Transcription
Javed Aatar has come here. I request him to come to the stage. His speech was supposed to be on the topic "From Atheism to Rationalism". However, instead of giving a speech, he will have a conversation. He said that he is a person who likes to chat, so Revolution Kanade and Dr. Pradeep Patil have been chosen to chat with him. Revolution Kanade is coming to the stage for the first time, so he should be asked five questions. I told him that. He said that if I don't ask him questions, he won't ask me questions. So he has removed that question. Let's get straight to the program. Dr. Pradeep Patil and Revolution Kanade. So my first question is, what is the history of anthem in the Muslim political world? Muslim community in the Muslim political world. What is the history of anthem? You can answer in Hindi. Okay. If you go, first of all, you can't treat the Muslim world as monolithic. You see, it's very strange that the so-called Muslim countries are called the Islamic world, but Europe is not called Christian. So, Muslims are not monolithic. Different countries have different kinds of people. They have different social issues, different histories. So, I'll speak only about Indian Muslims because they have their identity which is different from the Muslims of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Libya. Because they share religion, but not only religion. There are so many factors: culture, different economic forces, different political forces, topography, vocation, and so on. Economics. So, they are... Is it clear? Any problem with the mic? Brother, if you ask the question in English, I will answer in Hindi. Then people will say I told them they can speak in Hindi, so ask the question in Hindi. You don't know how to speak Hindi. [Applause] Speak in Hindi. Look, his question was, what is the history of anthem in the Muslim community? What does he mean by Muslim community? Not all Muslim communities in the world. There are different countries. This is called the Islamic world. Oh brother, then why don't you call Europe the Christian world? This is a mistake. This is a myth. This is something that even the mullahs say, and also people who are not Muslims and who don't like them, they also say it. It's amazing that the mullahs, who claim to be very Muslim, and those who don't like Muslims, their language is quite similar. So, this pan-Islamic world doesn't exist. It's a lie. There are different countries in the world. They have their own nationalities. They have their own histories. Religion is a factor. A person is not made entirely by religion, no matter how devout they are. Along with that, they have their cultural history, their political history, their geographical realities, their vocation, their profession. What is the land like? What has happened? What forces are there? What is the economic situation? Everything combined makes a person. What is the language? I find language more important than religion. Because no matter how much you practice religion, you might do it for half an hour a day, but for the remaining 23.5 hours, you will speak in your language. You will even dream in your language. So, language stays with you more than religion. But people don't give it that much importance. This is a wrong thing. So, as far as the Muslim community is concerned, I cannot speak about Turkish, Iranian, Egyptian, and Libyan Muslims. Just like a Christian from Goa cannot speak about all Christians in Europe. He can tell you what is in Goa. So, when I say Muslim community, I mean only India. Our people here. The Muslims here. There has been a very interesting history of anthem here. Yesterday I said, today I will repeat. In North India, Urdu is again not the language of Muslims. Let me clarify again. The language of a Muslim from Tamil Nadu is not Urdu. The language of a Muslim from Bengal is not Urdu. Many countries in the world have been partitioned. But Pakistan has created a record that will never be broken: the majority asked the minority for a partition. The minority asks for a partition. Here, 10 crore Bengalis told 7 crore Punjabis that we want a separate country, and Bangladesh was formed. On what issue was Bangladesh formed? There were many issues, but the main issue was language. Can't you teach us Urdu? Our language is Bengali, and we will read Bengali. So, 10 crore Muslims preferred Bengali and not Urdu. Even after that, if you call Urdu the language of Muslims, you are speaking wrongly. It is true that Urdu was the language of North India. So, it was not the language of Muslims in North India. It was also the language of Hindus in North India, and Sikhs. Even today, those you will find in Delhi are refugees, Punjabis, Sikhs. My grandfather only read Urdu newspapers. My grandfather only wrote in Urdu. Earlier, till '70, the father was mentioned, the grandfather was mentioned. Everyone read it. But this is a lie, just like the entire Two-Nation Theory is a lie. Hindus and Muslims are not two nations of the subcontinent. They are one nation. And when this Two-Nation Theory was falsely propagated, history was divided. One version of history was created by Hindu historians, another by Muslim historians. Both were false. The land was divided. Now, how will you divide the language, brother? Urdu was living proof that the Two-Nation Theory was not true. So, it is not possible that you keep the