Reservation: Protection or Annihilation of Caste system Dr. Anand Teltumbde
https://youtu.be/y7yxqIyhW88
Google translate" : Dr. Teltumbde wrote a book in 2018 called "Republic of Caste," and now his new book, "Caste Consensus," has just been released in 2025.
journey from 2018 to 2025 . During this period, he was also accused of being an urban Naxalite ."
The book "Republic of Caste" was not something I intentionally created. column in EPW called "Margin Speak." Navayana compiled a book, from a caste perspective. My writing focuses on contemporary issues, there was a lot of discussion about how the Republic of Caste has been formed, and about caste-based reservations and so on. There was also mention of what has been taken into account while implementing it or formulating policies in our constitution. But this is a caste census; it's not actually a caste census. The word "con" is an apt word – I wasn't quite satisfied with that, but "con" is an apt word in that context. In Hindi, it means to deceive or cheat. So, regarding the consensus that has been reached in the country about the caste census – all the parties, all the intellectuals, everyone thinks that a caste census should be conducted – I wrote this book to express my skepticism, and in it, I have highlighted how this so-called consensus will deceive people or deceive history. In this way, I have handled a very contemporary issue, and it's a matter of going against the entire current. So, I was also aware of the risks involved, and that's how I wrote this book. Although, whatever I write, I don't care what people would think and all, because I have understood my role as a public intellectual – that I can do this. I have to tell people the truth, and a public intellectual should take any risk for that. It's an internalized role. So, the book has been written in this way. In both, there are some discussions about reservations, etc. But because this book was written consciously, I have written in considerable detail about what I feel about caste. The thing is, this book also started in a similar way,
with the idea of writing a book on the discourse that was developing around the caste census.
This was a suggestion from our Navayana Publications. So I sat down to write because
it started with Frontline asking me to write an article on the census,
and after the article was published, there was a lot of discussion about it. So that was
the kind of instigation for Navayana to ask me to do a
book. After that, I also wrote an article in a leaflet on the issue of sub-categorization, etc.
That also generated a lot of discussion. So these were the two things, but when
I sat down to write the book, I felt that this wasn't adequate. Because its roots
are quite confusing. The people, the intellectuals, even leaving aside the political parties—
there's no understanding in the parties. But even among the people, among the very serious people,
there seems to be some confusion in understanding caste. So I adopted a different approach, starting from the beginning: what is the historicity of caste?
How might it have originated? This can only be a hypothesis. Nobody can say for sure that caste originated in this way because
the origin of caste occurred during what is called the dark period of India's history. So
it can only be a hypothesis. So I have given my materialistic hypothesis. I have given it in many books before,
and in many articles. But in this book too, I reiterated that the origin of caste
could have happened in this way. But that's not what contemporary caste is.
Contemporary caste is very different from what originated and what could be called a classical caste.
So how did this journey of caste unfold, for example, during the so-called Muslim period
and then during the colonial period, and how was it manipulated during these periods? How all the ruling classes used and abused caste and how they exploited it for their own benefit.
It was distorted and manipulated, and then, after independence, and this is what concerns us more, how manipulations took place after the constitution was written to keep caste alive, and all that kind of thing. So, the book actually flows in such a way that the reader gets a complete perspective on caste from the beginning to the present day, and how we can situate and understand these caste censuses, and how much politics is involved and how much people's interests are at stake. I have tried to reveal all of this. Doctor, as you said, the entire narrative that runs in the media regarding this census is about what Modi said earlier, and what Nitish said earlier, and then what Rahul said, and how they changed their stance, and how this one betrayed and how that one betrayed – all these superficial things. People waste all their energy on these things and pursue their own agendas. Everyone has their own agenda. But if we look at caste, leaving aside ancient history like the Vedic period, we see Mahatma Phule, who started opposing caste by name and said that all the evils, all the problems, have their roots in this. And definitely, when a person says this, and if he is a practical person, then he also comes into the field. He struggles for its annihilation. He also leads movements. He did that too. So, the annihilation began. After that, Shahu Maharaj comes. Shahu Maharaj had power. So, he gave reservations, and he gave 50%. He said that even if my treasury becomes empty, I will eliminate it through reservations. So, a dimension of reservation is added to the annihilation. Now, when Dr. Ambedkar comes into the picture, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar started with annihilation, and he burned that book, and then there was the issue of water, and then the Kalu temple – all those things were emphasizing annihilation. But then, just like the Shahu Maharaj case, when he got the opportunity to sit in power and write the Constitution, he introduced reservations. Now, after reservations, that system continued, which was initially for 10 years, and now it's been 70 years, and who knows, it might continue for 100 years. So, what do you think? Has this reservation helped in eliminating caste, or has it further strengthened the caste system? What is your conclusion after these 70 years of development?
