciative crowd. Thank you very much, let's join hands for all the gentlemen who have come this far and without delay let me begin this conversation about who suppressed. The view indicates is the title of our debate and we are speaking on a day when India is marking the day and stole the advance of the Mughal invasion ad, so to speak, towards the East.

Some people might be irritated by my use of the word invasion, but nonetheless, some of the announcements celebrating or marking the conference day are very candid. I frankly refer to this as an invasion, so I'm just taking the liberty of cite that particular word, but why haven't we heard of lakship? And I'm sure if you did a quick count here, an informal poll, people wouldn't even know who we're talking about. I am right? I can not hear you. overlooked if not crossed out, why was this deliberate, if so, who is to blame and why and let me start with Dr.

Vikram Sampath and throw this question at him, thank you Rahul, a very good evening to all of you, All my dear co-panelists, it is a great honor and pleasure to share space with all of you. I think it is very appropriate, Rahul, that you have mentioned the right thing from the beginning. Let's hit and legit divas that are organizing. I mean political considerations, apart from the very fact that this was that part. of India that all along resisted any kind of imperialist invasion, you know, whether it was the Afghans, the Mughals, whoever came in, they were never able to occupy this place for more than a couple of years, the spirit of resistance, the spirit of battle courage of uh, you know that the military spirit ensured that kamrupa was kept free from all this influence, but the survey you conducted also showed that people don't know it, so why don't they know it?

If they didn't tell all the students. from the history of India maybe in writing you know the long list of bad battles that we lost as a nation from the Battle of the terrain the battles of panipat the Anglo Maratha Anglo sea Kanglo Mysore Wars you call it Battle of Buxar Battle of Plasi but the Battle of saraihat where lakshit actually one would not be part of our growing years forget Assam go to south Kerala, the battle of kolachal here was a time when Martin de Verma of travancore managed to defeat the Dutch East India Company, a company that was having Its global access to power from South Africa to Japan with much of India under its control and Marthanda Burma dealt a mortal blow to the Dutch East India Company and its imperialist designs in India and every other country .

Kolachal battle or martanda

varma

statues would be installed in every square and commemorated but in our country I think this whole idea is particularly due to the way we look at our past and our history with a sense of self-loathing with that sense of apology . I think that has been something that is inherited from our Colonial Masters perfected after independence by what is commonly known as the Nehruvian consensus where I think even the most sympathetic biographer of Nehru is Gopal had said that his assessment of the so-called question of the minorities was not the one that the majority uh you know, did you think about what the minority feels, and even on annoying issues like, for example, the somnath mandir, etc., perhaps you would prefer that that structure be resurrected and handed over to the ASI , but not turn it into a living monument, so you know this.

The whole obsession of knowing that you have to sever from your past the tenuous relationship that exists with your past and then do it in such a way that it is a fossilized monument in a museum, not a living tradition, eh, which unfortunately has been the nightmare of al least at least Indian historiography. I know this session is not just about history, but about different aspects of what that Indian vision is, but I think history informs and instructs a lot of that vision, but in that, you know, narrative, especially post- independence and ideologically contaminated. I know the narrative and the political and ideological combination.

I think we've given up this legitimate sense of pride that we need to have in our past. I must emphasize here that there is a very thin and slippery slope between patriotism and pride, but then each nation and history is the tool where you can recognize yourself as a people as a civilization as a society, so history does have that usefulness of wanting to create that sense of Pride genuine for your past your ancestors their achievements that unfortunately in this what will they think what will they think what How will it affect today's society? The current policy.

I think that at that altar of political correctness at the altar of political calculations and machinations, we have unfortunately made history in India. You know, the scapegoat and therefore generations have grown up rootless. We are not proud. in our own achievements there is a spectacular disconnection with our past and that is almost held up like a trophy as a sense of pride, a complete erasure of indicative achievements in various fields, be it philosophy, science, medicine, mathematics, architecture, whatever. I mean, why everything? This is not part of our ears of growth, it is education. What is that uniquely Indian or Bharatiya perspective that our children never learn?

