Venu: Hello and welcome to this special discussion on The Wire. Our guest today is Mr Arun Shourie. He needs no introduction; he’s a former minister with the NDA government, but we journalists remember him more fondly as a feisty editor of the Indian Express and also as a journalist who, who practiced adversarial journalism and who challenged the state, the government of the day, whether it was Indira Gandhi’s government or Rajiv Gandhi’s regime back in the 80s.

We have him with us today to talk about the state of Indian media in particular and other institutions as we see them today under the present regime. Welcome to our discussion, Mr Shourie. I have heard you on several occasions in other TV channels really lament the falling standards in the way the media is covering events and in the way media is treating the powers that be. So could you tell us where does his anguish come from?

Shourie: Well it’s not so much anguish as great disappointment and some anger also, because I believe that if you look at the main line media — it’s called the national media, actually it is the provincial media of Delhi. This media is certainly now, on its last, in its last gasps, about doing anything in the public interest. They are really becoming mouthpieces of the government and they were not as much in the UPA time because they were not afraid of UPA. Now they are bribed by advertisements and at the same time there’s a pervasive fear among the senior journalists, at least who meet me and whom I meet.

Venu: What is the source of this fear sir?

Shourie: I think it’s a–

Venu: What’s your guess?

Shourie: It is a systematic attempt by, it is the Gujarat model extended to Delhi. It’s a systematic attempt by the rulers to frighten the journalist. For example, a senior editor told me, we were meeting and there was a third person, and he sits and he said, “Now they will know that we are together.” “How?” “Sir no they follow of our mobiles,” So wherever mobiles have come together. And now, whether they do it or not, that a senior editor of a large paper should be feeling this is testimony to the state of affairs.

Venu: Sir, do you think it is this fear which has resulted in the media virtually withdrawing itself from covering very critical issues, and the latest being the death of a judge, the family members of a judge who presided over a CBI court, looking into the case of Amit Shah and several other police officers in a fake encounter case, the family members have come out to say that they virtually saying that they wanted inquiry because he died in very mysterious circumstances and they do not believe that he died of a cardiac arrest. Now the Caravan wrote about it, The Wire also followed up and, and now former chief justice of the Delhi high court AP Shah has said that this should be inquired into by the judiciary suo moto. What do you think of that?

Shourie: I think there are several points. In this, first yes that they have blacked it out. To begin with, the story was given to one of these national news magazines because that’s where the journalist worked.

Venu: Seven-eight months ago yes.

Shourie: Yes, and they held it up for seven eight months, and then told him we can’t publish it. That itself speaks to you about the national so-called English national media. Second, is that then the story is brought out in a very fine decision by the Caravan online, and the Delhi papers not one word, not one word. And one day, tweet of this Rahul Gandhi, on about his dog tweeting that gets so much coverage and this that and the other. So it speaks to this fact, that you have been instructed, ‘raise other issues, don’t focus on the issue that we don’t want you to talk about’. Every time some big event happens which may be of embarrassment to the government, by the evening sort of something must go out, some instruction or some suggestion that, ‘no no cover this particular issue,’ ‘highlight this particular issue,’ because next morning that’s the issue that is highlighted. And similarly, in these TV debates some idiotic meme, this would you call these tweets or something becomes the subject of discussions on different channels and the main story of national importance is blacked out.

Venu: So do you think this is happening because of a general decline in in overall institutions and media is also considered a pillar of India’s democracy. Now how would you compare the situation today from the time when you were editor of Indian Express and what would, how would this have been treated at that time? As, let’s say the judges case – a death of a judge in mysterious circumstances.

Shourie: Well, certainly the Indian Express would have led with the story, and if it had got whiff of it, it would have followed it and continued to follow it for nine months till some conclusion was reached. There is no doubt on that, and that was primarily not just because of us journalists there but because of Mr Ramnath Goenka. He was very concerned about these matters and certainly he always felt, used to always tell me always tell, “Nai nai, abhi judiciary hai.” That was his final, what do you call, source of strength. So it would have been followed up. But I think there are now several changes. One is that there is an ideology in the press, and our friends Sumeet Jain and Vineet Jain were the pioneers in this ideology that, “No, we are not, we are in the infotainment business. We are in the entertainment business.”

Venu: So that could be the beginning of the decline?

