Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today, that's August 6th is the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the atom bomb, the first atom bomb on Hiroshima. On August 9th, the second atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. By the end of the year, nearly 210,000 people had died and the impact on health, the impact on people's lives itself was felt for decades to come and it's felt even today. So we have with us Praveen Purukas to talk about some of these issues. Praveen, thank you so much for joining us. So first of all, one of the most important facts that we have been talking about in NewsClick and another place of course is the fact that the nuclear doomsday clock is as close to midnight as has ever been, which means that the possibility of nuclear war is the highest in decades. So despite 75 years of this incident passing, everyone is witness, the horror is, how is it that we still are in this situation right now? Well, I think the first issue is that we have a knack of forgetting because this horrors which we in our lifetime felt that we were virtually witnessed too, though I was born in 47. But nevertheless, this was often magnitude of an weapon which qualitatively changed the war and according to all the people at that time, it was something which was an imminent danger to their lives. So the generation who came immediately after the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombings or who had witnessed it, I think it left them deeply scarred in terms of how this perceived the future and how this on the bomb itself. I mean those pictures that we have seen are etched in our memory. This all came out in the 50s, 60s and still is available in different parts of the world. But I think a lot of the people have forgotten that history and slowly it has faded from memory. You know, I remember our activism as a peace activist, anti-nuclear bomb activist. I remember those that we came into the movement with those images in our minds. And it was not only the 80s where there was a vibrant peace movement which saw in fact in some sense withdrawal of the weapons which were sought to be put on European soil at that point, which was what I call the neutral, neutron bomb and short-range nuclear weapons. And the peace movement did win some battles over there. But subsequently post the 90s, the fall of Soviet Union, the threat of war seems nuclear exchange seems to have diminished. Only one side seems to hold the weapons and Russia was not seen as somebody is going to contest the US. So therefore I think that horror and the threat of nuclear war has receded from people's minds as an immediate issue. In spite of the fact that the nuclear arsenal is more than 12,000 nuclear weapons just with the US and Russia alone, who hold roughly about 93% of all the nuclear weapons in the world. So given that the threat to the world is still almost as it was at the end of the Cold War as it is now, I think it's really a tragedy that the world has forgotten about this threat. And though Mr. Trump is trying his best to remind us of it time and again, but it still doesn't seem to have sparked up the kind of peace movement we saw earlier. Coming back to your question, why is it still happening? I think the fundamental lesson which the US and the Russians had reached was that a nuclear war was not available. Of course, the US was the more trend-setting power in that phase because the US had got the nuclear weapons first. It thought it would have a monopoly for about a decade. That didn't happen. Within three years, the Soviet Union was able to also show that it had the bomb and also did carry out its tests. So there was a rough parity, though the overwhelming power was with the United States initial phases. In fact, if you remember, we had discussed this earlier when the Open Skies Treaty was proposed. At that time, Khrushchev refused. He said, if they know what we have, they'll bomb us. So they will win the war. So we cannot afford to show what we have. So that was the kind of edge that they had. But at some point, both sides realized that they had enough to destroy each other. And the final acceptance of that was that Ronald Reagan finally decided not to go ahead with the Star Wars scenario of nuclear weapons, anti-missiles in space and all the weaponizing space and all of that. That we really got somewhere into this, what was called the Salt Treaty, then the Start Treaty and the New Start Treaty, which is supposed to expire in 2021 February. So this whole history being forgotten is what we see Mr. Trump now coming back with this argument that we can win the war. And even if we don't win a nuclear war, we can spend the other side to oblivion and they will lose because they cannot match our spending. And this is also the mistaken belief that's how the Cold War was won. And actually the history says something else because the Soviet budget never really increased to match the US budget during the 80s. There are other reasons why the Soviet state collapsed and which you're not going into