Why are we so influenced by the Western model? Well you've identified who should take the blame and it seems like I'm not suggesting it's the Neruvian consensus, but why does that part of the question have an answer, so why would a nation awaken to life and freedom not want to celebrate? its past, its history of civilization along with the celebration? Rahul. I think a lot of the darker aspects of our past also come, which over the years I think you know, in fairness to the people who ran this country or got this country through a very difficult juncture, there was the scourge of partition.

Millions were displaced. Millions, you know, lost their lives and their homes in a previous argument. with another, you know, political scholar, you know, he literally gave up saying that we use history as a tool for nation building and when history is employed for such a task of nation building to create trust, so to speak, among the communities that have just arrived. Because of the scourge of a bloody partition, yes, there is a need that one should not tell an uncomfortable truth because somehow someone is going to feel bad or a group is going to be demonized or it is going to make, you know. , contemporary society feels offended. but I dare say that you know that the edifice of national Unity or this imagined edifice of national Unity cannot rest on the unstable foundations of a fabricated story because the fabrication can only last so long as more truth emerges.

Light is the best disinfectant. More truth. When it emerges, more people are going to question the invention that has been made intentionally for so many generations and at that time social cohesion, which was its main goal, is going to be thrown away because people are going to, you know, question the status quo. and there will be riots in anarchy, which is what we are seeing manifest all the time, all our wars today on the news channels, because among politicians these are issues from the 17th century, the 18th century, some

times

I wonder if they are aurangzebu Sultan, are these people running elections? days because most of our valuable public time is spent just arguing about all these people and that's because we haven't made peace with our past, tell the truth as it is, be honest with the past, stare at it face and get it over with, I think.

We've had a very, very problematic history, uh, manufacturing subterfuges, whitewashing for some imaginary goal of today's society. Unity is not going to help a country as diverse and pluralistic as India, let's make peace with it, heal a truth and we can cancel it somehow. as a society and then move on and build a better future Mr. Kushi, let me explain to you what Dr. Sampat seems to be suggesting is that we tried to overcompensate and built this Heruvian consensus interface on a political correctness that erred on the side of distorting our history in political terms, we have been hearing that the BJP used the term appeasement politics is that the reason why a Congress party of a particular era pandered to a particular community to such an extent that we decided to remove from our history certain inconvenient facts.

I think that's the problem here. Dr. Sampat seems to suggest that well, there are many things the Dr. said that I can't disagree with, but there are certain conclusions that I find puzzling. Nehru did not tell anyone to write. a particular type of History there were some very eminent historians do not discard them some very eminent historians did not belong to a particular community they did not have political ambition they were simply very good professionals the historians who had understood certain perspectives presented them uh they questioned many issues they questioned They presented many issues and to say that there was a total falsification of the truth I think is a bit exaggerated, it may be something that could be happening today, so having said that there is a lower layer of Truth in what he has said and not I don't think the Congress party or the Neruvian consensus has ever questioned that, as I understand it, the Neruvian consensus moves smoothly to ensure that all of that is uncovered and highlighted or underlined and I don't think the question of appeasement should come here, but we must remember one thing: ancient India and a fantastic amount of scholarship and a fantastic amount of material that ancient India provides that we are all on. proud that he does not belong to a political party or movement, he belongs to the people of India and we are all proud of that, but that was ancient India described in one way or another, but ancient India then there was Medieval India Medieval India Medieval India You can there are dimensions of medieval India that people can have specific disputes with that you call something invasion or you call something migration uh, has happened in the world nothing is static and nothing can be static and nothing can be gone back in time , things went on and on, they moved to medieval India and a lot was added to this fantastic culture in this country during the medieval India period and I think it would be unfair to say that medieval India is somewhat merged with modern India .