You have taken a very long perspective on the entire caste system. So, the short answer will be that these reservations have rather strengthened the caste system. Okay? It has been against annihilation. But I would love to give you a longer answer because it is related to this debate. You know, you are right that Mahatma Phule pioneered this. Mahatma Phule's movement is called the anti-Brahmin movement, or rather, the non-Brahmin movement – not anti-Brahmin, but non-Brahmin movement, to be precise. So, what did he do? He did something very important, which people don't pay attention to. Like Marx also said, even before Phule, Marx said that caste, the Indian caste system, is a problem. He said that caste is the biggest impediment to India's development. Okay, what he implied is that caste needs to be destroyed. Later, Mahatma Phule, with his innate wisdom, you know, he was a pragmatic man, he wasn't... he was well-read, but he wasn't sort of posing himself as a scholar or anything. So, Mahatma Phule, before the caste census data and all that, he already understood this. This also shows that Mahatma Phule didn't need statistics to understand the poverty in the country. And he gave a formula: Shudras and Ati-Shudras versus Sethjis and Bhatjis. This formula is as important today as it was in Phule's time, and perhaps it can be considered a guiding principle for the Indian revolution. It's a key to uniting all the oppressed people, and if they fight against these wealthy people or the priestly classes, the feudal classes, then a radical change can come about in this country. After that, you mentioned Shahu Maharaj. Shahu Maharaj was a king, and he was also a follower of Phule. So, he launched a movement against the Brahmins and gave 50% reservation in his kingdom. He was again a pioneer of sorts. Then, later, Babasaheb came, and Babasaheb was a very great scholar. Perhaps the greatest scholar of his time. So, he examined everything and used all the British documents, their statistics, etc., to develop his strategies. His book, Annihilation of Caste, is actually from 1936. After the Mahad Satyagraha, he initially thought that if some reforms were made in Hindu society and the caste system was loosened a bit, that would be sufficient. So, he wasn't aiming at any big radical change, etc. So he thought that if the progressive elements among the Hindu people could join him and become ready for Hindu reform, then perhaps things would work out. So he started with the Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha, his first organization, and he included many non-Hindus in it. They could, in a way, represent the progressive section of society, not necessarily only Hindus, but there were Parsis and all those kinds of very prominent people.
