Mae'n gweithio i gael ymddangos. Mae'n gweithio i gael yma. Mae'n gweithio i gael yma. Mae'n gweithio i Gweithio. Mae'n gweithio i India oedd 30 gynhyrch ar y mid-60. Mae'n gweithio i Gweithio i Gweithio. Mae'n gweithio i India oedd y Llegarau Brithys. Mae'n yn rhan o gyf 혼. It seems to be a huge amount of television about the Raj in India and, of course, Queen Victoria. He spent his career in broadcasting, television and radio and was managing editor of the BBC documentary department before running a company of his own, teaching documentary film abroad including in India. Mae'r hyn o'r cyffredin iawn i'r cyffredin iawn i'r hyn yn ystod yma, sy'n deud yn ymgyrch chi'n ddod yma, a'r cyflawn i'r cyffredin iawn. Felly, y bydd y bydd yn ymgyrch i'r cyffredin iawn, a'r cyffredin iawn i'r cyffredin iawn. Ymarfer y Llywodraeth, y Prifysgol yng Nghymru yn yng nghymru, y ffordd o'r ddod yn ymgyrch, mae'n ddod yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch. ac mae'n i'n gwybod i ddim yn gwybod ar yr ysgol yw'r ddweud ymlaen i'r llunio. Huw, ddweud i'n gwybod i'r ddweud. Ddweud i'r ddweud. Ddweud i'n gwybod i'r ddweud yma, a'r gwaith yn gweithio. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, ychydig, mae'n gweithio arall o'r parodau o'r boll yn India o'r Pockastar. Mae'n gweithio arall o'r ddweud. Mae'n gweithio arall o'r ddweud. Mae'n gweithio arall o'r ddweud mae'n gweithio arall o'r panfforddol ddim yn debyg wneud. Chyswch. Ddim yn gweithio yn lactowel. Rwy'n gobeithio yn ddweud a'n gweithio yw ei chlynyddu. Gofyn. Felly y cwestiynau dim. Mae'n gweithio arall o'r ddweud o fath o'r ddweud. Mae'n debyg i'r Ddweud i'r Ddweud felly mae'n dda'r bobl ddaeth. Yr dismygu? Mae'r ddechrau yn gweithio, ac mae'r ddechrau yn gweithio'r ffordd. Mae'r ddechrau yn gweithio'r ffordd. Mae'r ddechrau yn gweithio'r ffordd. Felly, yna'r rhag Bryddoedd? Felly, mae'n gwneud i'r rhag, dwi'n fyddechrau'r rhaid o'r rhaid o'r llyfrnau sy'n cymdeithasio'r Rhagd Bryddoedd yn y Rhagd Bryddoedd. Dwi'n fyddechrau'r Rhagd Bryddoedd, rwy'n methu hynag Might Mind ac yn gweithio'r Rhagd Bryddoedd, yr gallwch i Thrall Bunsel, ac yn cael diganio'r Rhagd Bryddoedd' Anglo-Indian now means if you are of a family going back three generations with a male member of the family from Europe, not just the UK, who married an Indian lady. But at the time, during the empire, Anglo-Indians were known as Eurasians basically, and an Anglo-Indian was a Brit who had been working out in India for a lot of his life and had come back to the UK. I just thought that might interest you. So my own connections with India, I went out there first in 1964 when I was your age when I was 21. But even or not, it was easy to travel to India by public transport over land, which I did with two friends. It took 16 days and cost £40. One student rail, student travel passport. So one train from Amsterdam to Istanbul, three days. One train to Erzurum, which is right up in the northeast part of Turkey. Buses across Iran, this was the time of the Shah, local buses. Then, this was the exciting thing, this was the legacy of the Raj. There was a once weekly train that you caught in a hellhole called Zaidan, and it took you round the bottom of the Hindu Kush through Baluchistan to Quetta. You wouldn't do it now because it's bandit country. You wouldn't even go to Zaidan now, and I know because we've just come back from Iran and Zaidan is a no-go area. Then you're in Quetta, and then you can imagine my wonderful relief and excitement when we hitched up from Lahore to Kashmir. Kashmir then was open to tourists, and it was a wonderful Shangri-La, oh my God, it was fantastic. We stayed on a houseboat, and there were the peacocks, and there was the lush fruit, and everything. In those days, that was 17 years after the British had left India, and it was still a talking point. Was Churchill, Winston Churchill, a good or a bad thing? Well, he was undoubtedly a bad thing for India. In fact, he said that the Hindus were a beastly people with a beastly religion, and in 1940 he said he thought British rule over India would last for a thousand years. Churchill was a terrible old imperialist, really. I remember looking at a quotation on the government buildings in Delhi built by, designed by Luchans, a British architect. The quotation was, liberty will not descend to a people, a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed. How patronising. Really, what a offensive thing to have written on a government building. The British were the occupiers of India. Now, at this stage I certainly wasn't anti-empire, I was rather pro, but I thought that was an awful thing to write. Anyway, I've been going back ever since, and now of course a few Indians know anything about the British Raj. I remember getting a taxi in Delhi, talking to the taxi driver. He said, oh, I know so. You want to go to buildings of British Raj. I'll take you to one. Great, and he took me to Humayun's tomb, which was of course part of the Moghul empire dating from the case of Humayun, I think the early 16th century. So empires come and go, and the Moghul empire, the British empire, one has succeeded the other and gone. There are still graveyards, gothic graveyards with tombs of millions of Brits who were hundreds of thousands. The figures in my book actually who died and were buried in India. Calcutta is still quite a British town because it was the old British capital of India and the centre of British commerce, which I'll come back to later. And then of course there are the wonderful buildings like the Luchans New Delhi and the railway station in Mumbai, which is an extraordinary bit of what they call Sarasinic, which is gothic Indian architecture. Anyway, so I thought I'd write a book called After the Raj, and I found 10 or 12 Brits. This was in about 2003, who had been born in India when it belonged to the Raj, and had never left. Most of the Brits went back home in 1947, but these had grown up with the new India.  There was an Anglo-Indian girl who was on the cover, and there was a guy called Nigel Hankin who'd written a book called Hanklin Janklin, which is about the kind of British Indian language which has emerged during the British time. And what did I think then? I mean I was still, and I am still in a way proud of the British achievements in India. The railways, for example, to return to that later, but many of you have been to India, you go on the railways. This was the network that held and holds India together. It's incredibly efficient, though slow. You can buy your tickets in North Wembley if you feel like it. It's much easier to get your tickets in North Wembley than to queue up at an Indian station. Though if you do queue up at an Indian station and you are with a girl, get her to go to the women-only ticket office, because the queue is always a lot shorter, right? So the trains, the whole of the railways was staffed by Anglo-Indians, as it happened. They were called the nuts and bolts of empire. And I remember going to a community outside Calcutta, which was entirely lived in now by elderly Anglo-Indians, who were so proud of driving the trains and so on. And then of course the graveyards, which do tell stories or rather you can imagine the stories of many, many, many, many, many Brits who toil their lives in irrigating the land or building the railways or bringing justice or teaching in the schools or being missionaries. Whatever the end result and whatever the motive of all that, their lives actually were dedicated to India.  Now that I do believe. I also read, it's defunct now, there's a magazine called the Indo-British Review, which were articles, it lasted until the 1990s, and there are articles about, particularly about old army guys. The hundreds went out every year from independence to revisit their old regiments.  I mean, there are bagpipers, there's the regiment of silver going back to the days of the Raj, the ranks, the same structure, the same kind of uniforms. It's a very British institution really. So here we are, 2003, a lot of pride in the British in India. But I do believe that the British, particularly after the mutiny in 1857, never tried to understand India and never did understand India. If you read a book called The Raj Quartet, which is four volumes by a guy called Paul Scott, which is a seminal work in literature, you'll know what I mean. But here are a couple of quotes which I picked up when I was writing my book. This one was by a British guy. Like all the British of the Raj, adult or child, I was part of two worlds. I might kind lived on India, but not in India. This other world, the Shadowland, was a place where our averted eyes, a slightly disreputable place, hardly mentioned in decent company. And here's an Indian officer. There was almost no social contact between British and Indian officers in the army. I don't know of a single case in which a British and Indian were very friendly. There was no contact, although we fought the same enemy.  The British did live in Cantonments in their own lines. And up until certainly the 1950s, Indians couldn't go in these Cantonments. They were British only unless you had a pass. Actually, the British officers were very attached to their men, but this didn't actually include the officers too much. Perhaps they saw them as rivals, as social equals. I don't know. But I do believe the British never really tried to understand India. It's a huge generalisation, but I mean I stick to it. And this is sort of from the mutiny onwards. Anyway, basically, the Rajgut or bad, I've kind of changed my mind anyway by reading this fantastic book by Shashi Turur called Inchlorious Empire What the British Did to India. Hands off, those of you who've read it. Good, good, it's a good read, isn't it? It's a fantastic read. He was a Deputy Director General of the UN. He's now a writer, a very clear writer. And it's about time this argument was put forward because there are far too many books by old British guys who lived in India talking about the smell of wood fire at the early morning as they went for a ride or the chink of gin glasses and the mess in the evening and all that. This is sort of the other side. And his basic point, which I don't think actually is, I think it's irrefutable, was that Britain was a colonial power and everything it did in India was first and foremost in the best interests of Britain, including the leaving of it. And he has a good quote, which is a bit mischievous. It's not his, somebody else's. In the beginning there were two nations. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire which dominated a massive swath of the earth. The other was an undeveloped semi-feudal realm driven by religious factualism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses. The first nation was India and the second was England. However, this was talking about the early 17th century when the company began and the first Brits went out. So let's have a look at the balance sheet, bearing in mind in a way we should look at it through this colonial perspective as I will give you an indication. What was obviously good in a way was the English language. It's an official language of India. It's Pan-Indian. It's the language of global trade. It unites the Indian middle classes and so on through television. If you go to India, you turn on the television and there are the English-speaking Indian or imported programmes on television uniting social cohesion, English-speaking middle classes. Of course it enables some of you, only a very small number, to be here because Indians, Pakistanis, whatever, you can go to England and America without any language difficulties at all. So it's obviously quite a good thing. But you've got to look at its origin and back in the 1830s, a guy called Lord Macaulay worked for the East India Company and he was responsible for the English rather than Persian being the official language of India. He founded the education system in India for the ruling classes once again. This is a classroom in times. He said, we must form a class of persons Indian in colour and blood but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. He wanted a kind of carder of Indians who are more British than the British to teach Indians about the British, the British rule and the British culture. And the education was quite unashamedly Anglo-centric. He had two more quotes from Macaulay. The introduction of western education and Christianity will transform a morally decadent society. A single shelf of a good European library is worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. This is Macaulay in 18, speaking in 1830. Interestingly enough, Shashi Tharoe went to St Stephen's College in Delhi, his favourite author is a PG Woodhouse and of course Shakespeare and he's the legacy of that which he's the first one to admit. But the British were not actually interested in educating the vast mass of Indians and here's a statistic which, again, I haven't checked, but it's one of Shashi Tharoe's, but when the British left India in 1947, only 16% of males and 8% of females were literate. This was in 1947. Only one in 12 Indian women could read or write. So it was a language, undoubtedly a blessing, to get through a colonial perspective. Here's two other blessings which got so important and really, I don't think they're so controversial. One is tea. The British discovered tea in Assam in the 1830s because they didn't want to buy it from China and when I went to India last, or no, to write my book in the 1990s, most of the tea plantations up in Assam and places had only recently been run by Indians. Way up until the 60s and early 70s there were predominantly Scottish firms like Jardin and Madison who run the tea plantations. The tea, by the way, until the 1930s was not grown for Indians. It was grown for the British. It was during the depression in the 1930s that the market was expanded to India. Now I believe that when you go to India and you drink chai, which is a fantastically good drink as you know with milk and cinnamon, that's not what the British meant by tea. Their tea, which is now my favourite tea here, is Darjeeling tea, which you drink black and it's one of wonderful pure tastes. Interestingly enough, did you know that Narendra Modi, he began as a chai walla? You go to Indian stations, I've always waited for the call of the chai walla. He says chai, chai, and he comes along to your compartment with wonderful chai tea. Well, that's how Narendra Modi began on a railway station in Gujarat. Chai, by the way, we talk about chai, but in fact chai doesn't come from the Indian word. It comes from a Chinese word, chai, which was how the Chinese called their tea when it came from Canton and probably still do years ago. Now we get on to cricket. There's a lot of kind of reverse colonialism now because the British run our steel industry, the Indians run our steel industry, the Indians run a lot of our car industry, and round Heathrow, it's like where I live quite near, it's like living in Mumbai in a way, and it's the same with cricket. I ran, I started a cricket team of the BBC, which is now almost totally composed of Indians who've taken it over and quite right too because they are the best cricket players in the world. Cricket came from England. Initially, it was kind of the attitude, let's teach the Indians the rules of a complicated game that started on the playing fields of Eaton. But now, of course, the Indians take them to cricket wherever you go in India, it always amazes me, even if it's a mud pitch and there's not a proper wicket or even a proper bat, Indian boys, they're really good at cricket. Fantastic. So now let's look at the railways. The railways, as I say, I think are one of the prides of India, which you can tell because there are so many programmes on British television about railways. The Viceroy Harding said in 1843, railways will be beneficial to the commerce, government and military control of India. That's why the railways were built. Now, of course, they transport masses of Indians all over India. How's most of you been to India? Been to India. Been on the railways. Good. Well, it's a fantastic experience. But their origin, they were built by the British, who insisted, by the way, that the railways were built in the trains, were built in Britain. And between 1854 and 1947, about 15,000 trains were exported to India. The Indians weren't allowed to build their own, although they had an incipient steel industry. Nor were the Indians allowed to invest. It was a British company, and the British who invested were guaranteed 5% interest per year, which is a big colossal increase over the years. But if that 5% had not been earned by the railways, it was paid for by the Indian taxpayer. Right? And the staff were British or Anglo-Indian. The Indians were not allowed to have any senior role on the railways. And that is why, where the British left, well, even when the British were there, the Anglo-Indians were the train drivers, the mechanics, so on and so on and so on. So the railways, one could be proud of all these things, and I am, but you've got to look at them through perspective of the colonial past. Now let's look at what we all say, oh well, like I say, the British brought India democracy. Democracy you could define as probably a free press, a parliamentary democracy, and the rule of law. And a free press, it is true. The British did allow Indians to, they encouraged a free press in the 19th century. They did in fact impose a levy of 5,000 pounds per year from every paper, Indian paper, which is a lot of money in those days. So if the paper ran an article or so, which was very anti-British, they could confiscate its levy, right? And indeed it was certainly also true that anything considered revolutionary or subversive, you would be sacked or end up in the Andaman Islands. But nevertheless, the India's free press today, most of the big papers, the Times of India, the Times of Calcutta, the Hindustan Times, were all from the 19th, early 20th century, mostly from Calcutta and encouraged by the British. If you now look at democracy, well, the Indians, I mean, before 1947, there wasn't much democracy.  In fact, if you're interested in this, on pages 86 to 88, Shashi Taurua argues that a parliamentary system of democracy on the western model is not right for India. It would be much better to have a more presidential system, which you could argue Narendra Modi is moving over too. But I mean, that's not for this talk, but I'll recommend it. Before 47, there was a gradual movement towards war democracy, but it was at the provincial and local level, and, for example, the earlier reforms, they were known as the Montague-Chelmysen reforms of 1919, we set up provincial assemblies, the Brits could veto the legislation, control the taxation, keep charge of security, and it was a very limited property franchise to vote. And that didn't alter very much until independence. So, in fact, the British really ruled through a system of enlightened despotism. However, rightly or wrongly, the British system, the Indian system now is based roughly on the British model. Here's a very interesting quote from the Amarche Sen. Amarche Sen, the Indian Nobel Prize winner, economist, right? This is fascinating. There's never been a famine in a country with a free press and a parliamentary democracy. There's never been a famine in a country with a free press and parliamentary democracy. Now, in possibly the 100 years, 1857, 1947, 30 or 40 million Indians lost their lives in famines, which is analogous to those who lost their lives in the Gulag or much more than in the Second World War. There have not been famines since. Under nourishment, yes, famines no. So, his argument is that if you have a freedom to elect your officials and to rise up in a peaceful way, then you can stop famines. I just commend that to you. We now look at the rule of law, which I think this will interest you. The rule of law in India, the criminal code, was laid down by Macaulay again. It became law after he died, actually, in 1861. The President of India said in 2016, only last year, our criminal law largely enacted by the British to meet colonial needs and Victorian attitudes. Now, it's a very good thing to me that this code of law means a jurisprudence, courts, have a serial system that's more debatable, but, anyway, the whole structure of law that we have in this country is in India. But, by God, it is now ripe for change. I was looking the other day. It's my interest you of the laws on sex in India. The India's rape law enshrined in the colonial era of 1861 requires the victim to establish her good character and she has to prove that rape has occurred. Section 2, I mean number 2, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, there is still a law which criminalises carnal intercourse against the order of nature. That means between gays. That's now in front of the Supreme Court, but in 2014 and 2015, there were 58 arrests in India under that law. Further, a wife cannot sue her husband for adultery unless the mistress is underage or married to somebody else. I just thought you might like to know that. This is the English Penal Law of 1861, which is still in law in India, another legacy of the British. So far, I see a lot of good things only through the perspective of colonialism. A lot of things today which are good and bad. I think what was bad, indisputably bad, was the looting of India. In 1800, 25% of the world trade came from India. In 1947, only 3% of world trade came from India. Now, you might say, why does it matter today? By God, India is so dynamic. What is the growth rate? 6%, 8%? You've taken over our steel industry. You've taken over our car industry.  But what would it be like if the baseline had been a lot higher in 1947? I'll just take, for example, cotton. In 1800, the Indian cotton, Indian textiles, this is the point, were a thriving industry. About 25%, the same figure again, 25% of the global trade in exiles in the global trade in textiles. The British didn't want this because they wanted textiles to be put together, the pyjamas, the shirts, the trousers and so on, in the mills of Lancashire. They wanted raw cotton from India. So the irony was, and in a way the insult was, that the East India Company would destroy the handlooms in India and put a whopping great tariff on exporting textiles into Britain. Meanwhile, they had to buy back their own cotton, now turned into shirts and pyjamas and all the rest of it, coming back from the UK. That changed, by the way, in 1920s and 30s. I go to Cornpawr, now Canpur quite a bit, and it is known as the Manchester of the North and you can still see the ruined textile mills. But for a long time, that was the case. Then there were the management agencies. If you go to Calcutta, you find the old management agencies, which looked after the export of all India's raw materials, jute, textiles, tea, silk and so on, into... They were known as sterling companies, which meant they were owned by the British, only the British could run them. That was because the British wanted raw materials from India. They didn't want made-up products they wanted raw materials. I happen to read a book when I was writing my book about an Indian accountant. The big managing agency of Jardin Madison wanted him on the board. This is now 1955, 1956, nearly 10 years after independence, because he was a very clever accountant. How to appoint him? They wanted to take him to the Bengal Club, which is where these nice dinners were held, where you invited someone to join the board of a big company. But this accountant wasn't allowed in, because even nearly 10 years after independence, the Indians were banned from the Bengal Club. So they had to have a little dinner in Annanix. But he said, I'll give the British one thing.  