India and modern India also provided us with many things that not even medieval Meridian India would have agreed with, but they provided us with many things that we know today from the fact that you and I and all of us here We are discussing this very critical issue in the English language. this is what modern India provided this is not something we created this is something that came from an experience we had an experience that perhaps we should say we shouldn't have had we shouldn't have been subjugated of course we shouldn't If we haven't been subjugated, the problem will be that the line of subjugation will probably be drawn by some people somewhere else and us somewhere else, that's the difference, but we should really celebrate who we are today, we have it all and if someone feels that something in particular a individual idea, a concept or a movement has not received its share well we must give it to whoever stops you we must give it we must be proud but the pride must reside in the entire population of our country and not in someone who believes himself to be a savior of that idea, a quick response to this, you said what could be happening today is a falsification and you said you can't really blame Nehru, he didn't impose a particular vision on us, this was the work of imminent historians, the eminent Greece. so to speak, but today when someone wants to reorient our history in our textbooks, they do not consider it the work of eminent historians like Dr Sampath, but the work of a government and a prime minister who might be trying well I mean, that would be your impression, but that's what you said, no, no, I didn't say that, wait a minute, let's be clear about the rules, okay, I think Dr.

Sampath has done fantastic research and provided fantastic material. to modern India, he has not done it on the instructions of a government, he has not done it in exchange for payment from a government, he has done it because he really genuinely believes in it, now what he creates has quality and caliber. You may not agree with the conclusions, but then you may not agree with my conclusion, so a government has the right to incorporate its scholarship into a modern curriculum or Rahul Gandhi and others in the Congress party, as an example, they would say that a coward is being given a pedestal. in our history books when it does not deserve to be, I am surely talking about nothing about our precepts and our beliefs.belief says that a person called Rahul Gandhi has no right to say anything about the syllabus sure everyone will say everything about the syllabus and that is what democracy is all about and maybe it is good to have both sides in the syllabus to that people can judge for themselves what they are, but I do not speak for Mr.

Rao Gandhi or Mr. Nero or for anyone else because I believe that we are here to discuss pure ideas, pure ideas and I have said that many Of those pure ideas are ideas that I respect. I am happy to be proud of those ideas, but not with the exception of other ideas that I am also proud to have allowed myself to bring Mr. JSI Deepak because there was a divergence between Nehru and the work of historians had a deep antipathy towardsThe proposal of the Dr. Rajendra Prasad of going to inaugurate or reconstruct the Somnath temple in the sense that, as Dr.

Sampat says, fossilizing its renaissance or renaissance reconstruction or whatever, that would not have influenced the historians of the time or in the creators of the study program of the time. Do you agree with this or do you just think this was accidental? Some great minds worked and came up with textbooks and told it like it was. I don't think he's that innocent. Maybe I will give you a nugget, so said Roshan. The actor plays Nehru in Bharati Coach and in the episode that talks about Prithviraj Chauhan ends with a reference to Prithviraj Raso who talks about how Gori was murdered by a blind Prefira Chauhan and that's how that particular story ends but Nehru's comment regarding to that The ending in particular is that perhaps it is a fantasy and I don't think this would have been the case and that perhaps a defeated people are trying to invent fables and legends to esteem or appease their own defeated feelings which seems to be the Train in Neruvian march.

Reflecting on his works and this is not, let's say, a sample position that is taken out of context, this is his current thinking. I would agree with Mr. Kushi if I assumed for a moment that two groups of scholars with divergent opinions had the same pattern in their positions and The scholars and then the public had the opportunity to consume both points of view and determine which of them is more evidence-based, which of them is more consistent with the immediate partition incident or the costly partition episode and which of these is more consistent with the immediate partition incident or the costly partition episode. more credible, what would we like to learn from now?

It turns out that a particular line of historians was kept completely outside the control of the establishments. All of these people who were comfortable presenting uncomfortable truths were relegated to the margins, therefore. It's not as if all of politics, all of the historians who were willing to put forward a certain point of view had a chance, so I'm not willing to accept that second assumption for a moment that the costly specter of partition had not taken place. and we were still Living in a united and undivided India, I would still accept to some extent the premise that why would you want to dig up an uncomfortable past when somehow, after a thousand years of bloodshed, two major communities have managed to find the peace to live next to each other? as part of a single nation, but after partition on the basis of a donation.