Shourie: I think they were the sort of initiators of it, and they then Mr Vineet Jain, some interview I remember saying that no no we are in the advertising business.

Venu: To The New Yorker.

Shourie: Yeah, and that the news is really the material that is used to fill in space between advertisements. Now, if this is your attitude or if this is what you flaunt your attitude to be, then the consequences will be very grave for the country, and unfortunately everybody if you look at Hindustan Times or other papers they are aping that model of Times of India, rather than being different from it. So I think that is one reason for it, this ideological reorientation. Second is, that many of the bigger newspapers and channels have now been bought by–

Venu: Big corporates.

Shourie: Big corporates, and their tales can be pressed at many points, by goverents. And in any case they are a part of the establishment, they don’t want to rock the establishment. It’s not an adversarial relationship between the government and them. They are partners in ruling India.

Venu: And sometimes that partnership is couched in nationalism, a new kind of new India nationalism.

Shourie: Yeah, and it has nothing to do with nationalism. Nationalism today is a word that is used only to browbeat others and put others on the defensive. And actually if you see the way in, what you were saying what the general institutions, the way institutions are being destroyed, is the greatest anti-national act that you can think of. Because how can a country like India survive without institutions?

Venu: Can you elaborate on this sir because aapne kaha tha ki (you said that) during your time, when you invoked Ramnath Goenka, you said you always had this level of comfort that judiciary hai, “Agar humse nahi hua toh judiciary bacha legi.” (If we can’t do it then the judiciary will save us.)

Shourie: Okay, no, they know that if we are assaulted that is certainly, but we will be able to go to the judiciary, that was the point. But today, if, I I’ve just finished a book on the judiciary. Sometimes you get very brave judgments, judgments in the interests of the institution itself, as in the rejection of the government’s ploy to get the power of appointments and transfers back in the hands of the political executive and the political class. That was struck down by the Supreme Court. But at other times, one is completely surprised for instance in that death note of Pul–

Venu: Yeah, Kalikho Pull, which The Wire had published first.

Shourie: Yes, indeed. And what happened and, and Prashant Bhushan and others were are doing for it’s being taken up. Similarly the Sahara Diaries, in which the name of the recipient who’s made, which employee of Sahara has made a payment, to whom, when, where is all recorded. Now you contrast these summary rejection of these things by the Supreme Court with what it has itself said in the case of the Hawala Diaries. No they must be investigated, eventually the cases were dropped they were, what do call, the accused were discharged, but the investigation had to be done.

Venu: So even the executive did not fulfill its own responsibilities of at least doing some minimum tehkeekat, investigation.

Shourie: No no, the judiciary did not ask even for that minimal thing.

Venu: Yeah minimal thing yeah.

Shourie: So that is this surprise. So that means that very often the outcome now depends even in the Supreme Court, and I said it with great respect because the Supreme Court has been the dike thus far which has protected the freedom of speech, and many other liberties. But now it seems, that the, the outcome of the case depends not so much, and the effects or even the law but on which bench your case may go before.

Venu: What is called forum shopping.

Shourie: No forum shopping means that the accused has deliberately tried to do one thing

or the other. Here it is that, let us say it is a random go. Even then the outcome seems to depend on that. And–

Venu: How do you, again–

Shourie: And therefore, I think that we have to see that you know. The Indian system has depended upon checks and balances. Rajya Sabha vis-a-vis the Lok Sabha. Therefore the tenures are different, the elections are different. One-third of the Rajya Sabha retires every three years and so on. That has now gone. And it has been systematically undermined for instance, in that thing about Aadhar being a money bill. So you, clear a certain things to be money bills and therefore you make the Rajya Sabha irrelevant.

Venu: Other bills also have been declared as money bill and, to avoid taking it to Rajya Sabha right?

Shourie: So one-half of the parliament is just being set aside. Second.

Venu: And this winter session, the entire parliament session has been postponed.

Shourie: But that’s, it very that’s the Gujarat model. You see, I’d like to say something on that but the point being, that all state assemblies have now been reduced to three-day sessions, four-day sessions, ten-day sessions jissmain holidays aa jaati hain. And, the parliament, getting, you are now, is now getting accustomed to look upon parliament as yet another state assembly.

Venu: You think, this is very serious right?