And he ended up running this biggest managing agency. It's an interesting story. The supply of manufactured exports to the world markets fell to 2% by 1947. I could talk about the steel company just in a sentence when the Tartars tried to set up the steel company earlier in the 20th century. They had great difficulties, because the British didn't want them to do it. So they insisted that steel produced was to the British standard, BSSS, rather than the world standard, which India had a healthy export to. When Tartar made the steel according to the British standard, there was a quota imposed on the amount of steel that could be exported to Britain. So the British were having their cake and eating it. So I don't believe the British looted India over 100 years. Finally, and I think this is controversial possibly, let's look at partition, right? Which have all been no doubt seen films about, reading about, this was in 1947 where the British left India and it caused such, because of the lack of agreement between Muslims and Hindus, actually the subcontinent was subdivided between Pakistan, East and West and India in the middle and millions fled either East or West with tremendous suffering. Now, one thing you cannot say, and I mean it is said a lot, is that actually the British did not want to give up India. By the time partition happened in 1947, the British had had India. They wanted to get out. They'd been ruined by the Second World War. It was a socialist government. Churchill was not in power then. I'm just correcting a recent film on the subject, which got it all wrong. Attlee was in power. He was a socialist. He had tried different ways to leave India with a peaceful solution. There would be the federal solution, the Balkan solution, the principally state solution. All these ways, but in the end, Jinnah wanted Pakistan. He didn't want an Islamic state there. He wanted a state for Muslims to live in, not quite the same thing, but he wanted Pakistan and he was going to have it. Gandhi said, let Jinnah be Prime Minister of the whole of the subcontinent if that's what he wants, but let us not be divided. But Neru said, no, we must have partition. So was it wrong to do it so quickly? Yes. Is the deadline incorrectly drawn? Probably yes. On the other hand, the fact that there was partition like that was not, in my view, in the short term the result of the British. So now we'll go along to the longer term view and I would say the British had a lot to answer for because the British all along had the policy of divide and rule, i.e. let Muslims be Muslims and Hindus be Hindus and Sikhs be Sikhs and so on, and Tamils be Tamils and so on. And a highly esteemed historian called Ramala Tapa of Indian history would talk, she writes really quite eloquently about the formal integration between the Muslims and the Hindus before the British came along and one of the British notions, for example, was the real India, the Hindu India, which was thousands of years old and had Sanskrit writing and its own wonderful legends. That is the real India. The Muslims came along in the late 15th century and set up the Mughal Empire in North India with Akbar and Charjahar and all the rest of it. In a way that's true, but that was always the interpretation. The Hindus were there first and then the Muslims by conquest. This was always constantly hearted on. To be more specific, anyway, so that was the British narrative. When the Congress Party began in the 19th century, the early founders of the Congress Party who were partly British wanted it to be for both Hindus and Muslims, but the British said, no, no, no, it has to be for Hindus. We'll have a Muslim League for Muslims and so there you started the political division. Then in 1906, Lord Cersen actually divided Bengal into east and west. Of course tremendous controversy. One of our main objects is to split up and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule. That was undone in 1911, but the foundation, if you like, of what is now a Bangladesh and so on on the one side and Bengal on the other was the division in 1906. In all the statistical events like censuses and the political arrangements like composition of assemblies, it was always done on a kind of religious basis. All this aggravated the tension between Hindus and Muslims which we still live with today. Finally, Shashi Turua said, the creation and perpetuation of Hindu-Muslim antagonism was the most significant accomplishment of British imperial policy. The project of Divide Et Imperial culminated the horrors of partition. That I believe, though the actual events of 46, 47, I think the British on the whole have been, have been, have been hold responsible unfairly. So, there you go. I'm very keen to ask any questions that there might be.


It's time to rethink the Song of Week strategy. I hear it all the time. Drop a Song of Week. Drop content every day along with it. Keep going, keep going, keep rolling to the point that the artist get frustrated because there's not any nuance added into that. Am I against Song of Week? No, we've had multiple artists that we've implemented that strategy with, and it's gone amazing. However, on the other end, just Song of Week makes sense at all time. Does dropping content every single day make sense at all time for every single artist? Not necessarily. And there's a big solution that I think most people need to take on, all right? It's one simple solution. What is that solution? Putting a shorter time period on your Song of Week strategy. Historically, everybody's been committing to a year. Let me do 52 weeks when it comes to dropping a Song of Week. But the reality is Russ did it, and a lot of other people did it, and a year does seem like a good time. Gary Veeven said, if you drop a Song of Week for every single year, you gotta blow up the music's good. Like, everybody has said something like that, right? But no one said that you can't do a Song of Week for four weeks, a Song of Week for three months, a Song of Week for six months. Committing to shorter time periods has a lot of advantages, a whole lot of advantages, where you might be starting as a brand new artist and you're getting out of the gate and you just want to get a catalog out there and you want to take off for a period of time, right?  I'm dropping a lot of music and then I stop because I've accomplished the goal of getting a catalog out there. There's multiple goals. So I have three, actually four really important questions that I ask artists to advise them on how they approach this, right? And it'll help you, I promise you, because we've seen a lot of artists, again, take off with this strategy, but other artists adjust from this strategy and get even better results because it's all about why are you doing it? Are you just doing it because somebody else said do it? You saw me do a video or the many other people who have mentioned that particular strategy do a video or have you really thought through it, right? And I'm gonna walk through this because this is actually my answer to these questions are actually the reasons that I'm not gonna be dropping a Saturday video every single week for here on out, right? And I'll walk you through that. I'll explain for those of y'all who know y'all. You've been watching these Saturday videos. Yeah, that's a wild way to announce it, right? But you'll see why and it'll be useful to you as well. So the first question is, why am I doing this, all right? Or am I doing it for the views, right? I think I'm gonna post a lot of content or I'm gonna post a lot of music and get more views and streams over time because I wanna keep the algorithm going and rolling. That's something to think about, right? Am I doing it because I'm looking to test and learn, right? When I say test and learn, I'm trying to understand myself. I might not have any content out there, any music out there at all. You hear me say content and music interchangeably because it's the same thing applies on both ends. So I might be trying to learn who my audience is or learn who I am, how I like to create my music. Did I like how that felt, right? Or did I like how that content was received? How do I wanna adjust things from there, right? That's a legitimate reason, right? And we're just first on, we're still on the first question that you're asking yourself. These are just different subsets of that same question, right? Also, what about quality outlet? Are you doing it because you just feel like I have a lot to get out, I have a lot to say and I need to get this out of me? Or I know I have these projects and in between I just wanna be able to create and push stuff out that isn't in line with other more, you know, suit and tie, like straight lace types, projects that I have going on, whatever the purpose is, right? A creative outlet could legitimately be a reason. And then the last reason, and this is the big thing, training yourself, right? A big, big, big reason I promote doing a song a week or dropping content every day for periods of time is training yourself, getting out of your own way. If you're insecure, just blacking out, go, go, go, go, go. So now you're not thinking because a lot of times we do get in our own heads. We do make the each post bigger than it has to be, each song bigger than it has to be and it's always gonna be bigger the less you do. If I'm only dropping one song a year, oh, that song better hit, right? So are you in a mode of training yourself in terms of your own anxiety, right? Training yourself to just build the muscle of what it looks like, building your systems on the background, those are all valid reasons, right? To keep dropping a song a week. But you know what's not a reason to keep dropping a song a week if it has anything to do with your ego, right? It's like, I'm gonna do that because I saw other people do that. Or I'm three weeks deep, I'm four weeks deep, I'm six months deep and I'm gonna keep doing it just because I said I was gonna do it and now I'm doing it out of ego just to make it to a year or just to make it to three months or whatever my goal was, right? Because even if you shorted it to three months instead of a year it still might not make sense to keep doing. And this is what we're going through these questions for and how you can pivot up out of it why it makes sense, right? But ego, I'm telling you, ego will take you on some journeys that you don't need to be on. And the faster you can realize