Transcription
[Music]
Hello everybody and welcome back to the Ask Abhijit Show! I hope everyone is doing fantastic. Before we begin, let me check who is in the live chat. I will greet some of you, and then we shall start with the Q&A.
I can see Bat First Gear X, Krishna Ragunath from The Sur, Netherlands, Anand Pai, Animish, Danish Khan, Pan Kumar Singh, Trupti Pel, Rigin, Geopolitical Dub, America is Best, Akit, Mr. 88, Shri Ramchandra Namaha, Runat the World Teacher, Banda Panda, Super Rex, Feminist Slayer, Bries SK, Goami, Akash, Geopolitical Dub, Vikram, Geopolitical Rajes, Rajash, Shran Vatu, Bries, Vishnu Mohanan, Man Manka, Garage Tour Master, Viwik Martinez, The King, Phantom Deluxe, Kush, Abu Drawing and Art, Kushu Drawing and Art, An Pratap Singh, Atira Atti, Ugra T B, Moini Sharma, Jotna, Rishikes Das Gupta, Akash Ba, Samb Sh, Sov Tiwari, Nikil Yadav, Sahil Das Gupta, Bav S, Sorab Shukla, Prar Gupta, Anupam Jwal, Surendra Gupta, Abhijit M, Chan Deshpande, Yash Jadav, Sha Johnv, Viang Mishra, MK Rajon, Super Rex, Karthik, But Manu, Goa Sergeant, Skyland, Crazy Brain, Sandya Pran, and so many others.
So, yeah, greetings to all of you! I won't be able to greet you all individually, so let's get into the Q&A.
I usually take geopolitics questions first, but for a change, let's start with history. So, let's take some questions about history, and then we'll move to geopolitics after I've answered a bunch of history questions.
What's question one?
Question one is by Yaja: "Was the Thar Desert always a desert? If not, how long ago was it green?"
Let's take a look at the Thar Desert for that. We should check the map.
So, here's the map. The Thar Desert is mainly in Western India, particularly the Rajasthan region, and currently part of Pakistan.
So, let this load. You can see this big region here that is quite arid, and there's not much green in the middle of the screen. That's essentially the Thar Desert. Not all of it is sandy desert with dunes; much of it is just arid landscape.
Now, the question is whether this was always a desert and, if not, how long ago it was green. I believe the Thar Desert became desertified about 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum.
In geological terms, we have recently emerged from an ice age. The last glacial maximum, which was the peak of the Ice Age, was about 20,000 years ago. At that time, north of the Himalayas, we had a large region, Tibet, which was encased in sheet ice—hundreds of meters, maybe kilometers thick.
So, just north of the Himalayas, you had these gigantic ice sheets. The planet was very cold because of the Ice Age, and the ice sheets reflected away sunlight. Because of that, there was no rainy season in India for tens of thousands of years.
Due to the lack of a rainy season, this place became quite arid. There were only a few rivers in this region, with the Saraswati being the major one. It used to flow through this area, but apart from its riverbanks, everything was pretty dry and arid.
I'm not sure when it was last green, but it was arid during the last Ice Age. Around 2,500 BC, the Saraswati started drying out significantly, which caused further desertification of the Thar Desert region.
Now, the Saraswati only flows in Northern India; it's called the Ghaggar-Hakra River and dries out or flows into the Rajasthan desert, disappearing there.
At some point, it may have created a lake-like structure as it dried up, as it was no longer able to reach the ocean. The drainage channel of the Saraswati is still visible about 4,000 to 5,000 years after the river disappeared.
Because the river could no longer reach the sea, it would have created a large lake where the Thar Desert currently lies, leading to the emergence of the desert.
For example, something similar happened in the Aral Sea region. If you look at the map, it used to be a big sea, but due to various agricultural practices by the Soviets, it led to the destruction of the Aral Sea.
So, the Thar Desert wasn't always a desert. I'm not sure how long ago it was green, but after the drying out of the Saraswati, this region became properly desertified and quite arid.
That's the story of the Thar Desert. An interesting question to begin with!
Let's take a different question now.
Vikram Geopolitical asks: "Why was Australia, being such a large continent, not discovered until the 1600s? The Cholas used to rule Indonesia, and Australia is not very far from there."
When we talk about the discovery of a land or continent, we often put ourselves in the shoes of the Europeans. The Europeans discovered Australia around that time, with a privateer or pirate named James Cook, who is regarded as one of the great explorers.
So, that's the guy who discovered Australia for the British and for the Europeans. Does it mean it was the first time humans ever discovered the place?
First of all, the native Australians, the Aboriginal Australians, discovered Australia about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago and settled there. They are not the only people who discovered Australia.
Let's check Google.
Here’s the deal: some Aboriginal Australians can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island about 4,000 years ago from India. Along with their genes, these migrants brought different tool-making techniques and the ancestors of the dingo, the Australian wild dog.
If you look at the dingo, it looks just like the standard Indian street dog.
Now, let's look at another article.
The flow of genes suggests the continent was not so isolated after all. Northern Australian Aboriginal people can trace as much as 11% of their genomes to migrants who reached the island about 4,000 years ago from India.