The Bahishkrit Hitkarini Sabha was formed, and under its auspices, the Mahad Satyagraha took place. A young man named R.B. More conceived of it and organized it. It wasn't Babasaheb's idea. They invited Babasaheb because he had returned from abroad with many degrees, etc., so they wanted to felicitate him as well as seek his advice for future struggles. So, the Mahad conference, which took place in March 1927, happened in this way. Babasaheb's conception, his imagination, was that the Hindu people, or the prominent non-Dalit people, would support it. But that didn't happen. And when, after the conference, they went to assert their civil rights, such as the right to take water from public places, which had already been passed in the Provincial Council, the caste Hindus attacked them and injured many Dalits. Babasaheb was very upset, and he consciously organized the next Mahad Satyagraha in December, nine months later. That was the first consciously organized struggle of Ambedkar, and he did a lot of campaigning and gathered many resources, etc. But even in that, the participation of non-Dalits was negligible. So then he realized that nothing would come of this. Hindus would never be prepared to bring about any reforms in Hindu society. So then he started talking about conversion and began focusing on politics. Because in 1910, the Muslim League had signed an agreement stating that tribals and Dalits were not part of Hinduism and should be counted separately. The British actually agreed to this in the 1910 census, because it facilitated their divide and rule policy. So, in the census, they counted tribals and Dalits separately. These were all clues. Of course, Babasaheb was not on the scene then, but he picked up on this clue because all of India's politics was developing along communal lines. So, he also started talking about creating a separate identity for himself. He was suddenly invited to Lahore for the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal (Caste Annihilation Society), and he delivered his speech on the annihilation of caste. In that speech, he said that there is no alternative to the annihilation of caste. This is not something that can be reformed. And according to him, its roots were in Hindu scriptures. So, his suggestion was to destroy the Hindu scriptures to annihilate caste. But by then, he had already decided that he would actually leave Hinduism. So, the talk of conversion came up. He gave the mantra of caste annihilation, but in the end, he said that he didn't think Hindu society would be ready to dynamite its religious scriptures. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm leaving. I wish you good luck to those who want to try it. This is how Babasaheb addressed the question of caste annihilation. Later, reservations and other such things came under the purview of politics. Babasaheb basically fought for political reservations. And as you mentioned, political reservations were for 10 years, but they are continuing, you know. So, one thing is that
during British colonial times, they won political reservations in 1935 at the Round Table Conferences,
they got separate electorates, and the Poona Pact happened, etc., everyone knows about that. And these reservations were
accepted in the 1935 Government of India Act. So, the matter started from there, and
after independence, it was fully incorporated and adopted
into the Constitution. And these political reservations were done by Babasaheb, who fought a lifelong battle for these
political reservations. He realized the deception behind it,
and later he continued to oppose it, but there were no takers because
they became the property of the ruling classes, and Babasaheb kept shouting until his death,
but they didn't listen to him. And even after him, these reservations, these political reservations, are still continuing. So, political
reservation is, of course, not in favor of what Babasaheb believed. He thought that if there were separate
electorates, then genuine representation of Dalits would be ensured, etc. But my thinking is different; I think that wouldn't
work either, because this political reservation is linked to the election system, the
kind of election system that we have adopted. It's linked to that, and that FPTP system, the Western model that we
have adopted, is actually a resource-intensive system. So, the party that has money, the party that
has strategies and resources to fund it, that party will keep winning. There is no question of genuine representation of Dalits in that.
So, I say that not only political reservation as it exists today, but even separate electorates would not have worked. The root cause
was actually changing the election system. The other reservations came later under the Poona Pact, such as
participation in public employment and reserving seats for Dalits in educational institutions.
These reservations came later, and Dalits benefited from them to some extent, but... There were some shortcomings in the policy that was adopted; I have mentioned them, such as the problem of sub-categorization.
All of that is inherently flawed.
This is something people should understand from all these plaques. It's not my illusion
that writing this book will bring about any changes here; that's not the case. But if the people who are connected to this, the Dalits, etc., understand it, or even if I can sensitize other people who are interested in this, that there are many flaws in this and this is not as viable as
they think, then my objective will probably be successful. I will handle it, so that's the point.
Doctor, the problems in the electoral process due to the first-past-the-post system, or the advantages of the representative system,
or the stability in the representative system, etc., is a full-fledged topic that we will discuss another time. But
today we will keep our discussion focused on caste annihilation and caste reservation. So,
about 100 years ago, that is, if we consider 1927 as a benchmark, at that time
different people were thinking that this caste system should be annihilated. That is, if we talk about Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar, or if we go to Phule, then it goes back another 100 years or so. It was the time of the British. The British
were ruling in India. They had their own policies. They had their own
needs. You just mentioned one of them, divide and rule. Now that era is gone,
and after that, India became independent, and after independence, the initial period passed,
about 50 years, you could say, when there was a left-of-center government and there was a
dream of a welfare state, and it was being tried to be realized to some extent. And then
globalization came, and after globalization, we entered into crony capitalism. So, if we compare this, compare it with the situation 100 years ago,
how difficult or easy the annihilation of caste was at that time. And today, while
we are in the Modi era... How difficult or how simple is this annihilation of caste?