today. But certainly it wasn't being because you tried to match the United States in spending. It really did not. So the whole myth of having outspent the Soviet Union and that's why it collapsed. And therefore the race itself was what made it collapse is the Billingsley and Trump belief that we can win the war if not a physical war. They also don't envisage a physical war being won, but we can spend them to finally concede defeat. And if the Russians do, the Chinese, the belief can be overwrought because in terms of nuclear parity, China has 300 weapons compared to 6000 that US has. And this means that the new start, the agenda is unless the Chinese come and we have a whole range of other things to do, we will not be able to negotiate the extension of the treaty. So this is the position Billingsley has stated. This is the negotiations that he tried to start. He started with the grandstanding. Why are the Chinese not here? Well, Chinese are not a party to the agreement and they certainly are not going to be here. They're not a party to the agreement. So that was pure empty grandstanding, quite childish in fact. And then he went on to say that he wants a complete overhaul of the agreement. He wants China to participate. France, why not UK who have almost a similar arsenal. In fact, according to the Arms Control Association, China has 290 nuclear weapons. France has 300 and UK has 250. So they're almost on the same level. Of course, we also know India, Pakistan possibly have 200, 150, 200 each and Israel has about 200. So all this is known. So why only China? We are not clear. The Billingsley's argument, of course, Trump's as well, is that China is trying to upset the balance and therefore their arsenal matters, others don't come. The other argument is if they're not threatening us, they're not a competition, they don't matter. So we still haven't understood if China comes in, what is the agenda going to be? Are they going to be allowed to build up to 6,000? Or is it that they have to dismantle at the same rate others dismantle? That means if the 6,000 comes down to 3,000, China should come down to 300 to 150. None of these issues are being stated. So to my understanding, this is simple, grandstanding not to have a treaty. And it becomes further reinforced when you want complete comprehensive revision of the treaty to bring in tactical weapons, what are called battlefield weapons, intermediate range weapons, a treaty which you have just walked out of months back. And you say all of this should be negotiated in one go. With virtually six to eight months available for the negotiations, this seems a way not to negotiate rather than any serious negotiations. If you really wanted that, all you have to do is to say, well, let's extend the treaty for another five years while we negotiate these issues. And if we reach a successful negotiation, by all means prepone that agreement and start immediately saying, now we'll take this further measure. So that's not the issue. So this is not a serious attempt to negotiate at all. It's in fact a way not to negotiate. And that seems to be their strategy. Absolutely. So in this context, you mentioned how the US is selectively treating China, of course. And it also in some ways mirrors a larger policy direction over the past decades, how US imperialism has worked. In fact, if you go back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki itself, there are serious questions about why was the bomb even dropped in the first place? Was there a real necessity for that? So you made some arguments in one of the recent articles regarding that. Well, you know, the question that comes up is that why was, as you said, why was the bomb used at all? It was well known. Japan was suing for peace. The only condition they wanted was the emperor should be protected. He should not be hauled before a war crimes tribunal, which in fact the United States did after Japan surrendered. So that was not a condition which was going to stick in the American crawl. So to say that they were not going to object to it. So why was the bomb then dropped? And I think we had a discussion earlier about this when we talk about the peace movement, particularly among the scientific community. And the scientific community had actually said this bomb should not be used. Okay, we started the process by having, in fact, the famous Einstein letter to Roosevelt. But now we feel that this is something that's not required. And therefore we should not drop the bomb. But the US argument, and that's interesting, was clear that it wasn't really targeting the Japanese. It was a bomb to be dropped to show the Soviet Union that what is the power that the United States has, and therefore impact the post-Japan, post-Second World War scenario. So once Japan surrenders to put the United States and the Western powers in a much stronger position in the negotiations, that was really the intention. And that Zillard has written that once General Grove, who was in command of the basically the bomb effort from the military side, he said it's