So, it's clear that Indians discovered Australia long before the Europeans, but we are not taught this. This research came out in 2013, and today, 12 years later, do our textbooks teach our students about this? No, they don't. Our textbooks are outdated and obsolete.
The point is, Indians settled in Australia, intermarried with the Aboriginal Australians, brought in new advanced tool-making techniques, and the Indian dog, which eventually became wild in Australia and is now called dingos.
So, let's not see the world through the eyes of the Europeans. Our entire education system teaches history from a Eurocentric perspective.
We discovered Australia long before the Europeans, and there's clear evidence of that in Northern Australia.
Now, let's look at the map of Australia since we are talking about it.
Australia is very far from India, and you need to go by sea. You can travel by land from India to Myanmar, to Thailand, to Malaysia, and then do a bit of island hopping to get close to Australia, but eventually, you have to cross the sea.
We don't know what route the ancient Indians took to reach Australia, but they did reach Northern Australia specifically and settled there.
This was around the time the Saraswati started drying out, and people began migrating out of the region.
So, a bunch of people went westward and settled in Northern Syria, creating the Mitanni Empire. They were Indians who spoke Sanskrit and were Indo-Aryan in origin.
At the same time, we have Indians arriving in Australia about 4,000 years ago.
Interesting period of time! It looks like there was a time of great churn in India.
Around 4,000 years ago, there was tremendous change in India. The Saraswati was drying out, reshaping Indian civilization and demographics, leading to migrations all over the place.
Now, let's move on to the next question.
Vikram Geopolitical asks: "Is Emperor Ashoka mentioned in the Rajatarangini as a follower of Jainism, and why did he hate the Ajivikas?"
The Rajatarangini is a 12th-century text written by Kalhana, a historian from Northern India, Kashmir.
Kalhana mentions Ashoka as a follower of Jainism, which sounds like he is being described as a Jain. It's possible that the word "Jina" was used to describe Buddha and the Buddhist tradition as well.
So, yes, he is mentioned as a follower of Jainism.
Now, regarding why Ashoka hated the Ajivikas, the Ajivikas were one of the ancient philosophical schools of thought in Dharma. They believed in super determinism, which is a concept in physics that everything is determined from the beginning, and there is no free will.
The Ajivikas believed in the existence of the Atma (soul) but did not believe in God.
It is said that Ashoka persecuted the Ajivikas and had several thousand of them executed. I'm not sure how true this is, but one hears this claim being made.
One possibility is that someone made a derogatory representation of Gautam Buddha bowing down to one of the leaders of the Ajivikas, which may have enraged Ashoka.
Another possibility is that the Ajivikas supported his political opponents, which could have been one of his brothers or half-brothers.
The third possibility is that this never happened.
In Bihar, there is something called the Barabar Caves complex. These caves were not built in a single go; it is believed that Ashoka built one phase of the caves, and one of his descendants, Dasharatha, built another phase.
These caves were used by the Ajivikas, so why would Ashoka build caves for them if he hated them?
It's a bit confusing, and we are not quite sure what the truth is.
Krishna Runat from Suriname, Netherlands, says: "Recently, archaeologists from Southern India have discovered and confirmed that the Iron Age in the subcontinent is older than 3,000 BC. What do you think about this?"
I think it's not surprising, and it's wonderful that we have discovered something new in India from an archaeological perspective.
It was well known for quite a while that crucible steel was being forged in Southern India at least around 500 BC, probably before that.
Crucible steel is also called Wootz steel or Damascus steel because Damascus used to import the steel ingots from India to make swords.
This steel requires a very specific technique, and maybe that technique was lost.
Let's Google this.
If you look at the kind of steel, it has a very distinctive pattern.
This crucible steel from ancient India is highly prized in the ancient world and still is today.
We know that Wootz steel or Indian crucible steel was being forged at least around 500 BC, and now we know that the Iron Age is actually older than 3,000 BC.
So, it's not surprising. If we do archaeology properly, we will find much more of our ancient history.
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to archaeological discoveries from ancient India.
Now, let's move on to the next question by Yaja: "Was there agriculture and cities in India, say, 40,000 years ago? Is it possible that Homo erectus or Neanderthals engaged in agriculture and built cities?"
Let's take the second question first. It's possible that Homo erectus or Neanderthals engaged in some kind of agriculture. We don't have evidence for it, but it's possible.
We know that Neanderthal burials have been discovered, which contain traces of flower pollen, indicating that flowers were deposited around the body.
This shows love and affection for the deceased, similar to what people do today.
As for agriculture, we haven't seen evidence of that, but it's certainly possible.
Now, regarding cities, we haven't discovered any evidence of cities from that time.
Let's keep an open mind about the possibility that they may have existed, but the evidence isn't there.
Now, coming back to the first question: "Was there agriculture and cities in India 40,000 years ago?"
Food production in the Northwest part of the subcontinent began with the Neolithic in the early 7th millennium BC, around 6,000 to 7,000 BC.
There is evidence of rice being used as food in the Ganga Plains from 13,000 years ago.
Carbonized rice grains dating as far back as 11,000 BC were discovered in the Lura Dear Lake in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.