The annihilation of caste was clearly first mentioned by Babasaheb, and implicitly, as I said, all the people who talked about caste, starting from Phule, mentioned it implicitly. Babasaheb said it explicitly. So that's the only difference.
Mahatma Phule didn't talk about it. But implicitly, he wanted the same thing, that all these Bahujans were kept separate because of caste, etc. So in colonial times, it stands to reason that in the interests of the colonial rulers, they were not interested in such kinds of reforms or any radical change in India. Rather, they considered caste as an asset, the caste and religion that existed in Indian society, potential dividers, dividing kinds of categories. They skillfully used them for their own rule. So one cannot expect them to annihilate caste or speak that kind of language. But when we came to independence, we achieved independence, the power was transferred to the country in 1947. I wouldn't even call it independence, it was a transfer of power, and the rule came into our hands. That means power came into the hands of our native people. So their question is, at that time, when the constitution was being written, etc., my contention is that the annihilation of caste was possible. Okay, just as they abolished and outlawed untouchability, similarly, caste could have actually been abolished because if their intention was to eliminate untouchability, then untouchability could not go away without caste, because untouchability is just an aspect of caste, you know, it's just a manifestation of caste. So it couldn't disappear on its own. In the entire Constituent Assembly, there was complete silence on this issue. Grand speeches were given in the name of Mahatma Gandhi, all sorts of rhetorical things were said, but there was silence on this matter. Only one man objected to it; his name was Pramatarajan Thakur. He was the grandson of Harishchandra Thakur, who can be called a pioneer of the Dalit movement in Bengal. He was a very learned person, and he was the first Dalit barrister and happened to be a member of the Constituent Assembly. He clearly stated that how can you abolish untouchability while keeping caste alive? And only two people supported him, both from upper castes: one was Suresh Chandra Banerjee, a Brahmin, and the other was D.N. Dutta, who later contributed significantly to the constitution-making process in Pakistan. Apart from these three people, there was complete silence in the Constituent Assembly. This meant that, firstly, as Granville Austin writes, whatever the Congress oligarchy decided, the Congress had an overwhelming majority in the Constituent Assembly, and although they included other non-Congress members in the Constituent Assembly, these were also essentially members of the Congress party. They didn't have their own independent opinions. So, that's one point. Secondly, regarding the Scheduled Castes, they remained silent because they were under the misconception that the caste system had to survive because the social justice and reservation facilities they were talking about would perhaps disappear after the abolition of caste. But this was a misunderstanding because a new administrative caste, the Scheduled Castes, had been created. Connecting it to the Hindu caste system was actually wrong. Caste could have been abolished even while providing reservations. All these opportunities were available then, but they deliberately chose not to do so. This is a constitutional intrigue that also needs to be understood. Doctor.
We're talking about the contemporary times. Just yesterday, December 6th, was Dr. Ambedkar, Babasaheb Ambedkar's Mahaparinirvana Day, and everyone paid their tributes, and there was a lot of discussion. Even those who are the biggest followers of the caste system engaged in a lot of hypocrisy. But we see that when the foundation stone of the Ram Temple was laid, a Dalit was invited, and the foundation stone was laid through him for the first time in the modern era. But after they won the case and the second foundation stone of the temple was laid by Prime Minister Modi, Bhagwat, who is a Brahmin, and Yogi Adityanath, who is a Rajput, were standing around him. And then, during what happened before another election, no Dalit was invited, and even during the flag hoisting ceremony, no Dalit was visible. So, why did the need for a Dalit, which was felt for the first time when the foundation stone was laid, suddenly disappear? Three big functions took place one after another, and these people didn't think that they should at least invite a Dalit or even the tribal President. So, what is the reason for this paradigm shift? At one time, they felt the need for it, and today they don't.