not intended against Japan, it's actually intended to show Soviet Union. The target is really Soviet Union, it's not Japan. Japan is only basically a testing ground to show. So Japan was really used, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used to display the power of the bomb to the world and architecture the post-war scenario. And there is the other issue, even if we accept that Hiroshima was something the United States did in order to hasten the close of the war, that doesn't make any sense when you look at Nagasaki bombing. Because by that time, the enormity of the nuclear weapon had already been shown that this is a weapon which qualitatively changes the war. So why did it not let that lesson be sunk in, asked for Japan to surrender again before dropping the bomb on Nagasaki? No explanation, no credible explanation has ever been given why the second bomb was dropped. So we come back to a conclusion. This is what Ellen Skari has written in the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb. In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, she says that we cannot divorce what white supremacy saw from that of the bomb. Because there was that vision underlying the bomb, that you would not drop it on the white population anywhere, anywhere else. But the yellow population, the brown population, the black population is okay, that you could drop the bombs on. She goes on to make the argument that the black academics, writers, poets, journalists, all of them had actually identified that as the cause, that you wouldn't have dropped it on the white population. She quotes Langston Hughes who wrote about it and other people as well. But I think she makes a much more powerful argument when she says, let's look at all the geographies where threats of nuclear weapons have been held. All of them have been in Asia or it was against Libya's Gaddafi. But Libya's Gaddafi, it was not the use of the bomb of course as much as asking him to submit and give up his attempts to make the bomb after which of course he was deposed and killed. But given the geographies that she talks about, she talks about three things. Where were threats of the bomb actually made? And it was made both by Aishan Haver, it was made by Truman, subsequently it was made by Lyndon Johnson. And of course we have Nixon who has talked about that he thought about having the bomb dropped four times, two of which he has identified. One of course was not Vietnam, the other was China. So all of these examples seem to show that the consideration of where the bomb could be used was always that it can be used against non-white population. So that is one example she gives. Second example she gives is where were the nuclear bombs tested, Marshall Islands and of course in New Mexico, which is largely Hispanic and Native American, Indigenous American population. Again, the same arguments and for Marshall Islands and the people of the Marshall Islands, of course we know that what extent it affected their lives. So this is the second argument she gives. The third argument she gives is when have the threats given to those leaders who wanted to build nuclear bombs. And she says all those threats, if you look at them, they were all directed at people who came from quote unquote other cultures. So the threat of using nuclear bombs against those or threats against people who wanted to develop bombs were also people who are brown. And it never crossed the American mind that they could say that they had the right to use the bomb and this is a right that others did not have. And she quotes extensively from the submission that the US made to different bodies which actually asked international bodies which asked what basis are you claiming that you can hold the bomb but others can't. So these are the three grounds she gives and says that it is not possible without racist underpinning to the American belief. I don't know to what extent we should take this as a basic existential issue regarding the bomb. But there's no question that if we look at the larger architecture of the United States, how it has looked on other countries, how it has looked at Africa, Latin America. Let's be clear that racism has informed their policies and is informed their policies for a long time. And clear issue and this is what Elaine Scarry raises that if you're racist at home, it has to leech into your foreign policy.  The policeman kneels on the throat of a George Floyd for nine minutes, nearly nine minutes, squeezing out his life. And yet this does not affect your worldview when you look at brown nations, black nations or yellow nations and white nations.  If this is your history, and if you have really decided the slaves right to live depends on you as whites, they're never going to be equal to whites. And if that battle still continues in the United States, as you know it does, then is it possible that your foreign policy does not have any underpinning of white supremacy then in it? And I think that's a very valid question to answer that foreign policy, after all, is the reflection also of the internal policies, internal economic policies as well internal politics of the country. Therefore, it cannot be divorced from that. Thank you so much for talking to us. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching.