It looks like rice cultivation actually emerged in India, not in China.
In the Horton Plains National Park in Sri Lanka, there is evidence of cattle herding and grazing, indicating the use of fire to clear land for cultivation of edible plants and early management of barley and oats from 15,500 BC.
So, agriculture existed in the subcontinent at least 17,000 years ago.
As for cities, we had evidence of cities about 10,000 to 11,000 years ago, with archaeological complexes in Southern India dating back 10,000 to 12,000 years.
So, we had cities long before 6,000 BC.
Now, let's move on to the next question.
YKA asks: "In 6,000 BC, were Southern India, Eastern India, and Tibet mostly inhabited by pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers devoid of cities?"
As I showed earlier, we had agriculture in India about 17,000 years ago, with management of barley and oats and cultivation of edible plants.
So, clearly, these were not hunter-gatherers living in the subcontinent at that time.
6,000 BC is when the Rigveda was probably written, as that's when the Indian rainy season starts declining, and the Saraswati starts gradually shrinking.
So, we were not a hunter-gatherer society at that time; we were a pretty advanced society.
Now, regarding whether ancient India was devoid of cities at that time, we had cities and archaeological complexes long before 6,000 BC.
For example, the ancient port city of Poomar has been traced underwater, dating back at least 10,000 years.
So, we had cities long before 6,000 BC.
Now, let's move on to the next question by Rajor Gon: "Is it possible for a kingdom, country, or empire to be very strong and not have expansionist tendencies? Are you aware of any such rulers in history who became very powerful but never expanded beyond their inherited borders?"
Yes, there have been examples of kingdoms and empires that were not expansionist.
One example is the Ming Dynasty in China, which lasted from the 1300s to the 1600s. The Ming Dynasty rebuilt and fortified the Great Wall of China but did not expand.
Another example is Japan, which had an isolationist policy under the Tokugawa Shogunate from the 14th century to the 19th century.
The Swiss Confederacy is another example; they focused on being defensive and neutral, never thinking about territorial expansion.
Even Emperor Ashoka, after conquering the subcontinent, could have expanded beyond it but chose to focus on governance instead.
There are various reasons why empires sometimes choose not to be expansionist.
Krishna Ragunath from Suriname, Netherlands, says: "Although Bangladesh and Pakistan differ a lot from India and Nepal on religious and political levels, there are cultural similarities such as language, music, dance, clothing, and cuisine. What's your view on this?"
My view is straightforward: we are essentially the same people. If you subtract religion from Bangladesh and Pakistan, what's left is Indians.
The same cuisine, clothing, taste in music, and respect for elders are all there. The only difference today is religion.
Afghanistan is slightly different, as it was the first region of India to fall to the Turks, and its demographics have been reengineered.
But if you look at Pashtun culture, once again, it's just Indian culture if you take religion out.
So, it's not surprising at all; we are the same people genetically.
Now, let's take some geopolitics questions.
Kiran Motra asks: "Donald Trump dismantled USAID. What could be the alternative to this? How do you view the USAID funding pause and the outrage from its beneficiaries?"
USAID was one of the most important tools for US power projection and achieving various objectives.
If Trump has shut it down, it could be because it was not serving its purpose or was harming the US in some way.
USAID was a left-leaning organization run by Democrats, and now the Republicans are in power.
This doesn't mean it's the only tool they have for foreign policy. They have other organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Ford Foundation, and others that can do similar things.
So, the dismantling of USAID doesn't mean US foreign policy will completely change. It's about making the US governance and foreign policy machinery leaner and more effective.
There will be outrage from beneficiaries, but those that matter will be taken care of through other organizations.
Vikram Geopolitical asks: "What effect will Trump shutting down USAID have on countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan? Will Trump support the Yunus regime the way Biden did?"
USAID activities in all nations have been shut down, not just Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The Indian media reports selectively, but the reality is that Trump may not be a fan of Yunus, as he was a friend of the Clintons and Obama.
However, having a puppet regime in Bangladesh is beneficial for the US, as it gives them leverage against India.
So, I don't see much change happening in Bangladesh.
TR Paul asks: "With BBC Media Action admitting that 8% of its income came from US government funding, how does this affect the perception of free press and media neutrality?"
It's no surprise that the BBC was getting funding from the US government. The BBC has been a tool of US propaganda for a long time.
There is no free press or media neutrality; it's all paid press. The idea of a free press is an illusion created by the West.
Shankar Karne and Mr. 88 ask: "Trump tweeted that the Gaza Strip would be handed over to the US by Israel at the conclusion of fighting. Where could all the Palestinians in Gaza be resettled?"
The Gaza Strip is not a small place, and there are multiple nations in West Asia that could host refugees, such as Egypt, the UAE, and Indonesia.
The US can influence these nations to resettle the Palestinians.
I don't think this will create a war in the Middle East; the protests will come from fringe organizations.
Vikram Ador asks: "It seems the next four years will be more volatile than the last four to five years. If the US manages to cause regime change in Iran, how will Russia and China react?"
If there is a war between the US and Israel versus Iran, even Russia may not be in a position to intervene.