Theory that clearly has a religious basis. What mythical unity are you trying to build and what mythical peace are you trying to build after millions of people have already lost their lives and Bharat has lost at least around 30 percent of its land, so to speak, so what Is this unity they are trying to build on the altar of falsified history? I can understand that there is an incentive to build this unity and this peacebuilding. initiative provided partition had not taken place, but after partition at least the government has an obligation to locate the historical facts, allow people to come forward and say this is what has happened, there is a Continuum in when it comes to this particular mentality. concerned and this particular mentality cannot be repeated for the benefit of our own people.

I am not willing for a moment to believe that the express forced exodus of Kashmiri experts from Kashmir has nothing to do with the mentality that resulted in partition I cannot believe that particular fact, therefore this is not a study of archiving in the past, it is both a study of an ongoing present that is going to repeat itself or at least is repeating itself in various parts. of the country, therefore, I do not believe that history is simply a matter of looking back, learning certain lessons and moving forward, because if it were that easy, why would there be posters regarding the RN invasion theory in every protest related to a reservation so that history remains? relevant to every contemporary discussion, unfortunately or fortunately, then we could also ensure that there is a plurality of voices, so here is a suggestion that I make and this is based on my discussion with various historians and I hope to become Dr.

Vikram Basin in Perhaps this story should be taken out of the government's purview entirely and allowed for a body of independent experts who are in a position to come to some sort of consensus regarding what kind of curriculum should be present in this year's school programs. happens in other countries, we seem to be learning the worst principles from the West, but the best principles also mean that independent actors and independent experts in the field come together and formulate the study and people's parents are invited to give their opinion on yes I want this particular to be presented as a school curriculum etc., that is a suggestion that is possible, but, you see, the so-called non-uprising in this country would still be comfortable with that particular suggestion, but those who They believe that history needs to be used to perpetrate a particular myth about this particular country as a defeated society and how a defeated nation would never want to let go of any kind of control over history as a domain and the Humanities as a domain that has been reality as someone who has spent some time.

I have spent a significant amount of time speaking with students from all campuses at various conferences. So far I can observe the fact that history is a real battlefield and that means it translates into policy formulation, it translates into the curriculum, it translates into legal education, it translates into all kinds of presentations. . I'm sure you followed the arguments that were presented as part of the AWS case before the Supreme Court. I would say it was a textbook example of Nehru's distorted history being incorporated through arguments before the highest level. court of the country and I was very glad that people could finally see what kind of versions of History were really bought in Lock Stock in battle by members of the establishment, the so-called heroin establishment and what is being presented to oppose the AWS .

I'm not talking about the news issue, but how the story was weaponized in the Supreme Court during the course of a political discussion, so I'm very clear that the story will never be free of controversy. I just hope that people have the courage of conviction and honesty to show their prejudices and allow the evidence to speak for itself so that the public can ask themselves if the prejudice prevails over the evidence or if the evidence prevails over the prejudice, That's something people have to decide. What am I here for Mr. Verma Mr. Kushid mentioned the need to include everyone's narratives and I think your JSI Deepak would agree that we do an honest review and include everyone's point of view and then come out with maybe a version of History, unfortunately there are a large number of people today who say that that is not happening, certain versions are being excluded or will be excluded from the project to perhaps correct some of these omissions that we are discussing here, but I just want you to quote, I just want you to Listen to this because it is a small quote, there is a difference, for example, Mohan Bhagavat himself said that we accept Akbar but we cannot accept orange.

He spoke of darashiko as someone who had to be admired. What's fundamentally wrong with that? It doesn't seem to suggest that any particular school that might be empowered today is seeking to exclude the other side from the conversation or from The Annotation of History, as you see I have listened patiently to very learned people, let me give you my point of view and since I've spoken last, let me tell you absolutely: You see, history is never completely objective because people write it and people write it from experiences that they feel should be included or excluded. Now the history of India is one, there are four Indic religions, one of which the most important religions of the world Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism that were born in this land now has not been a continuous and linear evolution of the Indic religions that separated with an Indian culture, they were serious setbacks for this index civilization and that will explain it to you.