Welcome, I welcome you all to this lecture in the course, Samasa in Paninian Grammar 2. As is our practice, we begin our lecture with the recitation of the Mangala Charana. In this course, we are studying the three important types of samasas in Sanskrit. Currently, we are focused on the Bahuvrihi Samasa and we have already studied the Avyaibhava Samasa before. And we shall be studying the Dvandva Samasa at the end of this course. Bahuvrihi Samasa is an important type of samasa in Sanskrit. The explanation of the Bahuvrihi Samasa can be given in brief by this particular equation, which we have been explaining in each and every lecture. And as we have already stated, the repetition is to bring home the point of the three important features of the samasa and who is the head in which samasa. In the Bahuvrihi Samasa, neither X nor Y, the constituents acts as the head of the samasa. The head lies outside of the constituents of the samasa, which is a very unique feature of the Bahuvrihi Samasa. It is called Anyapadarthapradhana, where X and Y, which are independent units in terms of the word form, as well as the meaning, as well as the accent, but they are semantically related. And the speaker of Sanskrit wants to merge them together and bring out an output which is one unit in the form of X, Y, in terms of the meaning as well as the word form, as well as the accent. So it has got three features, Aikarthya, Aikarthata, Aikapadhyya, Aikapadhatta, and Aikasvarya, Aikasvarata. In the Ashtadhyayi, the Bahuvrihi Samasa is stated at various places. So the samasa-vidhyayaka-sutras are stated in a section that begins with 2.22 Shesho, 2.2.23 Shesho Bahuvrihi, up to 2.2.28 Tenasaheti Tulliya Yogi. The samasa-antapratya-vidhyayaka-sutras are stated in a big section that begins with 54113 up to 54160 and part of this big section also deals with the samasa-antadeśas and not pratyayas. And the Svaravidhyayaka-sutras are stated in 6.2. 6.2.1 is Bahuvrihauprakrutya Purvapadam and then the other sections 6.2.106 up to 6.2.120 and then 6.2.162 onwards up to 6.2.177. We have finished studying the samasa-vidhyayaka-sutras and we are about to study the samasa-antapratya-vidhyayaka-sutras but before that it is imperative to study an important point namely the Pumbhadbhava and the sutras stating this particular operation. We won't be able to go into the details of all the sutras that deal with this particular phenomenon but it is important for us to study at least one sutra in very detail. So, we have been studying the Pumbhadbhava in the previous lectures and previously we have studied the sutras <IP_ADDRESS> and also we started studying the counter examples or the Pratyudaharanas. The first question is what is Pumbhadbhava and this is the answer. A feminine form goes back to the form of the nominal root is called Pumbhadbhava. A feminine form generated by adding a suffix to the nominal root goes back to the form of the nominal root. The location of this operation is the Purvapada of a compound with limited environment existing around within the Purvapada as well as Uttarapada. That can be stated in the following form of an equation where we have the Purvapada Pratyudhika plus 3 Pratyayaka plus 2 and the Uttarapada Pratyudhika plus 3 Pratyayaka plus 2. In this case, the Samhasa Saudhna takes place and Pratyupadika Saudhna takes place. So, then Su gets deleted by the sutra supodhatup Pratyupadika yoho and so we have Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka plus 0 plus Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka plus 0 as the output on the second step. It can be rewritten as Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka being the Purvapada plus Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka being the Uttarapada Now, Pumbhadbhava tells us that this 3 Pratyayaka in the Purvapada which is put in bold characters disappears and the description of it is that the Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka form goes back to the Pratyupadika form. This is called Pumbhadbhava and so the output generated is Pratyupadika plus 0 plus Pratyupadika plus 3 Pratyayaka and then the derivation process continues. This is what is Pumbhadbhava in a nutshell. This is the sutra 6334 which deals with this important phenomenon called Pumbhadbhava. The sutra is I repeat As is clear from the rendition of this sutra, this is the main sentence in the sutra and then is a part of the sutra which states some conditions. Let us look at these words one by one. We have already done this but we should revisit it only to make it more confirmed. Stryaha is 6 slash 1 of 3 which means in place of a word denoting feminine gender. Pumbhad means like a nominal root form. Bhashidapumskaat is panchami ekavachana of Bhashidapumska which means immediately after the word which is a