nouns and we take the verbs. This is not possible. So, it had to be pushed aside and made into a Muslim language. I don't know what is Muslim in Urdu. I only know one thing: in 1798, a gentleman named Shah Abdul Qadir in Delhi translated the Quran into Urdu for the first time. In 1798, almost 700 years after its translation into Sindhi, which was the first language in India into which the Quran was translated, was Sindhi. When Shah Abdul Qadir translated it, all the mullahs and qazis of that time issued a fatwa of blasphemy against him. That this man has translated the Quran into this dirty language, this infidel language, this atheist language. Meaning, they boycotted him. That same language, after 1857, was gradually given a beard and a cap, with the British's consent. And this same Hindi, which belongs to any Indian, was made the language of Hindus in Fort William College. Brother, language is of a region, not of religion. The language of a Muslim from Kerala is Malayalam. That great writer Bashir, or Nazrul, that great Nazrul Islam, Kazi Nazrul Islam, the Bengali poet, he wrote in Bengali. He spoke Bengali, he thought in Bengali. His language was not Urdu. Languages are of regions. Now, look here in Maharashtra. I have come to Sangli, and here I have met many Muslims. They are all talking in Marathi. Their language is Marathi. So, languages are of regions. Therefore, to call Urdu the language of Muslims is foolishness. This is wrong. Now listen. It is true that most Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus in North India used to write in Urdu, and Urdu developed there. So, now I can say that Urdu, which all Muslims of North India used to write and read. It's not like that anymore. Its history is very interesting. First, understand what language is. Many people think it came from outside. What is language? Its script. What is written behind this? "Nastik Parishad". If I write this as "NASTIK PRASHID", will it become English? "Nastik Parishad". If you see a poster, "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai", "KUCH KUCH CHOTAH AI". Is that English? So, script is not language. And if script were language, then more than half of the languages of Europe would be Latin, because English, French, German, their script is Latin-Roman. So, are they all speaking Latin? So, what is vocabulary? If I say, "This hall is comfortable." I said four words. "This hall is comfortable." The two main words in this are English: "hall" and "comfortable". Was I speaking English? I only said two main words. And this is nothing. And people say "comfortable" in English, but still speak Hindi. Why? Because vocabulary is not language. Language is grammar, syntax. Now, look at the grammar of Urdu and Hindi. Is there any difference? No difference. These two languages in the world are unique in that their grammar is the same. How can the grammar of two languages be the same? But it is. Because it is one language. It is Hindustani. Some people write it in Devanagari, some write it in Persian script. But this language is one, and it has been artificially separated by putting difficult words here and difficult words there, consciously trying to separate them. And this has happened historically. So, as far as Urdu is concerned, Urdu is a purely Indian language. Its base is Khadi Boli. Today's Hindi is also based on Khadi Boli. Both originated from the same place. Their root is Khadi Boli. Khadi Boli is a dialect. A dialect is called something that has a language but no script. So, this is a dialect, which some people started writing in Persian script. Why Persian? Because Muslims were not there. Persian was also here. The official language of the kings here was Persian. Persian was once what English is today. Our brothers who can speak Hindi, they did not ask the question in English. So, educated people are called those who can speak English. Similarly, in those times, educated people were considered those who knew Persian. And this was not just here; it was throughout Central Asia. Look here, "Peshwa". "Peshwa" is a Persian word. "Pesh" means to go forward. "Peshwa" means leader. So, there are so many words. In Marathi too, there are many Persian and Arabic words. Do you know that "Mawali" is an Arabic word? "Khalas". "Khalas" is an Arabic word. Persian. "Nabu". These minutes of the assembly are called "Ahwal" in Marathi. All these words. From one place to another. This is an ocean. The fact is, we Urdu speakers call it an ocean, and "darya" means river. "Darya" is a Persian word, meaning ocean. Marathi people correctly call it "samudra". We call it incorrectly. So, this language, Urdu, has a distinction. All languages that have come into the world, whether Greek, Roman, Sanskrit, Arabic, their initial poetry was always religious, about gods and goddesses, about God, about some holy ritual, about their customs. Then gradually, talks of love began. Then came political and social sense in poetry. Urdu is a language. Do you know how this happened? Urdu poetry began as secular and anti-religious. Ghazal is a form of writing in which most poetry has been traditionally written. What is a ghazal? Many people say "ghazal" but very few people know what it is. Its structure is very interesting. It's like a biscuit tin, where in one tin, there are savory, sweet, cream-filled, butter-filled, salty biscuits of all kinds. Ghazal is also