Shourie: Of course, this is the Gujarat model. But you know, the problem is that we are today is very surprised at the undermining, let’s say of educational institutions. What types of vice chancellors are being appointed and what types of things are happening what types of curricular changes have been, at are taking place. Why? That’s exactly what was done in Gujarat. You go to the MS University in Baroda where Sri Aurobindo taught and see its condition today. Similarly in other educational institutions in Gujarat we are surprised at the fact that the cabinet has been rendered into a rubberstamp. Well that’s the Gujarat model. We are surprised at a coterie around the prime minister ruling the whole place–

Venu: An extremely centralised administration.

Shourie: But that was the Gujarat model, that was the Gujarat model. We did not study the Gujarat model and therefore we are today surprised.

Venu: So here I want to ask you one question here. Since you have seen both Indira Gandhi and now Narendra Modi. Often writers and intellectuals, journalists are drawing comparisons between the two – one comparison they draw is, both were highly centralised and both in their own ways undermine institutions. How would you compare, what difference would you see?

Shourie: I think yes, and yes Mrs Gandhi began the undermining of institutions, that is her lasting legacy. But I think there was, several differences between them. One was that in Mrs Gandhi’s time, there were strong civil servants who could stop her and she listened to them. And if you read Jairam Ramesh’s essay on Mr P.N. Haksar and his relationship with Mrs Gandhi how he opposed her and he was her principal secretary. Similarly, if you read Mr PN Dhar’s book, when he becomes principal secretary, of the advice he gave her, he has written the entire account of that and how he would check her. Today there is nobody like that, that is one point. I think the second point is–

Venu: You mean the absence of an enlightened bureaucracy?

Shourie: Of an enlightened and independent, you say you are supposed to be civil servants means that you are servants of civil society.

Venu: And allegiance to constitution.

Shourie: Yes, but here these people have become very civil servants. The second difference between Mrs Gandhi and Mr Modi I feel is that Mrs Gandhi, having grown up during the freedom struggle, having grown up in Pandit ji’s household, had inner restraints. Yes, she imposed emergency, yes she put a lakh of persons in jail, but she was remorseful. I heard this from none other than Mr J. Krishnamurti himself and from Mr Achyut Patwardhan who as you know was very close to Mr Jai Krishnamurti, at that time along with Pupul Jayakar. How much anguish Mrs Gandhi expressed almost to the point of tears in front of J Krishnamurti, in regard to what she had done or had been forced to do according to her own reckoning and therefore, she sought legitimacy that when the movement was dead in January 1977, she announces on the 18th that she will have elections. There was no compulsion in the, what–

Venu: So remorse is another difference.

Shourie: Yes.

Venu: You are saying that there was remorse then, the remorse, doesn’t seem to be any remorse now.

Shourie: Not only seem to, but there is no remorse, this is one of the three features, characteristics of these leaders today. They hold excessive view about themselves, therefore a diminished view about others, therefore no compunction in oppressing the others. Second, the instrumental view of everyone, of every occasion of every idea “Ki iska main kya prayog kar sakta hun.” (How can I make use of this) And third, remorselessness, therefore they are not sorry and and the final thing I feel that Mrs Gandhi–

Venu: Like there is no remorse about the way demonetisation hurt the, absolute informal sector, the poor people yeah you know it hit them–

Shourie: Demonetisation was an absolutely idiotic idea. But actually there is further point and that is that Mrs Gandhi did say things which were not correct. For instance, JP’s movement main ek foreign hand hai. But today, falsehood has become the hallmark of this government. Absolutely the hallmark. And in fact it has become one of the emblems of the power of the prime minister. You see if I speak a truth, Gandhiji says something truthful, and others repeat it. Well, it is his great moral influence but if X says something which is absolutely false and makes his cabinet colleagues repeat it day in and day out and go out to state capitals and hold press conferences, repeating that falsehood in his view, that is power, that is control and that’s what’s happening today. I mean these, these ministers, I don’t know them so I can’t say that they do feel foolish, but they ought to feel foolish, when they repeat the lies about demonetisation. Matlab, abhi dekhiye, till December 20th, oh you would know these dates better than I do, I think till December 15 or 20, the Reserve Bank every evening will tell you from data, from all parts of India–

Venu: It suddenly stopped telling us.