when you're on an ego trip, right? And bring that back, go ahead and hop off that train the faster you can become successful, right? Because we take ourselves on it over and over again in little instances, it slides through and you just have to catch it and get yourself right back on track, right? So you can continue on the right paths that are gonna be more impactful for you. So all that's about question number one. Why am I doing this in the first place? Second question, can I do this? That's another question that is a very valid question because do I have the resources to do it? Do I have the legitimate time to do it? Like truly understanding, do I have the time? And do I have a question for more of an ego or insecurity standpoint of if I can do this or not? If you know you can do it already, which in my case I know for a fact I can do it. I've done it multiple times. Then, okay, I can get that out the way. I don't even have to prove that even though that's some ego stuff, I don't even have to prove that to my ego because I know I can do it, right? But also can I do it physically, right? In terms of my time and what makes sense to do, which leads into one of the later questions is gonna be the big question. But number three, what is the benefit and impact? This answer changes for everybody at different times. For a brand new artist, I'm extremely, extremely bullish, right? I highly promote dropping as much content, dropping as much music as possible because it allows you to discover and develop yourself, right? Discover how people receive you and understand who they are, where you're gonna connect. The faster you move, right? The faster you can take in this information, the better off you are. Cause you can target, find the bullseye and now you can start getting a better ROI per post, per song. That's what we all wanna get to, right? We don't wanna have to drop a song a week or half to drop content every single day. We might use it to take our strategy to hold another level, but we don't always wanna be at a point where we have to do that, you get what I'm saying? So that's when we get into the second part. If you're an artist that's not at ground zero, right? And you have a good fan base, you have decent engagement online when you post and when you drop on Spotify or whatever, you organically have good content, I mean, good activity, cool. So why are you dropping a song a week now? Does it make sense? Are there better results that you could be getting from something else? And I'm not saying that like you shouldn't do it, right? Because there's eras and periods of time where it's like, no, let's flood the marketplace, remind people I'm here, right? I might have just taken a break. And this is where we get into those shorter periods of time where, yo, I'm about to go crazy for about six to nine weeks. And when I go crazy for that period, I'm blacking out, I'm dropping as much music as possible or maybe I'm dropping as much content as possible and I'm taking control of the perception that my audience has of me and I'm going to be in their face at all times. But then when I'm done with this period, for whatever reason I chose to go harder in that period, I can dial back and maybe I'm only doing three posts a week and maybe I'm only doing one song a month or maybe I don't even drop another song for three months, right? And maybe I don't even post for a couple of weeks. It could look different once you start having that leverage and you already have a certain level of organic activity. The biggest problems and the biggest discouragement that artists get is feeling like this is forever or any content creator, I have to do this forever or I have to do this a year because someone told me to not offer the analysis of what makes sense for me in general, all right? So that's a big thing. Now, number four, this is the biggest one of all, opportunity costs, opportunity costs. What are you missing out on by putting your energy into this? And this looks different at different times for different artists and different periods. And even if you were dropping a song a week for only seven, eight weeks, that still could have a high opportunity cost depending on what happens, case in point. What if on week two, a song just starts taking off and you already had the plan, I'm gonna keep creating content towards all these other songs that are coming out. I'm gonna keep dropping a song a week and you just completely ignore song number two that could be having a moment in time, a window of opportunity has opened up but you're not taking advantage of that opportunity. And once it closes, yeah, you can still post to it but it'll be hard to create another one of those windows of opportunity, all right? So what are you missing out on? And that's a huge thing that we focus on when it comes to just advising and working with artists. Or you might be on week number eight, nine of your year long song a week strategy but even if you drop another song a week, cool but you need to stop at song number six in terms of your focus and primary energy and you can drop those other songs more passively if you wanna stick to that schedule for whatever reason. It can make sense still in some cases but just generally speaking, know that you can pivot and if the data shows you something different then change directions like leaning into what's working or what if you're six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks deep and you're still getting like zero views.  You're getting zero streams. Why am I still doing this? Am I just doing it just to check a box? Or did I wanna do this in the first place because I was hoping to do it to increase my views and my fans at the end of the day, right? That's something that you have to be aware of. That's why we always go back to why. Why was number one, right? Also with number one, like what's another reason that we could have been doing this? Oh, I'm doing this to train myself to have the muscle. Okay, I could have zero views in eight weeks but I do have now the muscle to get myself to post, right? And to get out of my own head. I train myself a bit but still the argument would be don't just post a post, this is a huge issue that people have when it comes to dropping a song a week, content every single week, whatever you wanna call it or daily. They forget that practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect, right? So me just like shooting a whole bunch of shots like that. That doesn't really do much but me making sure I'm shooting with the perfect form that has the highest probability of actually going in the rim and making sure every shot that I practice with has that perfect form, that's going to increase and make me better. So what does that look like when it comes to your content?  So every single post is still getting better. This is the issue when it comes to people doing a huge catalog when it comes to content and you're like doing four months straight of content before you even start dropping content, you don't even know how people are gonna respond to it, right? So keep that in mind but back to the idea of the opportunity calls. So like for me for instance, a huge reason why I wanted to get into it because there was for me with Saturday videos for instance was there were some things I wanted to express that I couldn't do in my regular format. One, I've now expressed a lot of the things. There's still more that I wanna express. However, the opportunity costs, right? Just became too high where I realized for the last couple of Saturdays for those who watch those videos, I mentioned, yo, I really wanna go deep on this. I don't have time to go deep because I'm so busy but I'm gonna get to it and man, it's gonna be like so detailed, so useful, so helpful. So for me, it was just like, one, yeah, you are busy so you can't put what you wanna put into this video. I don't need to drop another video just for some views or anything like that. I'm not doing it in concern for anything like that. I have specific purpose and reasoning and why I'm approaching things the way I'm approaching things, right? So with that being said, I rather take that energy, make sure I'm putting it into creating those videos that will get the impact and are communicated exactly how I wanna make sure they're communicated, all right? Cause I don't have an issue with dropping and getting in my own head. I don't have any of that stuff and I already have a lot of content going but making sure I get the message out and my energy is put into these massive opportunities that I'm working on consistently right now is gonna be more valuable to me frankly than dropping just to drop especially if I'm not getting the message out how I wanna get it just because I'm too busy, right? So it's already a lesser version of what I wanna do. You get what I'm saying? So if you're not training your muscle, right? If you're not trying to get a better feel for people if you're not trying to just boost your views and like feed the algorithm, you really have to start thinking about why are you doing this, all right? And depending on how deeply those things matter or where you are on that playing field, you still might wanna just commit to four weeks, six weeks. I don't know, four months, that's completely fine. And you know what you can do after that? You can step back, take in that information and then come back at it. You can do another sprint but you can take a break, analyze, get a better feel cause maybe you don't have some time to do a really deep dive in terms of analyzing the operation. So these smaller sprints of doing a song a week are gonna be extremely impactful for artists going forward. So you can manage your energy, make sure that you're making an impact and making sure that you aren't on some ego trip, right? Or you aren't lost in the sauce of somebody else's advice that doesn't apply to you where you are right now. And then making sure, all right, that you're just getting the most out of your own actions.  It doesn't have to be for a year. It could be shorter and once you go on one sprint, you can start another sprint after one week break. You can start another sprint after one month break. You can stagger and plan to do two big sprints, like two four months sprints a year and then in between those you have only one song that drops within a four month period or something like that. You can get really creative with this but song weeks are valuable. Content every single day is valuable but you can deploy it a lot more strategically than most people are right now. So this is my last Saturday video for now, right? For now, I did commit to a year but I had to reanalyze and that's just a part of the game. Understanding where I am right now and the opportunities I have at hand and the quality of content and things that I can create that I know I'm sitting on. I wanna make sure every part of my life is being audited. And this is just one of the things that even start with this. So looking forward to dropping some crazy content. Hopefully y'all are using these questions to really think through why you're doing what you do because it doesn't just apply to this strategy. It applies to all the strategies you're doing. Why are you doing it? You know what I mean? Then why are you committed to it? And is it time to pivot? Because sometimes the pivot is where the possibilities really are, all right? That's it. Y'all be cool. Peace.