like that biscuit tin. In a ghazal, every two lines form a couplet, which is a "sher". It is complete in itself. It has no connection with the previous or the next sher. There is no need for it. Every sher is a complete statement in itself, with no connection to what came before or after. So, how are they together? They are together because the meter is the same, the rhyme is the same, "qafiya", as they say. "Dawa mila hua kiya bhala". This rhyme is going on. Besides that, there is one more thing that is only in Persian poetry. We took it from Persian, and today it is in Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, written in Urdu, Hindi. It is also taken. That thing is "radif". "Radif" is when, after the "qafiya" or the rhyme, "Dile nada, tujhe hua kya hai? Aakhir is dard ki dawa kya hai?" So, "dawa" is the rhyme. What is repeating? This is "radif". It is not in Arabic, not in Sanskrit, not in English, not in Italian, not in German. There is no "radif" in these. There is rhyme. If Wordsworth writes, he writes "A flower bloomed in the morn, I saw a star only one shining in the sky." So, "morn" and "sky". But no "radif". If he writes a Doha, "Rahiman mushkil padhi, te doh kaam sidhe se. Jag na mile ulte mile na Ram." So, "Ram" and "kaam". Rhyme. There is no "radif" in Doha. So, it is in this. Now, if a complete बात has to be said in two lines, then when we talk, and we start talking briefly, we create metaphors. That this word has these meanings. So, one word is said, and the other is understood. This happens a lot among friends. Similarly, symbols have been created in ghazal. Who is the hero of ghazal? Either the lover or the "rind". "Rind" means a drunkard, a शराबi. Who is the villain? Sheikh, Nasih, Muhtasib. All these words. Sheikh means a cleric. Nasih means one who advises, tells you what is right and wrong. Zahid, Patan, Makhtab, moral police. All these are villains of ghazal. And the hero is the "rind". Well, "rind" does not mean drunkard. In the context of ghazal, "rind" means a free thinker. And I will recite a sher for you to explain. The good place is "Makhana". The bad place, wrong place, boring place is "Haram", mosque. This is the language of ghazal. But these are symbols. The talk is about something else. "Jinhe pyas hai unhe kam se kam, jinhe pyas kam unhe damdam." "Mere saqiya, tere maikhade ka nizam hai ki mazak hai?" Nizam, system. He is saying that you give them a little to drink who are thirsty, and you are giving them a lot to drink who are not thirsty. So, this is the joke of your tavern. Who is he talking about? This is about the economic system of society. It's not about alcohol. These are symbolic poems used. The poetry from many years ago, and today's. The language is a bit difficult, so I will have to translate. Because you said that Muslim poets, all those who wrote, "Akay waham hai, mazhab khayal kham hai, saqi. Azal se zehan-e-insan basta-e-mastam hai." This belief, they are all wrong. Religion is a very weak idea. I am literally translating. Right from the beginning, the human mind is a bag of superstitions. This Urdu poetry, yesterday I recited a sher for you: "Jaye hai jee nijaat ke gham mein, aisi jannat gayi jahannum mein." So, all this poetry, you take any great poet, whose names you must have heard, Mir, Ghalib, Sauda, these great poets. They all wrote against religion their entire lives. So, this tradition, in Urdu and North Indian. I cannot speak about other languages. I cannot guarantee about Muslims who speak Arabic or Tamil or Telugu. I can tell you that among Urdu-speaking North Indian Muslims, the tradition of secularism is very strong and very old. When we talk about religious fanaticism in India, we often blame politicians. But very little discussion happens about the people who elect them. Meaning, in a way, a doctor does not talk to his patient about his illness at all. So, historically, are Indian people, Indian men, Indians, a bit lazy about social and political reforms? Why not? And it started from where you are sitting, brother. Maharashtra has played such a big role in social reform. If the voice of backward castes and Dalits has risen anywhere, it has risen from here. The biggest revolution has come from here. So, it is no surprise that its counter-revolution, the RSS, was also formed from here. Because the people here were the first to realize that people are waking up, so do something. So, here, Maharashtra is not like the Gateway of India was built in Mumbai just like that. Maharashtra has always been the Gateway of India. Whatever new thoughts came, if the first lady doctor of India was from Maharashtra, it was not for nothing. The work done for education here and in Bengal, serious work on education started many years ago. So, people came from every state. Now it's up to you who you want to listen to. I will give you an example. Where is its parallel in the world? That a country is divided on a trivial issue, on the Two-Nation Theory, the country is divided. Even after that, a large part forms a constitution that is secular. What more can you say than this? This is not a trivial matter. This is astonishing. Tell me its parallel in world history. They said, "You are saying we will make a Muslim country. You make it. We will make an Indian country. We will not make a Hindu country." What greater thought can there be than this? So, it's not that our