Why perhaps after 1947 we have not been able to resurrect many aspects that are valuable in such a rich legacy? First we had the Turkish Islamic invasion and I have argued in my book The Great Hindu Civilization that we cannot ignore the facts of History. As I will, said one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of the world, there was a great degree of destruction and damage to put in particular Hinduism because Buddhism had migrated in part of India at that time to Hinduism, its temples, its artifacts and its learning centers there are two great achievements despite that attack one is that Hinduism survived because it is a sanatana religion that reinvented itself particularly through the bhakti movement where it brought the religion itself to the masses in their own language and it is the white second in despite that attack we built what I consider an extremely valuable part of our heritage which is what we call ganga jamuni tezi where we synthetically include the influences that have arrived in the literary philosophical cultural parts of our life now the second One aspect of what followed next in Islam was the British conquest.

I think the British conquest was even smaller as we are somehow downplaying the Indic legacy because the success of British colonialism was not a physical subjugation, it was the colonization of our minds. with hinda with a sense of inferiority with a sense of criticism of our own culture and legacy of the past. I am into Raja Ram mon Roy, for example, for whom I have great admiration. Otherwise, the British wrote saying that all this Sanskrit legacy is wallowing in the past and we need to adopt Western education in its entirety, this is what made smart Indians about their own Indian legacy.

Now the last factor that is important is what happened after 1947 and I want to tell you that the cultural impact of colonialism takes after decades of political independence, we gained freedom, but the impact of colonialism on our minds has not disappeared yet. I mean, Salman brought up the fact that one of the big consequences and he said it. I thought positively, we are speaking in English, frankly. I'm not very proud of the fact that we are speaking in English we are a country with one of the richest linguistic heritages in the world 24 languages ​​with their own corpus with their own vocabulary with their own writing but still the first thing the colonizers do is take off your language.

Now what is my last point? My last point is that as a consequence of colonialism, some of those who inherited power that you were talking about, you are arguing about Nehru, some of those who inherited power after I bought into the colonial bias that everything related to our The The past was, in the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, for whom I have great respect, the Deadwood of the past, it was superstition, it was prejudice, it was ritual and the attempt was to define modernity purely in a Western paradigm. A lot was lost because we didn't do it.

We applied ourselves to resurrect, to recreate, to reappropriate aspects of this indicative legacy and that is where history also became distorted because an attempt was made, as I think Vikram said, that after partition we should not exalt the truths about history and try to gloss them. ended but it became a very powerful school and it was about to create a backlash because you have to accept the truth and Vikram mentioned that we have to accept that truth but what I don't agree with is and the bottom line is that you can't commit the truth. acrimonies of the past today when we are a modern Republic where we are moving and have recognized ourselves as a multilingual Multicultural multireligious plural state in accordance with a great Hindi Legacy there are many versions of the truth in me in this Republic I have recognized them and resolved to become one plural nation that embraces diversity and has moved forward despite what people consider debilitating diversity, that is our achievement so let's stop there and finally I have a small difference with what you saidwhen he says that partition was aimed at creating a final division between Hindus and Muslims.

I have only contempt for what happened to Hindus in Pakistan, but many Muslims stayed here by choice and were born and are part of the soil, in fact the whole premise of India is that it is not Pakistan and therefore I believe that We must recognize this, accept the facts of history and recreate our history. What has been done. I ask you 47. Even the history textbooks have not changed. Russia. The theory of Aesthetics we were talking about. was written by Bharat in the notice after 400 years before the birth of Christ, it is an entire chapter that is a meditation on Aesthetics where people had not come down from the trees in most of the world and because of the Western presumption that Aesthetics was a word discovered in the 17th century why is it not taught in a text why are they aspects of the bhagavad-gita if we exclude the religious part where there is a secular message if the bhagavad-gita talks about nishkam Karam which is the stabilizer of Earth voltage on stress The lives we lead are not part of our educational curriculum.