Bhashidapumska. We have already studied what is Bhashidapumska. So the meaning of the overall sutra is immediately before an Uttara Prada that is in the Purva Prada in place of a word whose nominal root or Pratyupadika is such that it declines in all 3 genders denoting the same core meaning and 2 which does not end in the suffix oong ending in the feminine suffix is placed its nominal root form. If 1 the Uttara Prada is coreferential with it 2 if it denotes the feminine gender 3 if it does not end in the Purana suffix and 4 it does not belong to the group of words which begins with the word Priya. I repeat immediately before an Uttara Prada that is in the Purva Prada Uttara Prada in place of a word whose nominal root is such that it declines in all 3 genders denoting the same core meaning Bhashidapumskaat which does not end in the suffix oong anoong ending in the feminine suffix stryaha is placed its nominal root or Pratyupadika form pumvatl if the Uttara Prada is coreferential with it samanathikarane it denotes the feminine gender stryam it does not end in the Purana suffix apurane it does not belong to the group of words which begins with the word Priya or Priyadishu apurane Priyadishu so here the input is Pratyupadika plus stryprathaya stryprathaya is in bold plus Pratyupadika plus stryprathaya and the output is Pratyupadika plus 0 where the bold character stryprathaya in the Purva Prada is not there is deleted plus Pratyupadika plus stryprathaya the Uttara Prada as it is the input can be further explained by saying that the Pratyupadika is Bhashita Pumska and the stryprathaya is not oong and the Pratyupadika of the Uttara Prada is samanathikarane Pratyupadika and the stryprathaya in the Uttara Prada is neither Purana nor does it belong to the group of the words which begin with Priya and the output is Bhashita Pumska Pratyupadika plus 0 plus samanathikarane Pratyupadika plus stryprathaya not Purana and not Priyadi let us now look at some other counter examples we have already seen the three counter examples and the necessity of those conditions as far as the operation of Pumatbhava taking place let us study some more counter examples samanathikarane kim this is the pratyudaharana prashna samanathikarane is the prashnodishta shabta samanathikarane kim is the pratyudaharana prashna and kalyanyamata kalyanimata is the udaharana which is ishta which would not have been generated had there been samanathikarane not been there so the question is why should the Uttarapada be coreferential with the Purva-Pada that is why should both refer to the same entity answer is because if the Purva-Pada is not coreferential with the Purva-Pada then the operation of Pumatbhava will not take place the essence of the question is why should the Uttarapada be coreferential with the Purva-Pada in order to have the operation of Pumatbhava take place. And the answer is because if the Purvapada is not co-referential with the Uttarvada, then the operation of Pumbhadbhava will not take place. This is a necessary condition. Let us look at the example. The meaning is the mother of the auspicious one, Kalyanyaha Mata. Mata is the mother and Kalyanyaha is of the auspicious lady, auspicious one.  Samasa saudhnya takes place. This is the Shasti-Takpurusha Samasa. And then the Pratipadi ka saudhnya happens. Then Supodhatu Pratipadi ka jo applies and deletes both the Sups. So we have Kalyani plus zero, plus Matru plus zero. And so we have Kalyani matru as the finally derived compound output. Then we add the Su to it and then we get the form Kalyani Mata to be used in the sentence. What happens here is the following. Here the Purvapada is Kalyani. This word denotes feminine gender after adding the suffix ngip to the Pratipadi ka nominal root namely Kalyana. The word Kalyana denotes the same core meaning namely auspicious when used in all three genders. So it is a Bhashita Pumska word. But it appears in the sixth case demonstrating non-core referentiality, Vyadhi Karanatha or Vyadhi Karanya as it is called. So all other conditions applying namely one Purvapada denoting feminine gender, Purvapada being a Bhashita Pumska, the Uttarapada denoting the feminine gender, the Uttarapada not ending in the Purana suffix and the Uttarapada not belonging to the words which are part of the group Pryadhi, the condition of the Purvapada not being coreferential with the Uttarapada not fulfilled. The condition of the Purvapada being coreferential with the Uttarapada is not fulfilled and hence the operation of the Pumbhadbhava does not take place. Similarly the next Pratidahara is Suryaam Itikim. Here the Prashnodishta Shabda is Suryaam and Itikim are the Prashnavachakasabdas. And Kalyani Pradhanamesham, Kalyani Pradhanahime, this is the Pratidahara, this would not have been generated if the words Suryaam were absent from the Sutra 6.334. So the question here is why should the Uttarapada denote the feminine gender while referring to the same entity in order for the Pumbhadbhava to take place. Simple answer is because if the Uttarapada does not denote the feminine gender