Iran is on its own, and while Russia and China may supply it with weapons, they won't send troops.
It's a dangerous period for Iran, and they are worried about Israel's advanced aircraft.
Vikram Geopolitical asks: "Trump ordered to rescind the sanction waiver on Chabahar Port. How does this impact India?"
Trump's administration has shut down the money flowing into all countries through USAID, including Chabahar.
Chabahar is important for India as it allows access to Central Asia via Iran.
Now, Trump says no more sanctions waivers for Chabahar, which hurts India's interests.
Vikram Geopolitical asks: "The Trump regime will try its best to make India a vassal of the US. Do you think it would be beneficial for India to become one?"
The Trump regime will try to make India a US vassal, but becoming one may not be beneficial.
While countries like Japan and South Korea have developed under US influence, they have also faced significant cultural and demographic changes.
If India becomes a US vassal, it may prosper for a time, but eventually, it could lead to cultural erosion and loss of sovereignty.
PR Paul asks: "How do you see PM Modi's upcoming US visit? What are the likely outcomes of his meeting with Trump?"
Trump is in a hurry and wants to be remembered as a great president. He will present a set of ultimatums to Modi, asking if India is with the US or against it.
Modi will need to negotiate and present counter-demands.
The next four years could see the pinnacle of India-US relations, with both leaders getting along well.
PR Paul again asks: "With China's dual 1.5 Pro outperforming major large language models, how do you view this development in the global AI race?"
The US is still the undisputed leader in AI. The Chinese may be doing well, but the real advancements in the US are happening behind closed doors.
India should focus on competing and building its own AI systems.
Chavda Supremacy in Devashish Kap asks: "Why don't we have our own large language model yet despite having significant IT talent?"
The private sector in India focuses on short-term profits rather than long-term research and development.
The government has announced an AI mission, and it is feasible for India to have its own large language model by the end of the year.
We need to focus on building a strong team of talented individuals who can develop AI systems.
We should also run competitions between top IITs to encourage innovation and development in AI.
That's all for today! Thank you for your questions, and I look forward to our next session.
Competition between the IITs, and the one that wins should receive a big cash prize—10 crores. For the government of India, 10 crores is peanuts, it's small change, it's pennies for them. So, have a competition and do this on a yearly basis. Each year, the IIT needs to build upon its success or whatever lessons they've learned. In 5 to 10 years, we're going to have a thriving AI ecosystem. I mean, is this so hard to do? I hope we can implement some of these ideas. I think it's eminently feasible for India to have, in a very short time, high-quality AI systems, high-quality large learning models, and so on. It's very feasible for us to achieve this. I am tremendously optimistic we can do it as long as the leadership gets the basics right.
Alright, okay. The Indian stock picker says our External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, was given a front-row seat during Trump's swearing-in ceremony. But later on, despite inviting Modi Ji early to the US, how should we interpret Trump's aggressive speeches and the deportation of over 100 Indians like criminals, hands and feet chained? There’s silence from our side, no condemnation of the way of deportation. The reply said this is a routine procedure of deportation, no change from past episodes. How do we see this aggression from the US side and the weak response from our side?
So, you were saying that these people were deported, over 100 Indians, like criminals, hands and feet chained. Excuse me, they are criminals. There are various categories of criminals and various categories of crimes. There are non-violent crimes, so a criminal is not necessarily a murderer or a burglar or someone who commits various kinds of violence. Entering a country illegally is a crime. Aren't we sick and tired of the millions of illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators in India? Aren't they all committing a crime by entering and residing in India illegally? That's a crime, isn't it?
So, if these Indians entered the US illegally, they are criminals. The US, whose laws they have broken and whose territory they are residing in, will deal with them according to their own legal system and their own ways of doing things. Why should we complain? These illegal infiltrators of Indian origin have shamed our country; they deserve to be brought back in chains. Why are people getting upset? I don't get it. I would like to see Bangladeshis deported from India. I'm not saying treat them badly or whatever, just get rid of them. They are all criminals. Entering a country illegally is a crime. I don't understand why Indians are upset about this. They are criminals, and apparently, there are many more such individuals in the US.
So, let's not be emotional; let's be factual. Criminals will be treated like criminals. Don't be a criminal, don't commit crimes, and then you'll be treated well with respect.
Now, Hedgehog's dilemma says Elon Musk has rehired an employee who openly promoted racism with statements like "normalize Indian hate." JD Vance, the Vice President of the US, who has an Indian-origin wife, has also backed this individual despite the lack of any apology. What does this indicate about the perception of Indians among such influential figures, and how should Indians respond to such attitudes?
First of all, this individual in the Department of Governmental Efficiency tweeted things like "normalize Indian hate" and was fired because of that. But Elon Musk is now rehiring him, and JD Vance has supported this, saying that it's a mistake, that everyone makes stupid statements and later doesn't agree with them because they've grown. I don't see a problem with that, that's what JD Vance says, despite having an Indian wife and half-Indian kids.