This is all a charade because the sympathy that all political parties show towards Dalits is only for their votes, and as I said earlier, the election system is connected to the first-past-the-post system. Because even a small chunk of Dalit votes can make a big difference. So, the entire Ambedkar narrative, the entire sympathy towards Dalits, everything is a state-sponsored effort to create a certain atmosphere. Now, you mentioned yesterday's events, so go and see, from the railway station to everywhere else, they have put up huge boards, hundreds of boards, showing the way to Rajgriha, the way to Chaitya Bhoomi, and all of this. They are investing so much in Shivaji Park, creating all these modern facilities. There's only one reason behind all of this: the Dalit vote. The day they realize that the Dalit vote is no longer important, all this pretense will stop. This is very easy to understand. There's no doubt about it. So, as you mentioned earlier, when the foundation stone was laid, and Dalits were symbolically involved, they thought, "Okay, this is because..." because during that time, there were also discussions about why they chose December 6th? Because it's Babasaheb's Mahaparinirvan Day. So why did they choose December 6th to demolish the Babri Masjid? There was a lot of debate about this too. So they felt the need to involve Dalits so that the whole situation could be managed. But later, when Modi came to power, and the autocratic methods were implemented in this country, they didn't feel the need for it anymore. They had already announced that they would grandly memorialize every place where Babasaheb had set foot. It was necessary for them to counter the opposition's narrative that the Congress had done nothing for Babasaheb, and they are doing the same thing now. Everyone knows how dear Babasaheb is to them. Everyone knows what the relationship between the RSS and Babasaheb was. Even if they say a thousand times that Babasaheb was a friend of Hedgewar, etc., they have done a lot of propaganda. After the 1980s, when Deoras became the head of the RSS, he realized for the first time – it is written in Golwalkar's writings – how much respect he had for Babasaheb. That was the history, but after Deoras, Deoras was a strategic person, so he decided for the first time that if we don't assimilate the lower castes, we have no future. So from then on, they started adopting Babasaheb. Babasaheb came into their list of revered figures, and later came social harmony, all those kinds of efforts. Despite their attitude towards Dalits and Ambedkar, it has not fundamentally changed. All this is written. On the surface, they did all these things, and Modi and others created the Panch Teerthas. Many Dalits have even forgotten because the political education of Dalits has been almost zero. So today, if you look at it, they have also benefited from it. They have benefited from showing all this devotion towards Ambedkar. In this way, the BJP gets more results in the last two or three elections than all the other parties combined. So things have progressed in this way. What else did you ask?
You have already answered that. I am saying, Doctor, that in this era, when reservation is a reality, no political party can take the risk of removing it or speaking against it. Once, Bhagwat ji said that we should consider this. Then he was completely defeated in the Bihar elections. So reservation remains a reality, and the power of Hindutva is another reality. So, if the work of annihilating caste is to be done between these two groups,
either at the intellectual level or the practical level, and some people want to
take this movement forward, how can they proceed, in your opinion? The sad thing is that
nobody actually wants the annihilation of caste. So, this has remained just a theoretical
discussion. Even I keep saying that there is no solution to the annihilation of caste;
only annihilation is possible. This is a very wicked thing, so there is no solution
to it. If this country is to be saved or something is to be done, then it needs to be
completely eradicated.