Shourie: They’ll tell you, how many notes have come back there and after the 31st. What is this Patel doing, Urjit Patil. He is sitting after office hours and counting the notes, one by one? We are now 11 months away, and he can’t give us the total number. It is my guess, therefore that this figure that 99 % of the notes have come back is absolutely wrong, because I mean, are probably 110-120 % of the notes which were in circulation have come back.

Venu: So, coming back to the fear factor that you spoke about. Where is this fear coming from? Now you in your past interviews, you have used a very evocative term called decentralised emergency. Now is there some kind of a low burn, low intensity decentralised emergency which is creating this fear factor? And I tell you why I ask this question, because it is very apparent to all of us that investigation agencies like CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Income tax, they are being used for political purposes. For instance, if you see opposition leaders who, second level leaders also, who had been targeted for income tax violations or ED investigations against them, when they joined the BJP, everything is over.

Shourie: Yes.

Venu: There are cases like Mukul Roy, and there’s Narayan Rane, against whom there was ED investigations. And there are similar cases, whether you see it in Tamil Nadu politics–

Shourie: Yes, Karnataka.

Venu: Yes, Karnataka. So how do you characterise this, the use of investigation agencies as an

instrument of, of political submission, making others submit to you politically?

Shourie: But that’s exactly it just the point to which these institutions have been destroyed, and undermined. These are now just names, and that is why, I but that, therefore there but the reason for fear is not just that the institution will be misused. The reason for fear is that these characters have actually been doing things that are wrong. Rane has to be afraid, I mean if I may say so with the great affection for the NCP type people, they just have to be afraid. And in the end setup rival candidates in Gujarat. Why? Because, Ashok Pawar, woh kya naam tha, that irrigation minister

Venu: Ajith Pawar–

Shourie: Then these airports, in this enquiry, facts about those merger of Air India information–

Venu: In fact when they came to power they said they’ll investigate Ajit Pawar for the irrigation scam.

Shourie: And, nothing is happening, so and you see they are afraid they know what they have done. Therefore, they are afraid that these people will use the agencies and second point is that there is no limit, there is no compunction, no shame in using the institutions for such purposes. This is the new thing, you see. Mrs Gandhi talked of a committed judiciary or, Kumara Mangalam talked, but the fact is that they did not go beyond a point. Today, there is no limit which the present rulers will not exceed.

Venu: So you’re saying there’s a committed investigation agencies–

Shourie: Of course, they themselves said that we are a caged parrot. Actually they are snakes.

Venu: And today Mr Shourie, there is a, I want you to respond to this–

Shourie: If I may say two things, that this fear of agencies and so on, is most marked geographically in Delhi and in the north of India. If you go farther, the further you are away from

Delhi the less the fear – this is one point. Secondly, the fear is most marked in the persons whom we would think would have enough resources to withstand the state and that is the big business people, they are the most fearful. And I could use the phrase that Ramnath ji used to use about them, but probably you would not like it to be used. But it is quite amazing, I mean FICCI that is what do you call, CII, they are supposed to be alternative, you know they should look upon themselves as alternate centers for alternate ideas, for policy prescription, but actually they have just become event managers for the government. And now with Mr Modi the great event manager being the government he doesn’t need their skills, but that’s all they are longing to do, is to to organise an event for you.

Venu: So coming back to, Mr Shourie, from following, from all that you’ve said so far. Coming back to the media, you’re right, that as you move away from Delhi, the media is more proactive, as in when The Wire broke the story on Jay Shah, Amit Shah’s son’s businesses before and after this government came to power, we found that the follow-up stories in the southern papers were far more than, in Delhi or in the Hindi belt newspapers. So it seems clear, which you also endorse, that that as you move away from Delhi, people are challenging the government of the day. So is that a, would you regard that as a silver lining?

Shourie: Yes, well if that was that proved to be a great silver lining during the emergency. Also, do you remember the DMK government was in office, in Tamil Nadu and that was a sanctuary for many persons? So yes, this is one of the safeguards in India that ours, the size of our country is such that you really can’t run a complete dictatorship from Delhi. And–

Venu: So that’s an inherent kind of check that we have?