Now, imagine a hypothetical scenario where an Indian person makes a statement like "normalize American hate" or "normalize hate against a certain religion." Imagine this happens, and then the Indian government has this person. How will the Western media react? They will unleash their media against us like a pack of rabid dogs. We have seen this in the past. If something like this happens in India, we will be demonized for weeks. But if they do it, then it's perfectly fine.
These people are politicians. Elon Musk is also a politician now, and he has the benefit of JD Vance being a politician too. When the Republicans went after Vivek Ramaswamy because he made a statement saying that Americans need to have higher standards, JD Vance kept quiet despite Ramaswamy making a good point.
Now, there is this anti-India hatred all over the place in the US. Musk rehiring this person who said "normalize Indian hate" and JD Vance saying he supports this shows he is playing to the gallery. He knows where the sentiment of his voter base lies and is ensuring he doesn't alienate them, despite having a wife of Indian origin and kids who are half-Indian.
So, yes, JD Vance has acted cowardly. What does it indicate about the perception of Indians in the US? It tells you that Indians, even if a person has an American passport, if you are Indian, especially if you are brown-skinned, particularly if you are Hindu, then you are a second-class citizen in the US.
Ideally, you should come back to India and build this country. I would appeal to our honorable Prime Minister, Shri Modi Ji, to make India a place that welcomes people back and treats them well, giving them every possible opportunity to succeed. That's what I would request the Prime Minister of India to do. I know you're already working very hard in this direction, but please do even more.
Rakar Gupta says China has now developed sixth-generation fighter jets for its defense, while India is still struggling to develop fifth-generation fighter jets. Should India now focus on developing indigenous "Made in Bharat" fighter jets at a fast pace, or should we buy new-generation fighter planes from other countries like Russia in the current situation?
A brief answer: we should do two things in parallel. First, keep developing our own jet engine technology and continue developing the fifth-generation fighter plane, the AMCA. That's the first thing we should do. In parallel with that, we should also try to purchase jet engine technology from a friendly nation, whether it's France, Russia, or whoever. We don't need to have the best jet engine technology in the world; we need to have good enough technology.
The Russian Saturn engine that powers the Su-30 MKI is good enough. If we can get that jet engine technology and build it entirely in India, it would be a game changer. We should also consider purchasing something like the Su-57 or whatever, but also get a full transfer of technology and pay for it. Just get it, so we can keep developing our own systems and have in-house production of these systems.
But acquiring technology for a jet engine and for the Su-57 doesn't mean we should abandon our technological development, which we've been doing for many years. Both should happen in parallel. It's high time something is done about this issue.
Of course, these days, fifth and sixth-generation fighter planes are important, but we also need to develop other systems like drones, loitering weapons, and much more. Drones are the future of warfare.
Geopolitical Du says, can France become the next Russia for India? Can Bharat trust a colonial power like France?
Look, France would love to have a fully independent foreign policy. France would love to partner with a nation like Bharat in a mutually beneficial way. They would love to genuinely be independent and sovereign, which they are not because they are a member of both NATO and the EU.
As long as France is a member of NATO and the EU, it's difficult for them to truly partner with India. I don't care if it's a former colonial power; every nation has done good things and bad things. Let's not look at things from a moralistic perspective; let's look at it from a practical and pragmatic perspective.
What can they offer us? If they can offer us jet engine technology, we can purchase that. They'll ask for a high price; let's pay it. We have good relations with France, and we have a convergence of interests in the Indian Ocean region. They have territories there, and for us, it's our home.
There's so much more strategically that converges when it comes to France and India. The only issue is that France is a member of NATO and the EU, which means they are under US influence. They don't see the US as a friendly nation, by the way, but that's the constraint they operate under.
If we take things in the right direction, it can certainly be a very beneficial and positive relationship for both nations. France won't be another Russia for us. Russia was our former overlord, but they were not evil; they did not try to destroy our society and culture. That won't be the same kind of relationship we will have with France, but it can definitely be a great partnership if things are done right.
Aniket says the Indian Navy now wants to focus on submarines rather than white elephant aircraft carriers. What is my take?
Thank God! Thank God sense has finally prevailed. How many times have I said we need to stop focusing on aircraft carriers? We need to have more submarines. I've been saying this for three to four years now, at least publicly. I've always advocated for more submarines.
We already have a certain number of aircraft carriers; two of them we don't want or need a third one. Why do we not want more aircraft carriers? An aircraft carrier is the principal naval ship of the 20th century. We are in the 21st century. The deadliest naval asset in the world today, in the context of 21st-century warfare, is the submarine.
The stealthiest asset you can have allows for distributed lethality, which is a fundamental concept of any kind of warfare. You want to distribute your lethality over as much territory and as many platforms as possible. Don't concentrate your lethality on one big platform because that can be easily wiped out.
It's a numerical game to destroy an aircraft carrier; it's just a mathematical certainty that if you fire enough missiles, you will overwhelm the defenses and destroy it. There are nations that can do that; even we can do that.
Aircraft carriers are a nice prestige item to have, and I'm sure lots of naval officers would love to serve on something like an aircraft carrier, but we have to be practical. National interest over prestige. We need to have as many submarines as possible—I'd say between 50 and 100. I know it's a tremendously tall number, but have you seen the size of the coast we are defending and the size of the maritime real estate we claim as our strategic backyard?