literature. Whatever literature I have read from other languages, it is also translated. You cannot learn all languages, whether Bengali or Marathi. If you look at the literature of the great writers here, Marathi, what have they written? Or Bengali, what have they written? What have Urdu and Hindi writers written? All these great writers you will find are not right-wing. They are left or left of center. In world history, the right-wing is present everywhere. But it has not produced a great poet. If a poet is great, he will be left-wing. It's impossible. So, what has been our situation? Read Premchand. Read Krishan Chand. Read Manto. How have they talked about secularism in their fiction? Read the poets Faiz, Majaz, Sahir. How have they talked about secularism in their poetry? So, in literature, the great people have always talked about secularism, open-mindedness, and thinking. They did not try to create small hearts and small minds. And it is still up to you where you want to go. And I think, leave the writers, leave the reformers. This is in the culture of India. Indian culture itself is open-hearted. You try to make it something else, a Semitic one, it won't become. You think it should have one Allah, one Kaaba, one book. It won't happen. It cannot go into that confinement. It is in its genes. It has to remain open. Is it a coincidence that India has democracy? And when you travel from India, you don't find democracy until the Mediterranean coast. Why? What is the reason that it happened here and not further? If you train a child, saying, "Son, this is the only truth, and nothing else is true. This is right, and nothing else is right." Then the child's temperament cannot be democratic. If you have been taught this for 5000 years, and this was not taught by sitting and teaching, but as a way of life, that this is also right.
It is also correct, it is also correct, it is also correct. They are correct in their own way, correct in their own way. Whether you agree or not, it is fine. What they do is also fine. Then a democratic temperament develops in you, brother. It's okay. Different opinions. What is happening now, this Middle Eastern thinking is coming here, slowly. Oh, you have progressed because of this, friend. You have become what you are because you were not like this, and you are not like this. If you become like this, you will become like that. Look at this. So it's not that we haven't always had positive forces, secular forces, atheistic forces, agnostic forces. Not today, but 4000 years ago. We gave the four Vedas, didn't we? They are on our land. I recently read a hymn from the Rigveda, which I have, on my phone, and I sent it to my friend and said, "Read this." My heart fills with pride that thousands of years ago we had philosophers who were looking at the universe as a grandmaster looks at a chessboard. How did this move, what happened, why did it happen, why didn't it happen? Was there any prior existence, or was there not even non-existence? The thought in the question is so vast, it's equal to the universe. That thought of a 4000-5000 year old man, giving his knowledge in the Rigveda. So we have come from there. Where are people taking us now, I don't understand. This path is not our path. Our path is to keep our thoughts, our hearts, our minds open. Let whatever comes, come. We listen. If it feels right, we will accept it. If not, let those who believe, believe. This has been our attitude, our approach. So think, has there ever been a lack of atheism, or objectivity, or analysis in any community in India? No, sir, absolutely not. Today, a 70-year-old man in India identifies most religiously. The interesting thing is that this 70-year-old man was born 70 years ago. Meaning, he grew up in Gandhian secularism, yet what has happened to him today? I mean, was all that false? Was all that a commotion, a pretense? Or can you buy his mind? What has happened to him? You mentioned the case of the 70-year-old, I am a bit sensitive about it because I have turned 70. So tell me, has any survey been conducted on what 70-year-old people in India are thinking these days? Do you have any such survey? You have blamed 70-year-old men, saying they have all become very religious and communal. From which survey did you find this out? On the contrary, look at the 70-year-old men. Some 70-year-old people are shaking their heads there, saying, "We are absolutely not like that." So he will say, "What is happening, brother? He was certainly religious. There is a difference in my thoughts and his thoughts. But his religion remained with him, it was not in his behavior, nor in his politics, and it is not today either. Even today, in the general elections of India, it's never above 60, sometimes 63, sometimes 65, sometimes 66. So votes go to those who are not very religious. How secular they are is a separate discussion, but they don't go to those about whom you might have an opinion that they are communal. Second point, the majority of the Indian public today is still not voting in the name of religion. Sir, the same 70-year-old question is: if a 70-year-old Hindu man is forwarding the idea that Hindus are in danger, then what is a 70-year-old Indian Muslim forwarding at that time? What is he talking about? What is his reaction to that? Then you are turning communities into monoliths. Monolith means everyone is the same. A