It will have to be uprooted. As far as Hindutva is concerned, the ideology of Hindutva, the current situation of our country is that de facto India is a Hindu nation, it hasn't become de jure yet. So they are taking their time for the de jure status, and they have made all the arrangements. So I don't think India will survive like this. All of this is gone. Then the question arises about the ideology of Hindutva, which is the ideology of the RSS, rather, because there might be some controversy about that too, like where was it written in Hindutva that this was the case, etc., etc., that Hindutva only said that all those who live here are Hindus and all that kind of thing. So, not going into that controversy, but what the RSS adopted, they want Sanatana Dharma. The interpretation of Sanatana Dharma is that whatever existed here before was very good. The caste system and all that was very good, and that's what should be there. So that point actually comes out in their discourse. No matter how much they camouflage it, whether it's to appease the Dalits or to show people, there is a lot of duplicity in them, and they have been doing it. But inherently, everyone can understand. Those who are knowledgeable know that the ideology of Hindutva has been that they want to bring back the caste system, etc., like the "don't touch me" type of thing, untouchability, etc. It's impossible to bring that back in this era because we are living in a technological era. So it's not possible to bring it back in that way, but it is certainly possible that there will be a birth-based kind of hierarchy here, that some people have an endowment that they are born superior, and the rest of the people are inferior. They should internalize that. So all these things are going to come to this country. So, there is a need to understand this, and as far as annihilation of caste is concerned, until people realize or are convinced that caste needs to be eradicated, the short-term benefits of reservation, etc., are not a solution. Because in the last 70 years, we have seen that reservation has only led to the emergence of a middle class among Dalits, and its actual impact has been that the Dalits who were left behind are actually in a more deplorable condition. Those Dalits who have progressed don't realize this, and they only keep saying that Babasaheb did so much, and we are here today, an entire international platform has been created for Dalits. So, their understanding is different, and that understanding is actually impacting those who have been left behind. So, a kind of atmosphere has been created, a pro-reservation atmosphere and all that kind of thing, and using Babasaheb as a symbol – the political class is using this very skillfully. So, they haven't understood this. So, it's a challenging task to first make them understand that annihilation of caste should happen. So, the first precondition is that they should understand and accept that there is a need for it. Otherwise, how can we even talk about things like the annihilation of caste? So, in today's times, it has become a very complex and difficult issue. So, there would be a series of strategic moves that the Dalit movement would have to make if they first understand that this is a viable goal for our emancipation, then perhaps it can be strategized. There is no problem in the world that doesn't have a solution. So, there is a solution; if we hold onto the goal, I also have an answer for it, but it's not necessary to have an immediate kind of answer right now. As I said, while writing, perhaps the annihilation of caste was a simple thing that could have been adopted, but they didn't seize the opportunity. So now, if we talk about it, it would be a series of strategies to reach that goal, and we will have to proceed accordingly.
So we will discuss what those strategies might be. Before concluding, I would like to ask you two personal questions. First, regarding the arrests made under the name of Urban Naxals, what do you think was the reason for your arrest? Was it the intellectual contribution you made through your articles in EPW, Outlook, or other magazines (nowadays even in The Wire, etc.)? Or was it that the state government, Fadnavis, or the Modi government wanted to gain some political advantage and needed to arrest some people, and you were included because perhaps you weren't even present there? Can you tell us how they framed you in this case?
See, it was a well-thought-out conspiracy. When Narendra Modi came to power, he took control of all the institutional structures. This is easy because institutions, all said and done, belong to the state, and since they control the state, they can do whatever they want. All these things are now in the public domain, so there's no need to say much about it. But civil society is something that is amorphous; it's very difficult to control it because people will keep speaking out, they will keep doing things. So, for that, they created a big strategy. The strategy was that if they punish some high-profile people who symbolize dissent, as an example, a wave of terror would be created in civil society, and it could be silenced. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have become a part of that. So, it's not that... and the roots of this are now all in the public domain, how it happened. All the international public forensic agencies...