Why does our view of History become so north-centric? We have every street named after the Mughal Emperor and I think they are an important part of our history. What about the others? Where is a boulevard? Delhi or Krishna devaraya, where is the street after Raja Rajola? So I believe that we have not corrected that history and we have not made any systematic and sustained effort to once again reappropriate our culture, the budget of the Ministry of Culture, even after 2014, by a government that came with the idea of ​​restoring India's cultural pride is removed every year when the Ministry of Education's budget was cut, the educational curriculum was changed and left unchanged.

I know it is a delicate project, but you have to at least try. We haven't, so there's no point in blaming anyone else. very interesting and Jason Deepak, let me come back to you, there is a fine line between excavating the truth about the past and the acrimonies of the past, that is the distinction you are playing with is that what is happening to Dr. Sampath when he wrote about wheat savarkar dig. the pastor's acrimonies were him Digging the truth about the past just like someone who comes from the south southern food begins with the sweet so let me start with a point of agreement with Mr.

Verma on the aspect of colonization and on the impact of colonization I don't think I have anything to disagree with that it has much more pernicious and, let's say, much more transcendental effects than the use of the sword. I completely agree with that and I think we are still recovering from the impact of this, which is very clear. I don't think we are wearing the Mughal clothing, you are wearing the British man's clothing for all practical purposes, at least some of us, so I understand that particular problem, but this is clear from the points raised by Mr .

Kushi and then by Mr. Varma, one believes that it was a wave of migration and the other is clear by citing material that this was not a migration, but a bloody invasion, the bloodiest there could be in the history of the humanity. What I wish to highlight to make a point is that choosing to make, choosing to observe strategic silence for the sake of peace is very different from actively indulging in the denial of History and that is exactly where the problem begins if you establish an entire school that goes about whitewashing things instead of saying let's not touch this particular aspect of History, which I think is also not possible, how do you choose to remain silent about a particular aspect of your history that is not going to happen, then the only option is to talk about Now Well, why should this discussion regarding something that happened in the past result in acrimony in the present unless someone relates to the Invader even in the present and someone does not relate to the Invader even in the present, in which case the two Nation Theory is alive and well, but there's actually one trope in particular that I think needs to be destroyed because I think it's been sold way beyond its sale for data.

I am sorry to say that after partition people did not decide to stay here during the elections. before the partition of 1946 said a lot and that is a very clear decision made in the vote and therefore when you choose to talk about history, let us make it clear that perhaps practical considerations arose that prevented mass migration, but certainly not patriotic considerations and bhartiya considerations. I think the myth needs to be broken and we can no longer send him to three foreign countries, although I have several reservations with Dr. Ambedkar. The only thing he made very clear in his book Pakistan is the partition of India, which was published on the eve of Partition were published two books by Rajendra Prasad in 1946 and Dr.

Ambedkar in 1946. in which he clearly says that the so-called ganga jamuni tezeb or the syncritical culture that is celebrated again and again is a product of the incomplete conversion of the Hindu convert to Islam and therefore, multiple waves of attempts have been made on a regular basis to remove the remains of the Hindus from that particular convert, which is what has been promoted in this country as what we know as Wahhabism to say that the new convert will identify with the first converts to Islam and, therefore, cannot have any cultural ties or practices that remind you of your ancestor, starting with language, moving on to dressing, etc., so let us be clear whether the acrimony is the result or is going to be the result of a discussion regarding the medieval period in present-day Bharat and the Contemporary Bharat, that is because there are still people who relate to this particular person or if that had not been the case, why should there be resistance regarding the recovery of a particular structure, let's say it was built by a invader.