then the operation of Pumbhadbhava will not take place. This is a necessary condition. So the meaning is those amongst whom the head is an auspicious female. If this is to be expressed then we have Kalyani Pradhanamesham as the Laukika Vigraha and then the Laukika Vigraha would be Kalyani plus Su plus Pradhanah plus Su. Here Samasa Saudnya takes place then the Prativedika Saudnya takes place so we apply Supodhatup Prativedika Yoho and delete both the Sups. So we have Kalyani plus zero plus Pradhanah plus zero and when we join them together we get the finally derived Bahuvrihi Samasa output as Kalyani Pradhanah. Now Kalyani Pradhanah is added with the suffix just and so we get the form Kalyani Pradhanah. Here the Purvapada is Kalyani. This word denotes feminine gender after adding the suffix Ghip to the Prativedika that is the nominal root Kalyana. Then the word Kalyana denotes the same core meaning namely auspicious when used in all three genders. So it is also a Bhashidabhamska. It also is core referential with the meaning of the Uttarapada. So all other conditions applying namely the Purvapada denoting feminine gender, the Purvapada being a Bhashidabhamska, the Purvapada being core referential with the Uttarapada and the Uttarapada not ending in the Purana suffix as well as the Uttarapada not belonging to the words which are part of the group Priyadhi. All these conditions applying but the condition of the Uttarapada denoting the feminine gender is not fulfilled in this case. Kalyani Pradhanam. The Uttarapada does not denote the feminine gender and hence the operation of the Pumbhad Bhava does not take place. Similarly, the next Pratyudaharana question is Apurani Itikim. So Apurani is the Prasnotishta Shabta. Itikim is the Prasnavachaka Shabta and then the Pratyudaharana is Kalyani Panchami Ratrihi Yasam Taha Kalyani Panchamaha Ratrayaha. The question is why should the Uttarapada not ending in the Purana suffix in order to generate the Pumbhad Bhava while referring to the same entity and denoting the same feminine gender? The simple answer is because if the Uttarapada ends in the Purana suffix then the operation of Pumbhad Bhava will not take place as is observed in the usage. This is a necessary condition. So the meaning is the ninth, fifth of which is auspicious. Kalyani Panchami Ratrihi Yasam Taha Ratrayaha. The ninth, fifth of which is auspicious.  And then we add the suffix up by the sutra and so we have Kalyani plus Su, plus Panchami plus Su and the samasanta pratyaya up gets added 5, 4, 1, 1, 6. And then we have the pratyavadika saudnya. So supodhatup pratyavadika jo applies and so we have Kalyani plus 0, plus Panchami plus 0, plus er. Now because of er, the final E in Panchami gets deleted because of yasya tichar. So we have Kalyani plus 0, plus Pancham plus 0, plus er. And then when we join these together, we get the form Kalyani-Panchamma. Now when we add the suffix Su after it, we add the feminine suffix Taap as well. So we have Kalyani Panchamma plus Taap plus Su. And then when we delete Su on account of the sutra halgya bhyodirghat, we get Kalyani-Panchamma plus A and then when we join them together, we get the form Kalyani-Panchamma, Ratrihi or Ratra-Yaha. Here the Purvapada is Kalyani. This word denotes feminine gender after adding the suffix Ghip to the pratyavadika nominal root Kalyana. The word Kalyana denotes the same core meaning namely auspicious when used in all three genders. So it is a Bhashidapumska word. It also is coreferential with the meaning of the Uttarapada namely Ratri or Panchami. So all other conditions applying namely Purvapada denoting feminine gender. Purvapada being a Bhashidapumska. Purvapada being coreferential with the Uttarapada. Then Uttarapada denoting the feminine gender. And Uttarapada not belonging to the words which are part of the group priyati. All these conditions applying, the condition of the Uttarapada ending not ending in the Purana is not fulfilled. The Uttarapada does end in the Purana suffix and hence the operation of the Pumatbhava does not take place. So the next question is what is the Purana suffix? So Purana suffix is added to a number word denoting the sense of order. In general the Purana suffix derives the form which are called ordinals. These are stated by the Sutra Dutt 5248 onwards. So if we have the number word Panchan, Panchan is the Pratipadika form and the suffix Dutt is added to it. Then the augment Mutt is added to it. And then we get the form Panchamma. Panchan is 5. Panchamma is 5th. Similarly, Saptan means 7 and Saptamma means 7th by the same process by adding the suffix Dutt first and then by adding Mutt to it. Similarly, Ashtan means 8 and Ashtamma means 8th. Navan means 9. Navamma means 9th. Dashan means 10. Dashamma means 10th. So Panchan, Saptan, Ashtan, Navan, Dashan, these are the Sankhya Vajrakashaptas and as well as Sankheya Vajrakashaptas. But Panchamma, Saptamma, Ashtamma, Navamma and Dashamma, these are the Purana Pratyantashaptas which stand for the ordinals. They denote the order. These are the words which are