It's all out in the open. They've exposed everything about how the case was fabricated. So, those who are interested can find it; it's in the public domain. I won't say it myself because, in a way, it's a sub judice case. So, all these things have now been revealed. But the strategy behind it was there. It was simply that we were writing, and my profile must have seemed quite interesting to them – that I'm a Dalit, from Ambedkar's family, and all that kind of thing. So, if they could target me, other people would easily learn from that and should behave accordingly. So, that kind of thing is an absolutely implicit message, you know. And they succeeded in that too. In civil society, you don't see anyone raising their voice, and everyone has internalized the idea that, "No, we can't speak beyond this point." So, in a way, their strategy has been successful. This was a conspiracy to terrorize, and our government carried out this act of terrorism for its own purposes. The last question is, you're writing books very rapidly these days. That's wonderful news, and which book can we expect next? What will its title and subject be? Well, many people ask me this question, that so many books are coming out, we can't even keep up with the pace because they also get something new in the daily articles. They say, "We can't read fast enough as you write." So, let me just explain a little about this: writing is not my profession. I've been in the corporate world. I was the CEO of a company. Even while running the company, from the 90s onwards, when the policies of neoliberalism came here, I started writing publicly, and I've been writing ever since. So,
you can imagine, in this 24-hour engaging job, I used to write everything.
I wrote a regular column. And I also published books, more than 20 books.
As a CEO, as a corporate person, I had written on contemporary issues. So now,
it's like a curse from Narendra Modi that I have all the time in the world now
because I've lost my job, everything. I have all the time now, so what can I do? Because, firstly, I have been a civil rights
activist, so wherever something happened, even while working and holding this big senior, top post, I
would go anywhere. The whole of India was my constituency. So wherever there was any injustice,
etc., and wherever I needed to address it, I would physically go there. We would do fact-finding, we would organize
people, hold meetings, and despite all these activities and engagements, I
was writing all this. So now I have all the time in the world, so naturally, it would reflect
on the output. So this year, I have six books, not four, actually six books are coming out. In the
remaining December, two more books are to be published. One is titled Dalit and Constitution,
published by Speaking Tiger. It's part of a constitutional series
that our friends like Harsh Mander conceived, to bring out a series of books about the Constitution
for people. So my latest book in that series is Dalit and the Indian Constitution. And the second thing is a Babasaheb Ambedkar Reader, which we felt was needed because the volumes that have been published of Babasaheb's writings are very poorly compiled, poorly edited, and poorly indexed. So, for scholars and other people, they are actually not very accessible. So, we have identified some issues and compiled what Babasaheb had to say on them, and the name of that series is the Ambedkar Reader. So, I and S. Anand from Navayana (both of us are named Anand) are editing it. So, my first book is coming out under that series, which is Ambedkar and Islam. So, these two books are coming out now, and later, I have written quite a lot, even in jail. I haven't even looked at that yet. I wrote about four books in jail, mostly in a sketchy form. So, those two books will probably come out next year. One is on nationalism, and there's a philosophical discourse on what it means to be political, what it means to be free, etc. These are the kinds of titles of the books. And there will also be a book on the PR system, which I mentioned, that all these things are connected to the election system. So, that's all. Thank you, Doctor. Nowadays, people focus more on immediate benefits, whether it's political or related to human rights. Immediate issues are focused on, and people pay less attention to long-term impact. So, I shouldn't say this, but your thinking and writing in this way is, in a way, very important for Indian society in general, and for those who hope for or want to bring about change in this society. Because in today's era, with Modi, even having hope is a very big thing. And what you have said is very important; the conflict between short-term and long-term is something that people need to understand. So these people don't understand that people get misled by what's going to happen tomorrow, and
they don't think, they don't see that what is beneficial in the short term could be very
detrimental in the long term. In fact, I see this reservation and abolition issue in the same way: that reservation seemed to offer immediate benefits, and abolition was a long struggle. So the human tendency, the mindset, is that...
He quickly seizes the immediate advantage and wants to secure it, thinking that by doing so, he will become stronger and be able to fight a longer battle.
But that immediate advantage sometimes weakens him for the long battle he has to fight. Anyway, it was a great pleasure talking to you, and I think our viewers will also benefit greatly from this. Thank you very much. We will continue to talk to you in the future.