These were built by invaders. They were obviously not built after the independence of this particular country. This is not a structure that existed after August 15, 1947. Why do you identify with this particular structure? Because the mentality that has been imposed on you at the risk of the sword and, let's say, at the cost of death, prevents you from accepting your past and, therefore, it will be a constant struggle. every time there is an argument regarding the past, so I refuse to accept the fact that history is no longer relevant or that it is possible for us to have these discussions objectively.

I agree with Mr. Varma on this point, he cannot be objective, that is exactly why I concluded my first opening presentation by saying that all offices have our biases, it is impossible for us to say that we do not have biases, we are human beings, impossible, We can choose not to bring up certain inclinations and let's say ideological inclinations towards the strong for reasons of pragmatism whatever, but let the evidence speak for itself, but if the evidence leads to a different conclusion and has consequences on the street or in other places, then the people who choose to take to the streets simply because the truth is presented in public The forum is to blame, history should not be blamed and certainly not those people who wish to present the version of History before the public.

Mr. Kushi, it seems that you are seeking to create the impression that the owners present the story in a convenient way. The light to keep the peace, so to speak, is only in one community and not the other, and when the story comes out, there may be people who say, well, this is being presented in a bitter way. I think what Jay said Deepak seems to be suggesting is that the other side in this case perhaps if you look at medieval history are minorities, our Muslims need to accept certain new facts and not resent the new history as a huge imposition of a particular worldview that will lead to the displacement of your history or your Faith, well, I can't imagine, such a historical debate may end here in the time you have given, but there are some fundamental questions when we think about India and we tell ourselves what India means to us and what we see as a part in India there will be some fundamental rules that we will have to agree on now if he sits here and says I am a descendant of an invader, now there is no conversation about how much you want to dig in the past.

I know that when things change as the ages pass, adaptations have to be made. I'm not saying that whatever they are doing to X, Y and Z is completely unacceptable. I am not stupid to say that we will wait a thousand years to reverse this, there is a progressive movement forward and I think the way one should accept it is to say that look, there was a sense of deprivation, a sense of denial that today has been corrected Either way, let's accept it and move on, something needs to be done about it. moment you come together as a nation, otherwise you are not a nation, you are simply formed by circumstances and you are waiting for something to happen so you can be blown to pieces once again, it can't be, you have to accept.

Some fundamental rules and the fundamental rules are not about falsifying history or suppressing a particular historical perspective or refusing to accept anything you say as having any virtue, no, but the moment you say you are an invader then you are talking to an invader that you are not. talking to one of your own you have already rejected that person as if he were one of yours we do not reject you you reject us it cannot then be the creation of a nation in anything else you want to address, but the creation of a nation was a compact that we come together to say that this is the country that we will build together and of course some people will have to sacrifice others, some people will have to adapt, others will have to adapt, but this is not the language to build a country, this It is a language.

To make it clear that I want a country that existed 5000 years ago, what are you doing here? Sorry, it's not acceptable, Dr. Sampath, how do you see this? Because he has written stories. Do you think you're even trying to understand where you're going? For example, at some point you mentioned an incident at a festival where you were yelled at, etc., that's not the focus either. I don't think you are revising some of our stories to paint a bitter picture of interfaith relations nor are you suggesting anything correct. If I'm wrong, the heirs of that story should be punished today for what certain ancestors did.

I mean, if one were to accept what Mr. Kushi says, I don't think it's a dire need and I think, uh. I would like to address Mr. Khurshid's point that the opposite is actually true in my opinion, hyphenating today's communities specifically today are the Muslims, the albatross of ghazni and Gori and aurangzeb and tipu do not rest on any of their shoulders , a young Muslim. or the woman is not responsible for them, but on the contrary, in trying to whitewash and erase these excesses committed by these invaders somewhere, the political leaders in the last 70 years perhaps, consciously or unconsciously, have tried to tell them that if we talked about this you are I'm going to be offended, so why are you hyphenating them with these invaders?