Shourie: Yes, and second is that everybody has some brother-in-law, or some father-in-law or cousin brother in some office, in some part of the government, and therefore those family relationships and friendships also sort of are the sense of security they provide you information and so on. But the main problem is just that we don’t want to lose anything, in a sense that media has become too rich, a Hindi newspaper having God knows 20-30 editions, has shopping malls. So somebody can always come and say, no, your fire extinguishers are not working so you don’t want to lose that. I remember, I mean, I am not able to spot that quotation but I remember once about Gandhiji remarking half in jest, it is not that Indians don’t want freedom. Indians want freedom, but they are not prepared to do anything for it and would be happier still if in the bargain they made some money out of it. I think that describes our condition in regard to, do we speak of freedom of speech and so on but actually these are now businesses. Formerly, let us say Mr Ramnath Goenka, he would buy property and sell property to keep the newspaper going; Today many friends have newspapers and TV channels so that they can enlarge their businesses.

Venu: So that’s become the tale, the media business become the tail, the other businesses which is the remaining, which is the dog.

Shourie: Yes, that is the main objective.

Venu: So, so Mr Shourie, when you see all these things happening around you, what do you see as solutions, for the media for other institutions how do we regenerate rejuvenate, morally sort of revive ourselves?

Shourie: I think the first point, Venu, is to be hopeful, I am really quite hopeful. First, when the rulers acquire complete control over the media, then as Mark Tully has very perceptively said

“When you suppress news or control news rumor takes over.” And rumor is much more corrosive of legitimacy of governments then the facts the actual facts may be. Second is that today, there is much greater talent in the country, especially among these youngsters than there was at the time of the emergency.

Venu: So that’s the positive side.

Shourie: Yes, absolutely, a positive side. Third is that now as The Wire shows as Caravan’s online distribution of this story shows, that now alternate means are available,

Venu: And you mentioned in the past, Alt News, fact-checking websites.

Shourie: Yes fact checking, there is Boom, there is HMO, Hoax Slayer and therefore what we should do is to build on this talent. I’ll tell you, the best things being said about the government today are not by our columnists, many of whom are brave, but they, by these stand-up comedians, we didn’t have them in 1975, 1977, and there’s great talent there. And these are youngsters, so they make little songs and ditties, and so on very very effective, so we should, applaud them. Secondly, we must support these alternate sites which are fact checking sites–

Venu: Although some of them have also been censored if you remember a stand-up comedian who made her shows yes, for Star Plus it was withdrawn.

Shourie: Oh no, therefore it is very important that when such acts take place, to suppress even alternate media they must be broadcast online everywhere. I’ll give you an instance, Section 66A has been struck down by the Supreme Court of this Information Technology Act, yet people are arrested and charged, FIR’s are lodged, for just circulating a cartoon, for forwarding the cartoon that Venu sent me, I am charged. This is completely a violation of the spirit of the Supreme Court’s judgment. These things should be publicised far and wide, so that everybody gets to know the nature of the regime much better, and sheds his illusions about it.

Venu: Today I read in the newspaper, Mr Shourie, that there is a high court, there’s a

case being heard against Adityanath, some past cases, so the high court passed an order saying that journalists cannot report it because they are they are apparently distorting the daily reportage.

Shourie: No sir, that is on the allegation of the public prosecutor or somebody that they are distorting. Therefore–

Venu: Only on the allegation of the public prosecutor, yeah.

Shourie: And the court has not examined those things, or maybe the court has, so the actually the remedy to that would be that the court would say, “No, these journalists are distorting what I say, they’re putting it out of context, taking a sentence here and blowing it up, therefore I want all the proceedings to be videod, broadcast.” You’re all the time talking about transparency in the country, so why not this?

Venu: So you’re suggesting that among the alternate media people, there should be a concerted effort to play these stories to as far and as wide an audience as possible?

Shourie: Yes.

Venu: Like for this judge’s case the death of mysterious death of a CBI court judge, so do you think this can be carried forward by the alternative media, further in the next few weeks?

Shourie: Yes, they should, they must do it and they should contact other judges. I really feel that again find, somebody must file a case in the Supreme Court that you must set up an SIT for investigation to this because the entire judiciary can be put in thrall if you don’t do it. And the prima facie case has certainly been made out by the story. Now here you we have to learn from Gandhiji. You see when he goes to Champaran, he makes a minimal demand, “Please set up an inquiry into the condition of indigo cultivators.” And he goes around and the British government said how can we bend to this fakir? Then his demands will be something else, on some other matter, how can the British government bend? Now for, from Gandhi’s point of view, if the British government agrees to an inquiry, then it has bent, if it does not agree to an inquiry his point is proven. So also, we should go to the Supreme Court, request an SIT, after all you can have SIT’S and all sorts of other things certainly, into the case–

Venu: Of the judge’s death.