Please join in a moment of centering silence so we can be fully present with each other this morning. And now let's get musically present with each other by turning to the words for our in-gathering hymn, which you'll find inside your order of service. We're free to say good morning and welcome everybody to a wonderful Sunday here at First Unitarian Society, where independent thinkers gather in a safe, nurturing environment to explore issues of social, spiritual, and ethical significance as we try to make a difference in this world. I'm Steve Goldberg, a proud member of this congregation, and I'd like to extend a special welcome to any guests, visitors, and newcomers. If this is your first time at First Unitarian Society, I think you'll find this a special place. And if you're curious about our special buildings, we'll be conducting a guided tour after today's service. Just meet over here by the windows, and we'll take good care of you. Speaking of taking care of each other, this would be the perfect time to silence those pesky electronic devices that you simply will not need for the next hour. And while you're taking care of that, let me remind you that if you're accompanied today by a youngster, and you think that young person would rather experience the service from a more private space, we offer a couple options for you. Starting with our child haven in the back corner of the auditorium, and some comfortable seating just outside the doorway in the commons from which you can hear and see the service. As is the case every Sunday, our service is brought to us by a great group of people whom we call volunteers. I'm about to announce their names and just think, you could hear your name announced from this very microphone someday if you volunteer to join that same group. I'm talking about David Bryles, who's operating the sound system. I'm talking about Tom Boykoff, who is our lay minister this morning. I'm also talking about Gal Bliss, who greeted us as we arrived today. And I'm talking about our ushers, Ann Ostrom and Dan Bradley. I'm talking about Sandy Plish and Roz Woodward, who are providing the hospitality and the coffee after the service. And I'm talking about John Twos, who made sure that the pulpit vegetation is green and vibrant for you. And I'm talking about Mark and Kathleen Hoover, who have generously donated the flowers that you see behind me. And I'm talking about our tour guide, John Powell. I'm talking about one announcement this morning before we continue with the service. Sharon Salzburg, a well-known author and expert on meditation, is going to be here on Sunday next week, August 14, and you can join the Madison Insight Meditation Group at that session. Sharon is a renowned author of two books, Loving Kindness and Real Happiness, and is here to share her wisdom and loving approach to kindness, which is something very relevant and timely these days. The program runs from 6 to 8 p.m. right here in the auditorium, and everybody is welcome. Again, that's one week from today, Sunday, August 14, 6 to 8 p.m. That takes care of the announcements. And now you get to sit back or lean forward to enjoy this morning's service. I know it will touch your heart. Stir your spirit and trigger one or two new thoughts. We're glad you're here. And their struggle, their TDM, and their turmoil, we gather to bring to bear on our days what poets have sung, what philosophers have taught, what biographers have recorded, what dreamers have read, that they may spread their lustre on a full course of our lives and make them brave. And for this purpose, all creation is our vital. The tensions, the great movements of reform, the sacrifices for truth and goodness and freedom, all these are our tests and our chapters. And here we find oracles which elevate our soul with a divine power that would make us know more of ourselves and of our duty and of our destiny. In this place and in this time, let's hear again the highest aspirations of our souls. Anybody who cries in the private of the spirit or the light of the child? We seek honesty to counter with our peace values. We seek to sustain our lives and to guide the self. We seek to test the limits of our religious medications. Toward these habits, we gather and seek, therefore, to worship together. Now, I was fine. I was born and I had a 30-year-old neighbor that came to that home three years ago. We moved to this house on a tiny bridge between the neighborhood reservation and South Dakota. We tried to kind of make a living for ourselves. It was really, really hard because it had a very, very poor part of the country. In fact, the private bridge is the poorest county in the entire United States. Nine towns of people who live there don't have it. And there wasn't a kitchen in it. All there was was a fireplace to keep you warm where you would put these 20 black beds that were recognized by the home. So way back about 45 years ago, 20 black beds began to think about the future of the Indian people on a tiny bridge. And their views on the United States government still get back on the land they thought they deserved. So 20 years ago, we didn't have much education. We started spending this problem. We found in a junkyard an old, manual type of computer just an old typewriter. We began writing letters. We began writing letters to the United States government. We began writing letters to the United Nations. We came back for the justice. Before long, these letters were complaining about what was happening to the Native Americans. They caught the attention of a man from a great print on the way away. And he was really impressed with what Tony Black had described to you. And he sent 20 black by the way to one of his friends, two airplane tickets, to go to the South, to go to the country's school ceremony where his very important meetings were being held. They were called the term of faith, they were called the Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples are people that were here on the United States long before they had lost thousands of years before we had arrived. And so, with his friend, coming to ride, he was hungry. He was looking for the power of a stick. So he and his friend went in and they got two double cheeseburgers. And those two double cheeseburgers cost him 30 Swiss francs, which is equivalent to $10,000 in US money. A lot of money had a factor. Stay is in a strange country. And so he found this place he called the Homeless Peoples Hotel. There was a full hotel in the back of the toilet where he announced it. So he stayed there and he switched over with his friend. Every day he would watch these very, very important meetings. He would represent an equal. One year after Australia, South America and Tony Black were there, there was an amazing white nation standard with indigenous people. He became friends with everybody. So when he talked about all these things, I just thought it was very important, difficult to imagine, to translate this. But he was talking with the janitors and the secretaries. And often he would be found in the Homeless, just talking to people, trying to talk to people, communicating, even though they didn't know each other's language. But if someone had made a deep friend with each other, he was just describing where they were for the people as it was for the people that really had. Now, when he was doing all this work, he was still living by his military attention, which was all of $75 a month. He was never paid for any one he did. And going to Geneva, Switzerland, with the right amount of state-of-the-art money, he was still the only one that ever paid for it. Now, when he was a pretty small child, Tony Blackler was given a name by his grandfather. And the name came from one of the languages, Oyate, where he gave himself so willingly. But that's how deeply he cared about other people. One must think about the cemetery where Tony Blackler was not buried. He was died about a year ago. It's a cemetery he, himself, established. This is the land that he had. Because one day he found out that there was a little baby who with other cemeteries in his prime year would not allow that name because they were all Christian cemeteries. Tony responded to this by saying that he was normal in the cemetery and that's where that little baby was buried. And that's where the life life was buried as well. Since that time, people from the Dakota Sioux community still here have just become a state-of-the-art. He's also very, very humble. He never bragged about what he had accomplished. So this is his song, right? And it's about someone who is exactly the opposite of Tony Blackler. The song is called, I was born about 10,000 years ago. You may need to listen to it. Here's some classic resemblances to one of the candidates for Tony Blackler. I think in the world that I first lived in, I think we got up and got it wrong. It was too bad, it ain't no more.  And for there are little kids, I'm not all here in peace. All of a sudden, we listened. She got down in the club with me. We were never even a walkie-sie for me. I mentioned her, you go up to the general. The team is now in fantasy. The AAC is one of the sewers from the free. As soon as he and Hobo was in Bowie Rock, he placed down the notorious book, Typoly Merrick, through the streets of Manhattan. Baker had to sit on Merrick all the way to the hospital to keep her from jumping out of the ambulance.  Now, most of her fellow homeless actors didn't bother to make their rounds at all. They just scored the records and went on their way. But Baker's security recognized her feelings and in 1908 she was put in charge of the health department's new Bureau of Child Hygiene, the first of its kind in the entire United States. And there she changed the way that we all think about public health. Until then, the health department had sought to track down sick children and refer them to physicians, a mostly feudal endeavor as days before antibiotics and modern medicine. Baker decided the new Bureau's mission instead would be prevention. In her first year at the Bureau of Child Hygiene, she sent nurses to the most deadly wards on the lower east side. They were to visit every new mother within a day of delivery, encouraging exclusive breastfeeding in fresh air, regular bathing, and discouraging hazardous practices such as feeding babies with beer or a lot of that to play with guns. This advice was entirely conventional but the results were extraordinary. That summer, 1,200 fewer children died in the district compared to the previous year. Elsewhere in the city, the mortality rate remained a lot higher. Baker's public health animations were numerous. In addition to home visitation programs and community-based clinics, she established the position of school nurse. She developed special capsules for delivering silvery moisture to the eyes of new wards to prevent blindness due to congenital diarrhea. She invented a window board for improving ventilation in the houses. Safe milk and hygiene are the only things that children need to survive, she believed. Baker was the first to prove scientifically that children also need love. At the time, eugenically-minded child health experts believed that the deaths from newborns were due to their inherent subnormality. In order to prevent these babies from growing up and passing their sickly genes on to the next generation, it was thought preferable to just let them die. But Baker decided on a model experiment. She boarded out the sickliest newborns in the city's impersonal hospital wards. She boarded them out to a core of gush of Italian mothers who had been trained in child care about visiting nurses and sure enough, the death rate of these vulnerable babies was cut in half. Baker had no children in the room, but she saw clearly that, quote, even more than he needs butterfly and fresh air and clean diapers, a baby also needs the personal equation that will give him or her reasons to live. By the time they had retired from the Midwest in the Health Department in 1923, she was famous for having saved the lives of 90,000 care-saving children. The public health measures she implemented have saved the lives of millions worldwide. And yet her work is little known today, in part because so much of what she taught us now seems self-evident. But Baker spent his time in this problem of saving more American children's lives than anything else that has ever been attempted. And now I would like to introduce Eric, our new intern minister for the kind of year and Eric will be with us in the barge stand all the way until the end of next month. So Eric, welcome. Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here. Let me share with you a reading from the Deuteral Canonical Book of Ecclesiasticus. Let us now praise the famous, those who ruled kingdoms, men renowned for their power, women wise and eloquent in their instructions, those who were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their time. Let us also praise those who have no great memorial, merciful men and women whose righteousness shall not be forgotten. Their bodies are buried in peace and their glory shall not be blotted out. The people will repeat the wisdom of their ways and the community will show forth their praise. Features Kevin Cline was a highly regarded teacher of classics in an exclusive voice of boarding school. And in the opening scenes of that movie, Mr. Hunter, Kevin Cline, welcomes his new students and asks one of the boys to read an inscription on a stone tablet that is suspended over the entrance to the classroom. So the young man rises from his desk a little nervously, walks back a few pages, turns around, and reads from the text. I am Shukra Malimte, king of Pasan and Susa, son of the land of Ilan. By command of Isshushanah, I destroyed Sepah. I took the school from around the city and brought it back to Ilan, where I erected it as an offering to my God. I completed this pre-disciple, the school returns to the city, and Mr. Hunter queries the rest of the class. Have any of you ever heard of Shukra Malimte? No one had. In fact, he was a short-lived despotic conqueror the king of Elamite Empire, and his reign lasted only 40 years before his land was overrun by a more famous necronizer in 1220 BC. And it's likely that Shukra Malimte would still remain un-known and un-paralleled to a wider world public, had not found Louis, but Emperor's Club invoked his fading back. Now, the Classics teacher introduces Shukra Malimte to underscore a point that is central to the rest of the story. The point is that conquering without concluding means nothing, and that a man's character is his fate. A more recent conqueror, Vince Lombardi, is famous for the point of saying, when it isn't everything, it's the only thing. An ethically vexed proposition to be sure, and one that Shukra Malimte would undoubtedly have seconded. Ironically, that quote did not originate from Vince Lombardi, but from Henry Russell Sanders, who coached the UCLA Bruins in the early 1950s. Unlike Lombardi, how many people today, perhaps apart from Miss L.A. Lombardi, remember who Sanders was? Because fame is the fickle thing, and as I see it, not a very worthy goal for any of us to strive for. And yet, that does not make any of us consider it. The real trap of fame, the author, April 5th, of Venice Congress, is its irresistibility, fame and fortune. Aren't these the two great prizes that so many human beings set their sights upon? Certainly seems to be the case in our own society, but it's made of us, the longings for so many citizens to bask in the spotlight to be able to play in their very own 15 minutes of fame. I think of Coral Willie Long, the washed up salesman that the Arthur Miller's played, the salesman that's not playing, the American players do. At age 63, Willie spends an increasing portion of his time living in his fantasy world. Willie's regretful past, haunted by his past, by the lost opportunities, struggling somehow to maintain some semblance of personal pride. And Willie at 63 still dreams of being somebody. But on the other hand, he also knows that he has missed his chance. He has two wayward sons and very little to show for 35 years of faithful but unmoderated work. And so he sinks every dooper into despair. Willie thinks that well maybe at least I can leave my loved ones something. Perhaps the proceeds from my life insurance policy and so he commits suicide. And he assumes that his family will accept this sacrifice as their own. But of course they don't. And the play is close to seeing that the cemeteries leave. Only members of his immediate family had attended the celebrities. Where were they all? Where were all the friends, the buyers, the associates blended up his life on that? She shakes her hand. Willie. Willie Long has died not only anonymously but ignominiously. A vapor perhaps of his own ignored desire to be a winner. An object of admiration and a maker of the indelible. Now the psychologist, philosopher Paul Fletcher suggests that a person's mental, emotional, and spiritual health is contingent on a number of different factors. One of which he calls witness significance. Witness significance. At some level, each of us needs others. Others who will gift us with their attention, who will affirm our personhood, who will express appreciation for who we are and what we have given to the world. We all need that. So why do we not universally share human need? And when it is not that, we will feel unworthy and insignificant. Witness significance. That should be every human being's birthright, as our own first principle attests. We are obliged as military inversals to honor each person's inherent birth and dignity. But the desire for personal fame, that's something else to tire of. Witness significance implies reciprocity. Attention, affirmation, appreciation are used to be shared with one another by terms and for the purpose of strengthening our relational ties. Fame, on the other hand, is an ego-driven need self-serving and largely exclusive amongst rewards or admiration. Deference from others who are obliged to acknowledge our superiority. And so, feigning by definition creates some gulf between those who have acquired it and those who have missed the boat. And yet, even for those who have acquired it, the price of admission may not be worth the cost. That is, the talent that we're close to Natalie Higginsen suggested in one of her West End ematic poems. She writes, I'm nobody. To tell one's name a lifelong dream so there might be a place that's afraid about fame. I think perhaps it has something to do with an inability to find satisfaction in the relational arena. If a person feels fulfilled in their role as a marriage partner, a parent, a colleague or a caregiver, then maybe fame won't seem all that tempting. The late P.C. and perhaps the 20th century's West Home Poem Center and the Unitarian Universalist, P.C. articulated numerous awards and accolades. He experienced fame firsthand, but when he was asked very late in life to identify his greatest accomplishment, he said, marrying the best woman I've ever met, staying married to her for seven years, having three kids and six grandkids. P.C. their game of fame as a musician is not a compromise of that name. And it's rare for someone to become famous by virtue of their people skills, the love and the loyalty that they engender in others. Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps the most revered figure in all of human history, he could be said to have preached a gospel of witness significance because he drew attention to the poor, to the different and able, to the ritually unplayed, to the ethically inferior, saying that all of these people deserve to be treated as children of God. And Jesus attracted a loyal following because of the unusually compelling and urgent way in which he was able to deliver his message. Now in spreading this gospel, Jesus was probably indifferent to the prospect of gaining fame. Many others have promoted similar conveying values that they did not achieve the legendary stats, why should he have done so? And that Jesus is, in fact, is largely an accident of history and attributable not to the room that Jesus did, but to a man named Paul of Parsons because it was he who recaps this simple teacher from Galilee as a cosmic savior. And it's under this aspect that Jesus is so white that history is not an equal opportunity to provide. Sarah just would be faith. You heard her story already. Jesus thinker who did far more to promote the cause of public health than the sacred mother Teresa. And yet her story is scarcely essential and is known to a very select view. Well, however, we've heard contributions were more wide to celebrate today with the fear of the Zika virus and the virulent pathogens spreading because nature's teachings today are largely ignored as the public health specialist Andy Sparrow wrote recently. Pandemics are micro-offensives. Public health measures are human defenses. Water purification, sanitation, to our living longer than our lives. But these measures on mass salvation are not sexy. While we know prevention is better, considerably cheaper than cure, there is little financial reward or glory in it. Philanthropists these days prefer to build hospitals rather than pay for community health workers. Yes, people crave pay and they are all able to achieve it. It is not through improving public health. It is not through maintaining a loving family. Now increasingly, very well we are paying a big box value of speaking to purchase main rights on local public buildings. The New York Public Library, the New York State Theater, and the UCLA Medical School. Such charitable donations very short supply have less to do with philanthropy than making it more timely. Then today he says it seems that the notable accomplishments are not necessary. Just the dollars, millions and millions of dollars are only a tiny fraction of their fortunes. Rich people can have public buildings renamed for them and the one-tenth of our percent now sees the intent on making sure that we remember them long after they no longer back. Shades of sugar don't work that way. At the same time, they seem to have eluded many number of individuals on note who on heralded have left an indelible stand upon our civilization. Today which is the day after the first atomic bomb was detonated on the best supply to get a city of erosion of 61 years ago. Today you remember Robert Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was just this kind of spearheaded development of this unthinkable weapon. Robert was also remembering his expressions of regret for his complicity in producing this agent of destructive power. We remember Robert Oppenheimer but who remembers his brother, Frank Oppenheimer? Also worked on the Manhattan Project albeit in a minor capacity. Frank Oppenheimer was a family of physicists in his own right specialized in the study of cosmic rays. At Los Alamos, Frank worked as a safety inspector studying the winds to see which way the falloff would drift from the experiment of last class. Now after the war, Frank joined the physics faculty of the University of Minnesota but then in a major surface that linked him to the Communist Party which in fact he had joined during his graduate school days at Catat in the 1930s. Although he soon had left the Communist Party in disillusionment, the accusation 10 years later was enough to cut short his university teaching and research career. And so Frank and his wife slumped on to the Colorado Mountain East where for the next 10 years or so they raised livestock. Of this experience, Frank later wrote, I think that he could be beat up by a nation where political beliefs and he built that atomic bomb and seen it used on 200,000 civilians. And after a career of cosmic ray research he found himself shoveling porcelain ore up in the mountains of Colorado. I think that's a really good way to find out what support they left. What else became of the story eventually Frank occupied his teaching certificate and he landed the job at the Gosa Springs High School of Science. Frank was a good teacher, innovative, creative and he developed all these unique hands-on projects and experiments that brought his subject to life. And he later gave the name Exploratorium to this growing library of experiments that he had done. Well, in the late 1960s he and his wife left Colorado to move to San Francisco where he had this vision a museum with as few rules as possible where children were free to run around and if they broke something Frank says so was. The purpose of the Exploratorium was to make it possible for people to feel that they could understand the world around them. Frank raised most of the initial funding for this project single-handedly in San Francisco Exploratorium and first of this time it was a hit. Today 200 people it entertains more than a half a million visitors every year. The similar Exploratoriums have now been found throughout the world. And Adam Freeman, director of the New York Hall of Science he calls the Exploratorium the most influential museum in the history of the world. That made it a bit my hurdle but it ought to give us pause. Considering Frank occupying his living legacy perhaps society has bestowed its fame all these many years on the wrong road. Or as the Civil War senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner once said no true and permanent thing can be found except in the labors which promote the happiness of the country. I come to the conclusion that in the absence of the fur unshakable fate in the afterlife and out of a fear and out of a brief passage through this life will soon go on in our art and on the memory. Because of this, some of perhaps many of us do see something that will carry our name forward. It could be a publication it could be a name on a facade of building it could be an Olympic gold medal it could be a footnote in the Guinness Book of World Records People sometimes engage in high-risk government activities for much the same reason and inordinate desire for fame has even motivated some Boston guests of souls to commit hate crimes. So here we need to remember that fame is like a morning mist on a summer day evanescent. And if it does look the record of the conscience is likely to be restored over the course of time. And also it's not an easy-to-goat it's just a name, a name the record of context, a name is dropped into a void. And this being the case perhaps we should not write fame as high as we sometimes do on our list of priorities. And my second concern is when our groups in our dreams are firmly fixed on the future a person is likely to miss out on a transit that still precious treasures to be able to any of us on the present moment. The willy-longs of the world they chafe against a quotient thing and in the process they discount the relational rewards that are right here in our fingertips. Near the end of death they sail on the willy's estranged son, Biff, falls into his father's heart to cry. The willy looks at astounding amazement his wife, Linda just may not have been open to notice and to accept this son's love. I was afraid that we would not make the same mistake, that we are almost awake enough to take notice and in noticing to understand. Now I would invite you to participate in one of the offering where gifts will be used to support the life of music and program to represent the entire society. We carry this joy as it starts in the recent past, seeking here a place where they might be received and so we would now say would be here or did not. It means welcome back welcome back to all of our travelers who have made it and enjoyed the return from their travels last weekend. I know I sometimes helps in here who went to enjoy it. Anything else here? The trip? All right, very good. So we look forward to hearing all your great stories. And then another joy, Lauri and Kate Crestwell are delighted to have supported the Grand Award for Honor at the end of July 15th. Paris, Cali and Bessie and people in the Grand are all doing well. The glory extending the year in the Indianapolis, helping out with the little ones. And so in addition to those joy suspensions, we would welcome any other travelers who might love us and that as a community we hold the people concerned about us. Let's sit just a little bit or two in silence and the spirit and the burdens. I'd like to rise one by one in the light of the spirit as we seem to have it came up. Some of the words come to us today from Nobel Prize winning Swedish author, Par Lagerkvist. One day you will be one of those who lived long and will remember you just as it remembers the grass and the woods, the rotting leaves, just as the soil remembers and just as the mountains remember the winds, your peace shall be as unending as the sea. Please be seated for the poster.