We need a lot of submarines. We also need to invest in missile boats for defensive purposes rather than offensive purposes. Defense can be rapidly turned into offense. Imagine a missile boat, a small ship that carries three BrahMos missiles. If you have 100 missile boats, that's 300 BrahMos missiles. That is a frightening prospect for anybody, and that costs next to nothing compared to large warships.
There's so much you can do if you think creatively. I'm very glad that some sanity has finally prevailed, and we are now going to focus on submarines. What we need is lots of submarines; quantity has a quality of its own. Instead of buying a small number of very expensive submarines, we should buy or build a large number of relatively inexpensive submarines.
For example, the Swedish Gotland-class submarine costs about $100 million each. I assure you, $100 million for a submarine is peanuts. This thing is deadly. If you're going to be a US vassal, we can negotiate the sale of the entire company to India. We will buy the entire company that produces the Gotland-class submarine and move it to India, whatever it costs.
Then we can mass-produce the submarines like sausages, like samosas. Why not? Instead of having a submarine that costs a billion dollars to build, let's have 10 submarines, each of which costs $100 million. We have to be creative and look at various solutions.
You may ask me what's the evidence that this submarine costs $100 million. That's homework for you; go find out how I know that.
Next question: Vikram Ador says, how might the moon and Mars colonization projects affect sovereignty and jurisdictional debates in space?
Jurisdictional debates are pointless. Who cares about debates? What matters is not the debate; what matters is the possession of territory. What matters is the creation of facts on the ground. To hell with people's debates; go debate all day and all night, go debate for 10 years—who cares?
What matters is creating facts on the ground. Whoever sets foot first on Mars and creates the first Mars base will own a chunk of a celestial object in the solar system, apart from Earth. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk will be the first king of Mars if he is the first to reach there. He has said that he intends to die on Mars, which means he wants to settle down there.
Once you establish a self-sustaining colony there, you can declare independence from Earth if you want to, as long as the colony is self-sustaining. Eventually, it will not be possible for long, but you will have a situation like you had between England and the American colonies.
Questions of sovereignty will arise, and you may have declarations of independence from the Moon. The Moon will be difficult because you can reach it pretty quickly from Earth, in less than a week's time. Mars is a whole different story.
But these debates? No one cares about debates. What matters is what facts are created on the ground, and you create facts on the ground by claiming and possessing territory.
Kusel Kandal says, what are your views on physics research on density functional theory? I worked as an undergraduate research assistant in El Paso, Texas, on DFT. I am back in my country, Bhutan, now that I've completed my studies, and I'm wondering if I should continue doing research in DFT or shift my focus to string theory, as you suggested.
I suggested that you should focus on string theory? I'm not sure where you heard that or who made you believe that. I am one of the harshest critics of string theory you will find anywhere in the world. String theory has proven to be a colossal waste of monumental amounts of time and funding.
String theory is a gigantic exercise in tremendous amounts of mathematics. What's the outcome of string theory? Nothing. Zero. NADA. What has string theory produced? Nothing. It has produced new kinds of mathematics, which is good, but what has it achieved for us in our quest to understand the universe better? Nothing whatsoever.
It has made no testable predictions—not one. String theory has been a waste of time, but it's somehow overhyped, and all the funding in the US goes to string theory. If you want to get a PhD in theoretical physics, nine times out of ten, you will have to do it in string theory; otherwise, you will be marginalized.
Here's a good cartoon: everyone wants to get into string theory, but it does nothing for physics in the real world. You want to do something that has applications in the real world. If you want to be a productive member of society, someone who contributes something of value, then I think the answer should be straightforward: you should continue focusing on DFT.
So, what is DFT? DFT is applied quantum mechanics. It's density functional theory. A functional is a function of a function; it's a function that takes a function as input and outputs a real number. With DFT, you can investigate the electronic structure of many-body systems like atoms, molecules, and condensed matter. You can study mainly ground state properties of various condensed matter systems.
DFT has broad applications in things like chemistry, material science, nanotechnology, drug discovery, and more. With the advent of machine learning and AI, DFT becomes even more powerful, and you can make a real-world difference if you focus on DFT instead of string theory.
So, my recommendation is: please don't shift your focus to string theory; keep researching in DFT. All the best!
Sir P.R. Paul says Narayan Murthy believes it's not ideal to follow nationalism in today's interconnected world, especially when global powers prioritize their own national interests. He wants India to not follow nationalism. So, on whose behalf is he really batting? What could be the ulterior motive behind such a statement?
Mr. Narayan Murthy is a problematic individual. He has a long track record of funding activities that are, if not anti-India as a nation, definitely anti-Indian civilization. Let me put up this change.org petition that dates back almost a decade ago, a petition to remove Sheldon Pollock as mentor and chief editor of the Murthy Classical Library.
Narayan Murthy's son was studying in the US, and his guide was this guy Sheldon Pollock, who is a known Hinduphobe. Pollock wanted funding for translating various ancient Indian texts into English, Sanskrit, and other languages. The Murthys gave him the funding.