Shourie: Who was trying a very sensitive case which was not unknown to the Supreme Court itself, so why not in this? Now supposing they say yes then you have achieved an objective.

Venu: If they say no?

Shourie: No, then you have proven the point about the judiciary, but I would suggest one thing else, I think you know there is a sort of would you call schizophrenia, in Indian public discourse. Every time something happens in a state Vyapam scam or something everybody shouts, “Nai nai” there should be a CBI inquiry. On the other side, we are always saying and we know that the CBI is functioning only as an instrument of the central government.

Venu: It’s the paradox, I’ve been wanting to it’s been troubling me this paradox–

Shourie: Yes yes, therefore we should really be restrained in asking for merely CBI inquiries, that was the justification for inquiries under the supervision of the Supreme Court, these SITs.

Venu: Supreme Court monitored inquiries.

Shourie: monitored enquiries. But I would now go one step further–

Venu: In fact, the Sohrabuddin case was the Supreme Court monitored and Supreme Court instructed proceedings.

Shourie: Very good point, therefore, Loya has died on that very matter.

Venu: On that very matter.

Shourie: So double the reason why this Supreme Court should–

Venu: So good to notice yeah.

Shourie: But I think a stage has now come when something more should be done and this paradox can be resolved in one way. That is, you know CBI has no credibility. What is the best way for this government to kill this matter just now? They will select some retired judge of their liking and set up a one-man commission of inquiry which looks into this matter for the next seven years. Finished. But you wanted an inquiry, humne shuru kardi (we have started it), so I feel that apart from asking for a Supreme Court-monitored inquiry, stages come when they should be sort of a people’s commission should be set up on such a conspicuous case. After all I remember–

Venu: This used to happen 25 years ago.

Shourie: Yes this was and a good case I was personally I was involved in that. And that was, that there were a lot of killings of Naxalites into, in Andhra Pradesh. And they, the students had gone to JP about this, so and Mr [V.M.] Tarkunde and I was sitting with JP and the I demand was that the new government Mr Morarji Desai’s government should set up an inquiry commission as well and eventually a Bhargav Commission was set up. But JP said, “Nai nai, aap investigate kijiye” (No no, you investigate). Then we set up a committee, a group with media, our good friend KG Kannabiran, who was this pillar of civil liberties in Andhra, a group was set up which went to the locations and wrote a report which had tremendous impact at that time. So that kind of inquiry should now also be done. We should look for three judges who can, whose integrity is and competence is beyond anybody’s doubt, and a person like Justice AP Shah is one of the best persons who can suggest, who can name these three persons and it’s citizens inquiry takes place and those findings are published.

Venu: This was also done after the ‘84 riots right, this citizen’s group?

Shourie: Yes.

Venu: This brings me to the final question, those days which you just recalled the, you know the media used to draw energy from civil society organizations such as POC etc and there even the opposition parties you know they used to draw energy from each other in maintaining this checks and balances that is needed in a democracy. Where are these organisations today, where are these checks and balances? They seem to have kind of receded somewhere in the background, do you also feel that?

Shourie: Yes, because we have been relying too much now on the state, everything government should do this, Supreme Court should do this. Ibn-e-Insha, poet from Pakistan, had a wonderful line, he said, “Haq acha,” Truth is good, righteousness is good. “Haq acha, isske liye koi aur mare, toh aur acha.” (Rights are good, for them if someone else dies, then it is better.) The state should do something, but we should do something.

Venu: So you really sort of feel that, that it’s people and civil society organisations, media, there’s a need to sort of reconnect.

Shourie: Reconnect and the political parties also should we should at that time, let us say in the Indian Express we would do stories a series of stories, on under trials for nine months. But we would also contact the lawyers, give them all the materials, so they will file writs in the Supreme Court, and that would result in four very great judgments of Justice Bhagwati and others. Hussainara Khatoon and other cases, in by which not one not one thousand not ten thousand but on Upendra Baxi’s count, 42,000 under trials were released, because of this coordination. And actually speaking the death of this judge is the classic case and it can be a turning point, one way or the other.

Venu: Thank you very much, Mr Arun Shourie, for talking to us, that was great catching up with you, that’s all we have for now, thanks for watching.