First of all, the boot is on the other foot. Now, when we talk about the excesses of the East India Company, no one cares about the Christians of India. We are going to be offended, we speak very openly. Dr. Shashi Taru has written a complete classic on the Inglorious Empire, but why not something about the Islamic conquest of India as Will Durant had mentioned there? Why does this thought arise that it is going to make someone uncomfortable? So by doing that subconsciously and subliminally somewhere, people of a certain ideological disposition have already put that Albatross on the shoulders of a particular community and you don't need members of a religion as icons for that religion in the first place , a Hindu.

Parsi, a Jain or whatever, can be an icon even for a Muslim boy or girl. You don't have to make aurangzeb look secular. There are crazy people who also say that he protected more temples than, you know, destroyed them. Hitler probably would have probably killed fewer Jews than he could have killed, but then why do you have to go through all that to make sure you know the Community finds an icon in my state? Karnataka tipu Sultan is today made almost like this symbol or an icon. of a particular community, while there are vivid memories of hatred against him beyond politics and political parties among the Cotevas, among the Syrian Christian Christians of Mangalore, the Catholics, the Nyers of Malabar, the Mandyam Ayangars, all of them , which is so much living history, so I think this hyphenation The most important thing is that you don't need members of the same community as icons for them, even if you need, you can have synthetic examples of a dharashiko or a raskhan or Rahim, etc., who you can draw instead of doing the subterfuge that you know how to cover up these crimes and that I think actually the argument is on the other side, so what Mr.

Khushi did in my opinion very quickly. Yes, Mr. Varma, I just wantsay that time is short and this is probably a conclusion. I comment that we need to be honest about our past, but we equally need maturity, wisdom, inclusion and reconciliation today. I say this genuinely because I believe that we will be violating one of the strongest principles of Indian religions, which is that this world is a world of inclusion. let good thoughts flow from all directions, let us not attack the index religions by covering them with what has happened to theocratic States elsewhere, which eliminates the unique distinction of India, which is a plural Republic, and I mean That somewhere in the comments made I think there is a feeling that all Hindus hate Muslims and Muslims eat Hindus and that they can never be part of a syncretic culture.

I don't think it's true because if it were true a party that was speaking let's say disproportionately or just because Hindus would have won all the elections, but our polls show that even in

times

of maximum polarization on the basis of releke Masjid or, more recently, In the West Bengal elections, not more than 50 per cent of Hindus vote just because they are Hindu, so already there is a sense of an inclusive Republic in our DNA, that's fine and let's keep it that way. I remember, although I am reluctant to say sigh of the foreign line of Rahat Indori, can I just make a point, okay, okay, two last final comments, okay, I am Happy that Mr.

Varma has considered it for point out that the Hindu never always votes like a Hindu and somehow he did not consider it appropriate to set the same example with respect to others. Now I leave that decision to him. See, the point is this. having two variables in the equation facts and tone allow us to present the facts but not necessarily in a violent tone my proposal is this not to create, let's say, ghosts to prevent the presentation of the facts the approach of the law even when the facts are presented to the public platform is in which core a particular fact is presented because if it is irritating then the tone alone is enough to invoke the law, that is why I say that the tone be peaceful, that the tone be reconciliatory, but that there be no compromise on the facts.

As long as we agree on that, I think there is a common ground we should reach. The last word, I think is a fair point and, you know, in our previous discussion, just a line about what Mr. Burma said in one of your debates, you know, too, Rahul. We had this conversation with Mr. Verma where you know he keeps invoking the indicative essence that you know what the essence of this nation is, but then also, Mr. Verma, there is a clash of ideas where on the one hand there is a group that does not speaks of acceptance and inclusion of everything and there is a clash with another worldview another thought where is my path or the highway where is it there are still thoughts of what is there in what is infidelity what is it uh how does that mean being curved why does it have to have uh you know uh you know that you need to convert people into your fold if everyone is equal if everyone is inclusive there is no need for these things Beyond economic considerations try to make everyone inclusive okay, gentlemen and the audience, thank you very much Very much for seeing this interesting conversation.

It cannot be accommodated in 35 40 minutes. I'm sure, I'm sure this conversation will continue and that's really the silver lining without the acrimony, thank you very much.