referred to as Purana Pratyantashaptas. So the Uttaravada in this samasa should not be Purana Pratyant in order that the Pumatbhava operation takes place. So Kalyani Panchami, Ratrihi Yasam, here we don't have Pumatbhava because the Uttaravada contains Panchami involving the Purana Pratyaya, Dutt as well as Mutt then. And finally, Apriyadishu Itikim, Kalyani Priyaha. Here the Prasnotishta Shabda is Apriyadishu, Itikim is the Prasna Vajrakashabda. And then we have Kalyani Priyaha as the Pratyudaharanah, indicating that had there been the word Apriyadishu absent in the sutra, we wouldn't be able to derive the form Kalyani Priyaha. The question is why should the Uttaravada not have a word that belongs to the group Priyadi in order that the Pumatbhava operation takes place? While referring to the same entity and denoting the same feminine gender, the simple answer is because if the Uttaravada has a word that belongs to the group Priyadi, then the operation of Pumatbhava will not take place as per the usage of the speakers of Sanskrit. So, Apriyadishu is the necessary condition. So, we have the meaning one whose favorite is an auspicious Kalyani Priyaha Yasyasaha. This is the Laukika Vigraha. And the Laukika Vigraha is Kalyani plus Su plus Priyaha plus Su. Now, the Samasa Saudhna takes place. This is the Bahuvrihi Samasa. Then the Pratipadika Saudhna takes place and then Supodhatup Pratipadika Yohu applies. So, we have Kalyani plus Zero plus Priyaha plus Zero. And then we join them together and we get the form Kalyani Priyaha. And now, because this is a Bahuvrihi Samasa. So, Ghosturya Rupasarajanasi applies and shortens the long bubble at the end of the Samasa. And so, we get the form Kalyani Priya as the finally derived Bahuvrihi Samasa output. Then we add the suffix Su to it Kalyani Priya plus Su. So, we get Kalyani Priyaha fit to be used in a sentence. Here the Purvapada is Kalyani. This word denotes feminine gender after adding the suffix Ghee to the Pratipadika that is Kalyana. The word Kalyana denotes the same core meaning namely a species when used in all three genders. So, it is a Bhashita Pumps covered. It also is coreferential with the meaning of the Uttarapada. So, all other conditions applying namely Purvapada denoting feminine gender, Purvapada being a Bhashita Pumska, Purvapada being coreferential with the Uttarapada. And the Uttarapada denoting the feminine gender, the Uttarapada not ending in the Purana suffix. All these conditions applying the condition of Uttarapada not belonging to the words which are part of the group Priyati is not fulfilled. And hence the operation of the Pumatbhava does not take place. Now the question is what is Priyati? What is this list? What does it contain? Here are the members of this group Priya, Manodnya, Kalyani, Subhaga, Durbhaga, Bhakti, Sachiva, Amba, Kshanta, Kshanta, Sama, Chapala, Dohita and Vama. Remember the word Kalyani is also part of the Priyati group but that is the Uttarapada condition and not the Purvapada. So, how do we form the, the question is how do we form the Bahuvrihi Samasa, Dhradha Bhakti, one who has firm devotion with the possible resolution, Dhradha Bhakti, yes, yes, ah, as we saw that the word Bhakti appears in the Priyati group. So, obviously the Pumatbhava is prohibited when Bhakti is the Uttarapada. So, then how does Dhradha become Dhradha? That is a question. The solution is the following. Since the word Bhakti is mentioned in the Priyati list, the Pumatbhava is negated. This is obvious. So, here the possible resolution accepted is Dhradham Bhakti, yes, yes, ah, and Dhradham refers to the generic nature of being strong, Dhradham Bhakti, yes, yes, yes, ah, and not Dhradha Bhakti, yes, yes, ah. If it were Dhradha Bhakti, yes, yes, ah, then obviously the Pumatbhava is negated. So, we do not get the form Dhradha Bhakti, rather we would get the form Dhradha Bhakti. Right now the resolution is Dhradham Bhakti, yes, yes, ah, and therefore the Samasa output form is also Dhradha Bhakti. This brings us close to the, this brings us to the close of the discussion on 6, 3, 34. We in point go into the details of some other sutras, subsequent sutras in the same section of 6, 3. But to summarize, Pumatbhava is a peculiar operation stated to the Purva Pada of the Bahurihi Samasa. It requires both the Purva Pada as well as Uttara Pada denoting feminine gender as well as same referent as well as both of them are the basic conditions. In addition, there are certain conditions that the Purva Pada has to fulfill and certain other conditions that the Uttara Pada has to fulfill. When all the specific conditions are fulfilled, the feminine form in the Purva Pada goes back to its Prathipadika or nominal root form. This is what is known as the Pumatbhava and we are satisfied that we have studied at least one sutra in detail, spending good amount of time on this very important phenomenon which is part of the Bahurihi Samasa. We shall now deal with the Samasantha Pratyavidhayaka sutras from next lecture onwards. These are the texts referred to. Thank you very much.