This project should have been guided by a team of scholars who have proven mastery in the relevant Indian languages and are deeply rooted in the intellectual traditions of India. Pollock is not that sort of guy. It is well known that he has deep antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished in our civilization.
He has the views of MLE and Max Weber that the Shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the perusal of how Indians express themselves. Pollock is a prominent signatory of two recent statements released by US academics condemning the actions of the Indian government against separatist groups calling for the independence of Kashmir and for India's breakup.
Now, what I've shown you, you can look it up for yourself. Narayan Murthy has definitely funded Sheldon Pollock, and Pollock has supported anti-India activities. These are facts you can check on your own.
So, my question is: who is Mr. Narayan Murthy batting for? On whose behalf? Larger interests are probably at play. Everything he does aligns with the US agenda for or against India. It looks like he's batting for the US, for the West, against us.
He has said openly that he was a leftist as a younger person, and he also wants Indians to work 80 to 100 hours a week. I'm not sure what number he said, but essentially, that will ensure India's total fertility rate drops below any sustainable number. When you are overworked and overwhelmed with stress, you cannot procreate.
History shows us what Christopher Columbus did to the Arawak Indians. He overworked them, and they stopped reproducing. Soon enough, there was complete demographic collapse, and they were eradicated. If you overwork an entire society, the total fertility rate declines drastically, and the society collapses.
So, that's what Mr. Murthy advocates. It's okay for the top 1% in society to work 80 hours a week for a certain period, but you can't do that for the rest of your life. If the ordinary Indian adult works 40 hours a week effectively, India will be totally transformed.
I don't know what agenda he has, but he seems to have ulterior motives and a track record of supporting and funding anti-India elements. This is a fact.
KP Kima says, Namaste. How should a class 10 child like my son study science when he has zero interest in it? You always encourage people to learn science. He says he doesn't want to study because it's pointless.
I do encourage people to learn science, yes, but I know that some people don't like science. You cannot force science on everybody, just like you cannot force arts on everyone. Some people just can't do arts.
If a kid has zero interest, as you say, and you are the mother, then please don't force science on him. Just ensure that he studies enough to pass the exam or whatever it is, and then let him go into whatever field he prefers—arts, commerce, or whatever. Science is not for everyone.
I would love for everyone to be decently good at science, but it's not for everyone. So, please don't force your kid; it's going to be counterproductive. Don't do that. All the best!
John Cena says, what advice would you give to a 25-year-old guy who is now broke? He has dreamed of becoming an entrepreneur since his 20s, but due to family conditions and other reasons, he procrastinated. He completed engineering and computer science, worked a job for two years, then took a risk at 24 and left his job to start his own startup. Now he has lost all his savings and is feeling depressed.
First thing I would say: never feel sorry for yourself and waste time crying tears for how terrible your situation is. It's for losers. Get the hell up, get on your feet.
Second, you have certain assets that very few people have. You have skills in computer science and experience. These are valuable assets. You took a risk and failed in your startup—boohoo. So what? Does it mean you're a bad person? Does it mean you're a failure? You're 25; you're starting off in life.
Reframe your mindset, your orientation, your worldview. You don't succeed before you fail multiple times. It's a very small minority of people who succeed right from the beginning. To really succeed in life, you have to have failed over and over again. Look at the biography of any great person; they have more failures than successes.
So stop feeling sorry for yourself. If you're feeling depressed, it means you're feeling sorry for yourself. Enough of that! Get up on your feet.
Okay, you're broke. The first thing you need is money. Go apply for jobs. Spend a couple more years working, saving money, and in the meantime, analyze what contributed to the failure of your startup. Learn the lessons from it.
Once you are in a better place mentally and financially, you can try again or try a different kind of startup or venture. Maybe spend a few more years working, getting a salary, and saving. The future is open; all possibilities are open for you.
My advice is to be positive. Don't waste time feeling sorry for yourself. Depression? You know what cures depression? Get out of your house. If you stay indoors in your room, you're going to be depressed. Get the hell out of the house. Go for a one-hour walk somewhere—go in the forest, go on the streets, wherever.
Activity destroys depression. Movement destroys depression. So be positive. You have valuable assets; you have skills and experience. Leverage that. Go apply for jobs again. You will get a job somewhere. Spend some time earning money again, and then everything will be fine.
You can either stay in a job or start a new startup if you want. Everything's possible, but don't waste your time feeling sorry for yourself. Take action. Get going. Get moving. All the best!
Okay, let's take some questions from the live chat, shall we?
Ankit Tripathi says, this is not live; it's just a recording. If it's a recording, how am I reacting to what you're saying here? Bro, it's not a recording; it's very much live. Yes, sir!
Alright, now let's take some questions.
Yes, Davic Shrien says, Manipur CM Mr. Biren Singh has just resigned. What can I make of this?
It's too early to say anything. It happened a couple of hours ago, earlier today, right? The resignation of Mr. Biren Singh. I don't know what to make of it. I think he was in Delhi yesterday; he met with Mr. Amit Shah, and today he has resigned.