Come in. What happened sir? You are Yashrat Sekhar. Please tell something, introduce yourself. My name is Yashrat Sekhar. I was born in Lucknow. I completed my class 12th from Lamartin Air College in Lucknow. From then I completed my graduation in Economics Honours from St. Stephen's College in 2018. Since then I have been preparing for UPSC. This is your first attempt? Third attempt. In other attempts you went up to what level? In the second attempt I went to the interview level. This is my third attempt. First attempt I couldn't clear up limbs. As you are from St. Stephen's College. This is one of the leading colleges. And it is 8th rank by NIRF. Tell me, when was it established and how it came? It was established on 1st of February 1881. The reason was that it was established by the Cambridge Mission to Delhi. Which had come to establish it because a government college had existed before. And a school by the name of St. Stephen's also existed before. The revolt of 1857. It was closed after 1857. And the government had brought out a policy to promote English education in India. So to pursue those efforts, the Cambridge Mission under Mr. Olnath. He ended up becoming the first principal of a college. The school was established. One question I will transfer this thing to you. What is capability theory of poverty by Amartya Singh? You are from economics. Capability theory basically assumes the fact that our economic growth. And a person's economic growth. One poverty. Is a person's economic growth and development. And why he does not end up becoming poor depends on his capability. Which is the result of his functionings. And those functionings are calculated in terms of how well he has been served. In terms of health education and other basic necessities of life. So basically if one of these functioning let's say in terms of not having access to proper education. Does not function well. He ends up becoming incapable to work himself out of poverty. He told that poverty cannot be decided on income or consumption. But it has to be seen whether he is capable to have other necessary things. Yeshra, I pronounced it correctly.  Do you know what is Pareto efficiency? Yes ma'am. Pareto efficiency is a situation where nobody else can be made better off without making somebody else worse off. May I explain with the help of an example? Please go ahead. Ma'am let's say the economy has let's say 100 rupees and you need 1 rupee to make 1 gram of butter and you need 1 rupee to make 1 gun. So now the economy let's say is producing 50 grams of butter and 50 guns. So all the resources of the economy are productively employed. Now let's say a war broke out. In that situation to produce one more gun you need to take out resources away from the butter. So the people who are having access to butter their welfare will reduce and people who need guns their welfare will increase. So this is a classic situation of Pareto efficiency that to make somebody like people who wants more guns better off, we need to reduce the welfare of the people who are consuming butter less well off. Can you help me understand the problem of moral hazard with the aid of a current policy, any policy of your choice of the Indian government? My moral hazard is an economic, is an economic externality that is a result of the fact that when costs are not calculated, it may lead to people who are exercising those benefits to think that there are no wrong things out of it. For example, the government usually goes for farm waivers. Now this incentivizes even farmers who has the capacity to repay loans, to not repay loans, to find ignorance about the fact that the government has brought out a farm loan waiver policy. So this is a moral hazard. That's why for the next time even the banks who want to give loan to the reasonable farmers, they would shy away from giving away loans because they think that they will not return. And even the farmers who are capable of returning loans, they will not want to return the loans because they will think that they can get away with it. One of the primary reasons of the subprime crisis could be attributed also to the failure of the efficient market for them. Having said that, I would want your thoughts on how can information asymmetry cause problems in terms of stock trading in the Indian market? My information asymmetry is a scenario where all the market players do not have access to the same information or equally to the same information. So let's say if I were a broker or if I were in some cohoots with somebody who is running let's say National Stock Exchange and they were to give me some information about some stock or some classified information about a company and I were to buy that company because that news was to be released tomorrow, then suddenly the price of the stock, I would purchase the stock price today at a cheap rate and tomorrow when that news is released, let's say the company is seeing investment by Apple or the company is seeing investment by Google, its market price will go up and then I will be able to sell those stocks at a higher price making a benefit. And this is the same thing that happened with the co-location case of National Stock Exchange where Chitra Supermanium and some of our stock was involved in reducing access by 0.02 second of information to all the market players. Some were benefited and some were not. Can you connect this with the efficient market theory? What does efficient market theory say? Ma'am, I would not be able to. Okay. I want to know from you what is the current policy with respect to the inflation targeting regime in India and how does it work? Ma'am, there has been a lot of discussion over what the role of RBI should be. Eventually in 2016 the government and the RBI came to an agreement that the role of the RBI should be primarily to regulate inflation with the objective of growth also. So now RBI has set a target of 4 plus minus 2% of inflation targeting and for that purpose they have to take steps that inflation does not go beyond that. If inflation go beyond the target let's say it goes less than 2% or it goes above 6% for 3 consecutive quarters then RBI can be held responsible and they will have to report to the government and the immediate steps may follow. So basically the purpose is to rein in inflation because we saw double digit inflation in early 2010 and 11 so that brought about a consciousness in the government and this was also legislated also so this has become the primary responsibility of RBI. My last question to you, what do you understand by monetization of deficit? Ma'am, monetization of deficit means printing money. Basically monetization of deficit can be done through two ways. It can be direct monetization, it can be indirect monetization. Direct monetization is the printing of money by the RBI to supply the funds to the government to bridge the deficit that has been created because of discrepancies between expenditure and the earnings. Indirect deficit is what usually happens when the government issues treasury bills or long term government dated securities. It is a problem that direct monetization of debt has often led to runaway inflation. We have seen this in case of many countries like in the early 1990s after the liberalization we saw a brief period of high inflation which was primarily attributed to the RBI was directly monetizing the government debt. Now this has been stopped by the FRBM Act. However, there have been calls recently that it should be reinstated because the pandemic has dented the government's revenue sources and the expenditure has increased. What do you know about Chandrayan 3? Chandrayan 3 is a proposed project of Indian Space Research Organization to go and explore moon given that Chandrayan 2 could not land on it successfully. PM 2.5, what is this PM 2.5? They are very small micro, 2.5 microns. PM 2 stands for? Particulate matter. Particulate matter. So 2.5, what is the unit? Micron. Micron or microtransmitters? Micron. Yeah. So what is the present level of PM 2.5 or we can say annual average in Delhi and we can say NCR approximate. Sir, I don't know. Anyway, what could be the unit of that? This is the unit of the size of the particle as you have just mentioned. There is micrometer. You have mentioned. Yes, sir. What would be the unit of that? Sir, I don't know, sir. If we measure particulate matters. Anyway, that will be MCM, microgram per cubic meter. Anyway, no problem. Now, related with economics. You have studied economics from Delhi University, Saint Stephens. So what is the logo for University of Delhi by the way? It's an elephant. Elephant. And what is written in Sanskrit? Sir, I've read it. You start with Satyam. Yes. Yes, sir. Anyway, you might be very well aware of P&B prod. P&B. Punjab P&B prod. Punjab National Bank prod. Are you aware of? Yes, sir. Okay. So what was the major reasons that this fraud occurred? I believe that this fraud was the one where fake letters of receipts were issued by Meera Modi. Yeah. One. And what else? Sir, this is... And the wrong was misuse of Swift. So what is that Swift? Is that an acronym? And if he is, then it stands for... Sir, misuse of I cannot... Swift, S-W-I-F-T. It is an acronym. Anyway, this is an acronym. It stands for... Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Telecommunication. That's right. So this is the whole name of Swift. Okay. So misuse of Swift was there. And in addition to that, I-C-A-I did not exercise its powers. What is this I-C-A-I by the way? Sir, I think Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. That's right. So it did not exercise its function properly. It did not bring it to the notice of the government that was happening. Keeping this in view. Yes. Number one, an act was enacted. What was the name of that? Sir, Economic Appenders Act. The Fugitive Economic Appenders Act. Yes, Fugitive Economic Appenders Act. Yeah, very right. Now you tell me what do you mean by Fugitive Economic Appenders Act? Sir, there is a very specific definition given in the bill that a person should have committed a fraud of at least 100 crores. That's right. Number one. And that he was called for a hearing by the specific court and he did not appear before the court. Led away the country. Led away the country then he would be declared a suit. This is Fugitive Economic Appenders Act. Yes, sir. And keeping in view the facts that I-C-A-I did not exercise its power, did not exercise its function properly under the Companies Act and amendment was made simultaneously with this act was enacted. So what was that amendment made in the Companies Act? Can you tell me? And authority was created so that it can look after this problem. So what was that authority and under which section of the Companies Act that authority was created? Sir, I can't seem to- Anyway, no problem. Now, you are from- Lucknow, sir. Lucknow, okay. So in Lucknow, DeafX4 was organized, say about two years back. Yes, sir. Can you recall that? I do have a very faint memory of the same. I did not read about it. I haven't read about it in great detail recently, but I know that DeafX4- Okay. Smart city performance index. Are you aware of that index? Smart city performance index. My question here is that which was the state? This time what happened when this index was prepared? It was also seen that which is the state which is performing best all over the country? Individuality is number one as it was being done earlier. And last time it was also decided that a state should also be identified, that this is at number one, this is at number two, this is at number three. So which was the state which was placed at number one? Sir, I think that I read about it. I'm not exactly sure about it, but I think if I were to guess the state, I think it would be Uttar Pradesh. It is Uttar Pradesh. Yes, sir, because I think I had some- Placed at first as well as state as a whole is concerned. I had a faint memory about it. Okay. Can you name famous economists from our country? Sir, Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, Dr. Amartya Sen, He is novel laureate also, Dr. Amartya Sen. So what was his- I mean, what for he was awarded Nobel Prize? Sir, he was awarded his Nobel Prize for his- For his theory on famine, I am not wrong, on a theory on famine that he wrote that famine was not the result of absence of food prices in India, rather it was the result of the British policies in India. Okay, there is a state in southern India in which an advisory council or committee, economic advisory council has been constituted, which is that a state? Tamil Nadu. And this is headed by one of the Nobel laureates, by a Nobel laureate. What is the name of the Nobel laureate? By whom it is headed? So, By far, Mr. Abhijith Banerjee, S.T.A.Dapura. S.I.Y.A. S.N.A.Dapura. So I was the one who shared Nobel prize with him, and who was the third person who shared Nobel prize with Adal, with Abhijith Banerjee. There were three persons. I can't seem to. Okay, thank you. You are an economic student from Sand Stevens College. So, before we go on to economics, can you tell me about the minority status of the Sand Stevens College? Sir, Sand Stevens College is a minority government funded college under Article 29 and Article 30 of the Constitution of India as a result of which it has a body which is responsible for appointing the principal. The principal can be majorly from the Christian community and there are around 400 seats that are available every year for the undergraduate students and they have been given the right to reserve at least 50% for the minorities, especially for the Christians. So, for example, let's say in my batch of economics, there were around 55 students. Around 27-28 were reserved for the Christian minorities, whether they come from CNI or they come from PWD CNI, there was different categories. Then, amongst the other seats, the reservation policies apply. So, in that context. Okay. So, recently, a few years ago, there was a controversy related to the minority status of polygon Muslim University. Do you think it is in the spirit of the Constitution that universities and colleges of higher education should be given the minority status? Personally, I don't think so that any school or college should be given any minority or majority status. I think these are very prestigious universities and they can survive even without that status also. So, whether it is Hindu Banarasanthi University or whether it is Aligarh Muslim University or whether it is St Stephen's College, these are all very prestigious colleges and universities which can either raise funding or which have enough clout within themselves that they can survive even without the minority status. Okay. So, now, coming to the economics part, you mentioned FRBM Act. Yes. Can you mention some of the mandatory statements which have to be made by the government under FRBM Act? So, the first one is a medium term fiscal policy statement. The second one will have to be macroeconomic framework statement. And the third one has to be, I'm not able to recall, but I think it is expenditure statement. It's fine. It doesn't matter. Can you define fiscal deficit for me? So, fiscal deficit is a difference between the expenditure of the government and the revenues, revenues which are generated from non-borrowed sources. So, basically, it indicates the borrowing potential. What does the government plan on borrowing next year? Okay. Suppose I say that Ukrainian crisis has been a blessing in disguise for India economically. Can you tell me the pros and cons of this statement? So, in terms of why it can be considered a blessing in disguise is the fact that our wheat export is supposed to be rising. They were 1.5 million tons last year and they've risen to around 6 million tons recently and they are expected to rise to 10 million tons in that context. Also, the gap that has been created in various electronics exports can be bridged by us. Recently, we crossed 400 billion target of exports and the major component was engineering goods and crisis helped us. So, negatively, if I were to look at the issue, I think the oil crisis is going to dent our GDP growth by 1% as Raghuram Rajan has said. So, secondly, I think that the price pressures will not only be felt by the people who buy oil but since oil is used as a component in all the production processes, then this may lead to entrenching of inflation and RBI may have to let go of its accommodative stance and which will hurt growth eventually. So, can we say that this oil related strain on the economy is a supply side shock? Yes, it is a supply side shock. So, what will be the response of the inflation targeting regime in case the inflation reaches 6% due to this kind of supply side shock? Sir, a supply side shock will feed into a demand side shock in terms of let's say somebody who has a consumption expenditure, very less consumption expenditure. Now, he will have to pay more for oil. He will have to pay more for other communities. So, his demand will also decrease. So, it will also have a demand effect. But since RBI does not, since the government only has limited options to curb supply side inflations, the only option that is available to RBI under the inflation targeting framework would be to cut interest rates because if interest rate, if the inflation rate crosses 6%, then interest rates will have to be increased and that will reduce consumption spending power of the people and that will pull a demand side effect on the inflation front and this will pull down prices. So, how do you measure poverty and unemployment in India? First poverty, then unemployment. So, poverty is measured using headcount ratio under different committees who have given the recommendations, Tendulkar committee and I think recently RBI also brought out a multidimensional poverty report according to which around 37% of population is multidimensionally poor. Also, we use the World Bank. What is the RBI? Niti Iyogh's Multidimensional Poverty Report. Unemployment is usually measured using periodic labour force data and there are also private sectors like centre for monitoring Indian economy which brings out data on unemployment. There was a lot of controversy regarding the veracity of the figures given by different surveys regarding unemployment. What is your stand on that? So, I think that if I were to give an example of my state, let's say Uttar Pradesh, it is supposed to have the lowest unemployment rate in India of around 2.4%. But we will also have to look at the fact that a lot of people who are actually searching for employment, they have actually held back, they have not officially qualified themselves as looking for jobs. So, they are not counted in the unemployment figures. So, when such surveys say that unemployment rate is 2.4%, we have to be a little circumspect that it is not actually 2.4%. It's just that a lot of people are not actually looking for the job because they have become so confident that they will not find one. So, there might be certain but then there are certain surveys who extrapolate this figure of unemployment to let's say 10% to 15% that is also wrong. I think employment rate in UP as per my estimate should be around 5% to 6% and not 2.4%. Okay, my final question. What are randomized controlled trials? So, randomized controlled trials is an experiment-based trials in which two groups are created. One to which an actual medicine, let's say, if it is conducted for medicine, an actual medicine is provided. For the other group, a placebo is provided but the participants of these groups are selected in a very random manner. And they are not told whether they are receiving placebo or they are receiving the actual medicine. Or they are receiving income, let's say, for basic minimum transfer, basic income transfer. And then the results are calculated to come to a conclusion about that small whether the medicine is working or not. This randomized controlled trial was one of the reasons why Abhijeet Banerjee and Esther Duplo were given the Nobel Prize. It's a tool to test the efficiency of any medicine or economic policy. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. One thing I will ask, because you heard geography, how La Nina effect is beneficial for India? So, La Nina is the cooling of waters in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. So, it helps in an economy because it leads to usually higher than average rainfalls in the southwest monsoon season of India. So, this leads to both greater water availability in our reservoirs. And at the same time, it leads to greater productivity of crops. However, there is also a negative side to it that it may lead to flood also in southern India. Okay. My point is now your interview is over.