community is like a city. For example, Sangli. I say, "The man from Sangli is very stingy." What kind of talk is this? Brother, there are all kinds of people in Sangli. Some might be stingy, some very generous, some might squander their money, some might save it. How can there be one attitude for the entire city? I praise Sangli for one thing: the people there drive cars very well. That's madness, brother. Some might drive well, some might crash into a pole somewhere, some might not know how to drive at all. So to form one opinion about the entire community, a city is also a community, isn't it? It's wrong. Some old Hindu might have written that the Hindu race and Hindu religion are in danger. Some old Hindu will say this is nonsense. So there are different people, aren't there? Some old Muslim might say, "Oh, Hindus are becoming very dangerous now." Some old Muslim might say, "What is this nonsense, man? Nothing like that." So there are different reactions. You cannot make one person a representative of the entire community, sir. And besides, in a country where you are 81%, 82%, where the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Army Chief, Collector, Deputy Collector, Commissioner, Vice-Chancellor of universities, Chairman of municipalities are mostly Hindu, and it should be so, being 81%, if you are in danger, then your survival seems very difficult to me. Yes, sir. The situation is such that today, in globalization, money, this thing, is no longer just of one country. Money is being distributed all over the world. Money is going from here to there. Money is no longer money's country anymore. Money is a currency of the world. So if you look at it, the political discourse is completely up for sale in India. Meaning, if I bring five billion rupees to India, can I buy the public discourse of India? This is my question. What is the situation? What do you think about this? Brother, money has its own power, denying that would be foolish. But it's not just money's power, there are many other powers in society. For example, if the wealthy had their way in America, they would have made Trump win again, but he didn't win, did he? There are no richer people in the world than them. Their interest was that Trump should win. They were all Republicans and pro-Trump. All the major companies there today, people like Elon Musk, were all on Trump's side. So he didn't win, did he? So it's not just money. Money exists, to say money has no value would be ignorance, it would be closing your eyes. Money is a great power in society, and it is used, but it's not just money. Otherwise, the party with more money would win every election. But that's not happening, is it? You've also seen it. In 1985, your film 'Arjun' is about an angry young unemployed man. There are small moments in it, like when he boards a bus and some hooligan is touching and harassing a woman. And Sunny Deol's character gets angry at everything. So where is that angry young man today? In today's date, is he busy with his mobile? Where is his power of revolt, his power of revolution? You've asked a very good question. This is indeed a matter of concern, and I would be lying if I denied it. The truth is that this, what should I say, free market, it brought many benefits, it did a lot of good, it's not that. But life comes with packages, every package has something good and something bad. One difference has emerged: collective thinking, "we," has weakened, and "I" has become strong. We don't think "we" anymore. Group thinking has decreased. A person thinks, "How do I get ahead in the market? How do I make my way? Which ladder should I use to climb up? Which step should I take? Which steps will be right?" This is his focus. "We" is our problem. We, in this free market, have reduced ourselves. So this has happened. The anger that we used to see in the youth today, that anger is not seen in the youth to that extent. It's not that everyone is sitting at home. There are groups. What has happened is that the ocean has become very vast. Now there are small islands of light in it, very far from each other. It is necessary that they connect, and if they connect, they will become a great light. The concept of a hero has been very important in the entire process of civilization. Like Gandhi, Nehru, and Indira Gandhi were major heroes of secularism. To an extent, Rajiv Gandhi also had charisma. But P.V. Narasimha Rao and then Manmohan Singh had economic intellect, but the decline of heroism occurred. So the poster boy, the poster of a movie, was down. So do you think today that a hero of secularism is missing? There is some truth in what you are saying, no doubt. At this moment, there is a lack of a charismatic leader. Whether it's secularism or harmony in society, it disturbs people. Ideas are also floating, but there is no doubt that at this moment, there isn't such a charismatic leader for secular forces, whom everyone would look up to and say, "This is it." Whether this is good or bad, I don't know. Because what happens is, when you look for such a charismatic leader, and it has always happened in history, then your faith starts to be more in the leader than in the philosophy. His philosophy becomes less important, and the leader's philosophy becomes very important. His "darshan" (vision/philosophy) – I am using "darshan" in the sense of philosophy – becomes less. It happened