The next phase of the situation in Manipur evolves now. It's too early for me to react to anything. We'll have to wait and watch what happens now. Is the BJP going to impose President's rule in a state it governs? Are they going to appoint a new Chief Minister? If there's going to be a new Chief Minister, who is it going to be? What are the new policies that are going to be implemented, if any? All that we have to see.
So let's wait and watch. It's too early to give a knee-jerk reaction, but it's an interesting development.
Okay, let's take a few more questions.
Mr. Long Stong says, how do we overcome this North versus South divide for good?
I have certain radical steps that I can propose, but I will not do that because one doesn't say such things. The thing is, who is creating this North-South divide? The people haven't created this divide; it is the politicians. Some politicians have created this divide for their own benefit, just like the caste divide.
It is the politicians who have imposed caste on India. They force you to have caste on all your certificates—your birth certificate, your school certificate, and so on. Caste has to be there. Remove it; caste is over. We were never the sort of society that had caste. The government has ensured caste has become a real thing.
Similarly, this North-South divide or whatever—it's politicians who do it. They want to keep you divided so they can reap benefits electorally. In a democratic system, you'll have to tolerate such nonsense.
We need a better political system for India, one that is more suited to the kind of entity the Indian civilization state is. The problem is certain politicians and certain political parties. I'm not naming anybody, but that is the problem.
The solution becomes self-apparent: once we don't have such politicians and political entities on the scene, these divides will eventually slowly disappear. For that to happen, we need a different political system—a more centralized, let's say, presidential system, and maybe a different Constitution, maybe a different set of laws.
Big ask.
Sid says, should the PM ask for access to advanced Nvidia AI chips and some tech sharing? The US has placed some restrictions on India due to Biden's Chips Act, I guess.
Well, we can ask for it. Will they give it? That's a different story. You can ask them for the keys to the kingdom; will they give it? There will be some technology they will never share with anybody.
But yes, there's no harm in asking for it. No harm at all.
Trti P says, I am not human; I'm just a robot.
No, ma'am, I'm not an AI. No, not an AI, an alien.
Vikam Geopolitical says, why did the US discontinue the F-22 Raptor? In my view, it's superior to the F-35.
I agree; the F-22 is probably one of the best aircraft ever built, definitely the best aircraft the Americans have. It's definitely superior to the F-35. I have no idea why they have discontinued it. It makes no sense for them to discontinue an aircraft of that caliber.
Maybe they are continuing to build it in secret; I'm not sure. It doesn't make sense to discontinue the best thing you've built.
Abov Bal Courot says, how come Nordic nations are number one in happiness index as well as number one in suicide rates?
There you go! It tells you how hypocritical and nonsensical these indices are. The happiness index is propaganda; it's Western propaganda. How can you have the highest suicide rates and also be the happiest nation in the world? It makes no sense whatsoever.
It tells you these indices cannot be trusted; you should not take them seriously. It's merely propaganda.
Okay, I can take a couple more questions.
Mclen says, we are having a lot of meetings with Bhutan. Is there something cooking?
I cannot tell you about it, but you're right—lots of meetings. The King of Bhutan comes here every couple of months. The Defense Minister meets our Defense Minister. Something is cooking, perhaps, but what it is, who knows?
Brides says, coaching centers like IITs for JEE, etc., are becoming suicide centers. Why is the government of India not taking action?
Because it's a huge industry. The education industry is a huge industry with lots of entrenched interests. There’s a huge amount of money involved, and you have political interests in all of this. It's just the way it is.
This is all wrong—what's happening in India. The entire education system, I've spoken about it at length, is rotten. It's useless for the country; it doesn't give us what it's supposed to give.
So, in my opinion, the whole system has to be revamped. Why is the government not doing it? I don't know, and I'm not going to shed any more tears over that. They're not doing it; there's nothing I can do about it.
But you're right; it's terrible. So much pressure on young kids. It's a tragedy when a young person feels so cornered and hopeless that they think it's easier to escape in this manner. It's terrible.
Okay, Amisha says, why do we dream, and do you believe in reincarnation?
I don't know about reincarnation. There's no scientific evidence about it, but is it possible? One can have an open mind about that, so I'm agnostic about it.
Why do we dream? We're not quite sure. There are various theories. One theory is that dreaming helps our brain make sense of information and reconfigure it while we sleep.
We have experiences during our waking hours, but we sleep roughly eight hours a day on average. That sleep period is very important for our brain because it needs that. If you deprive a person of sleep for a certain number of days, that person can even die.
The brain needs sleep, and sleep is extremely important for its functioning. Why? We don't quite know, but one theory is that the brain reconfigures memories and experiences, puts them in the right places, and makes connections with previous experiences. This manifests itself in the form of dreams.
Some dreams are recurring and don't quite make sense. We don't understand the brain very well; it's the least understood organ of the body. The mind is even less understood, and consciousness is a mystery.
So, it's a very deep and profound question you've asked, but the scientific world doesn't have clear answers for these things. It tells you how little we understand our own mind and body.
With Amisha's question, I'm going to end today's live stream. There are lots more questions, but it's time to end it for today. Thank you, everybody, for all the questions, and we'll do this once again next week.
Until then, take care, keep asking questions, and keep raising your standards. See you soon! Bye!