with communism. Communism was a philosophy, which was led in Russia and in the revolution by Lenin, and then Stalin. So they became superstars, but people's attention shifted from communism to the hardcore communists themselves. They made them gods. So I don't know what is the more mature thing: to have a charismatic leader in whom you place all your faith and trust, who becomes a kind of religion for you, or to have no particular charismatic leader, but to remain loyal to that philosophy, that ideology, that thinking. Decide for yourself which of these is more mature and better. Along with this, there is a slightly simpler question: it is said that the political history of the world is a bunch of great speeches. So, is the era of great secular political speeches over? No, it's not like that. Speech means communication. Communication has increased. Today, your sources of communication have changed. Today you have Google, you have what is it called, Twitter, you have X. So you have more information and more detail available today than ever before. Now, as far as speech is concerned, it's good that you speak well, it's a good thing and a virtue that you speak well, but it can also be misused. Hitler was a great orator, a fantastic orator. So what happened? So this power can be used for good or for bad, and in fact, it is mostly used for bad. You all know this. So if you are given knowledge without passion, without drama, and you analyze it, think about it, then it is much better. The last question. I want to ask a simple question, like our predecessors. In Hindi, please. If you were made the Prime Minister of India, for two days, what two changes would you bring? Such a thing, people shouldn't even think about it these days. If I were made the Prime Minister of India, I don't know if I would even reach home. Forget that. But if you ask me what should be done, I would first say that no matter how many problems this country has, the education budget should be 10%. See, we talk a lot about reservations here. Should there be reservations in education, or not? If there is, until when? If not, until when? Forget these figures for a while. Start this: we have very good institutions for higher education, very good ones, whether in medicine, engineering, or IT. Our primary and basic education is weak. Only rich children can afford good schools, they can study in good schools and go to good places. The poor child has eight classes in the village, one teacher. These are the conditions. Yes, yes, not just in villages, but even in small towns within cities like Pune, the situation is the same. If you strengthen primary education, basic education, then there will be no need for any reservation. But if you don't start the race from an equal footing, if you don't start by lining up children in the same line, then how can you say there shouldn't be reservation? Then it will happen. Fix this first, and then talk after 20 years, "Sir, how long will reservation continue?" First, fix this, and for 20 years, so that its roots spread out, then talk. Why is this not being fixed? We don't have money for this. There should be 10% for health too. An ordinary person doesn't get good treatment in India. The number of women who die from minor maternal complications in India in a week, seven days, is not equal to the number in the whole of Europe in a year. Imagine, every year, 400 jumbo jet crashes happen in India, full of people. More women die than that. If 400 jumbo jets crashed in a year, there would be an uproar, wouldn't there? People would go mad. These women are poor, they die, let them die. Who cares? Malnutrition among children in this country, which is about to become a 5 trillion economy, is higher than in the sub-Saharan African countries. It's a shame. This is not our issue. It should be 10%. What are you spending on? For whom are you spending? This should be part of the defense budget. If you are saving the country, you are not just saving it on the border, you are saving it from disease too. This is defense. You are saving it from ignorance too. This is defense of the country. How can you defend the country without fighting diseases and ignorance? Our defense is not just on the borders. This is also part of defense. Thank you very much, sir. In my thank you note, I would like to say that there are very few people in the Bombay film industry who use their stardom directly for social change. Javed Sahab is one of them. And when I was 21 years old, I wrote him a letter. Four days later, I directly received a call on my phone. I am Javed speaking, Javed Akhtar. And I went and met him and worked with him a little. So this quality of his, that he is available for every social interaction and social change, is what makes him a true star for me and for all of us. And second, when we will bring about this change that our property, today I have received the opportunity to spend time with Tushar Gandhi ji, Kumar Ketkar ji, so today I have become the owner of three crores – one crore from him, one crore from him. When we reach this state, you know, then I think we will be truly creating more Javed Akhtars in India, and more Kumar Ketkars, and more Tushar Gandhis. Thank you. Thank you so much. You are saying you have become the owner of three crores, meaning you have taken one crore from each of us? [Laughter] I will do it for socialist people.