in business. Mr. President, you know that we would like to concentrate on U.S.-Soviet relations. And if I could open up by asking you whether after three years of experience with the Soviets, you haven't counted anything that has surprised you, anything that happened about their behavior or the actions that was different from your expectations? No. And I might say I'm pleased that this is going to be the subject because I think there are a great many misperceptions out there about the situation now, and I welcome an opportunity. Matter of fact, if you correct the misperceptions, you'll have an exclusive scoop. I came here into this office having pledged all through the campaign, and I was determined to attempt to bring about a reduction in the arms and end of the arms race that's going or that, well, there hadn't been an arms race going on. There'd only been a buildup on one side. But to bring that about, but also to see if we couldn't get the world on a practical road to peace, and I'm still dedicated to that, and I think that contrary to some of the cries of despair that are going on out there, I think that the world situation is better than it was when we came here. But the, no, I think I had long been aware of the Cold War sort of thing. I was blooded in that as a union leader back in Hollywood many years ago when in the days of the communist front organizations and everything in our own country and the attempts to infiltrate organized labor, they had made great inroads and I was impressed then with how the tactics, whether it was on the domestic scene or at Panmunjam and the armistice talks or in the summit meetings, all seemed to be the same. There is a new development that I've worried about for some time. That is the, lately, extent to which military leaders in the Soviet Union are apparently without any coaching or being brief, but at least there's no evidence of that by the civilian part of government, are taking it upon themselves to make statements and rather bellicose statements. I think this would be a new element if we're seeing a time when the military in the Soviet Union are kind of feeling their strength and deciding to have more of a voice in policy. Do you think they have more influence now, let's say, when you took over or before operation? Well, if you look back over the years, there has not been, as we've seen now, in connection with the KAL, the shooting down on the plane, the things that he disputes that are going on now with regard to the arms discussions, there has not in the past been that evidence of top military personnel going public with attacks on the United States, verbal attacks, and seeming to enunciate policy on their own. I think it's something that we should be aware of. Mr. President, do you feel the military leaders are affecting the policy? They're certainly out front in a fashion they weren't. Well, that's what we have to, I say, we have to be aware of this and pay a little attention to this to see if they have become a power on their own within the Politburo or with regard to the Politburo. Do you feel that you and the government have less contact with the military than with the civilian leadership? Is it more difficult to talk to them or to exchange ideas with them? Well, a government deals with a government. It would be out of place for us to attempt to bypass the government and make contact with the military leaders just as we would feel the same if the Soviet government tried to do it with the Pentagon instead of the White House. You and your advisers spend a great deal of time thinking about the Soviets, particularly these days, their plans and their policies. You've also had personal correspondence with both Brezhnev and then Dropoff. Have you formed any image in your mind of your counterparts over there, of people worrying about what you're going to do next? Does it help to try to think of them as individuals, as human beings, with the same kinds of, you know, with strengths and failings and the same kinds of concerns you have? Well, no, you deal with them as human beings, but you're aware that certainly they are ideologues dedicated to the philosophy that has brought them into power. No, as a matter of fact, we've had some reports from other observers there and people from other countries that they seem to feel that they can communicate better because we're more consistent. They know where we stand. Better with you than with Jimmy Carter. Well, I won't use any other names, but when they didn't know really what the policy of America was and what we were doing, this has been related to us, as I say, by third parties, that these expressions have been made, that at least they know where we stand. But do you have any better image or a different image in your own mind now that you have been dealing with them in this way than you had when you came in? Do you have any image of them as individual government leaders? Can you tell us anything about, for instance, your correspondence with Andropov? Well, no, and I wouldn't use the word correspondence, although we have channels open. This again is part of this misperception that is out there that somehow we're in communicato. We have turned our backs and we're not speaking to each other. No, we've been in communication with them and intend to continue. I had correspondence directly with Landed Brezhnev, as a matter of fact, going back to what I said earlier about when I first came here. It was in those first few months when I was lying in a hospital as a result of a little incident at the Hilton Hotel. While I was in the hospital, having met Brezhnev some 10 years earlier when he was here for those extensive meetings with President Nixon and when there was such a euphoria, when it seemed the two of them established such a rapport that maybe there would be giant strides toward peace. And as governor of California, and he was in California, I had a chance to meet and talk with him. And I told him how many millions of people throughout the world it seemed were putting their hopes on these talks that were going on. And did he realize this?  This was what he wanted, peace and so forth. And I reminded him of this. And then I said to him, now that I was in this other position, that I've long believed that his people and our people wanted the same things. Those people out there on the street in their homes, they want to raise their families in peace. They want to educate their children. They want to work at their chosen callings. And that only governments seem to cause wars. They don't come from people. And I said, couldn't propose to him that couldn't we have a meeting in which we would try to represent and do what our two peoples wanted us to do, rather than getting tangled up in the policies of governments that didn't seem to meet the people's demands. And I wrote that letter in longhand. It was sent to him in longhand. Now, whether he read that letter or not, I don't know. We'll never have any way of knowing. But after quite a long delay, the answer that came to me was not handwritten, and nor was it personal. It was a communication that sounded more or less like it, that had bureaucratic hands on it. And it was the usual rhetoric that is publicly exchanged between our two countries in the first few lines. We were called imperialists and threats to the peace. We were the aggressors and we were at fault and so forth. And there was no real response to what I'd suggested. Mr. President, would you make the same kind of letter to Mr. Andropov? Well, we've tried to get this kind of correspondence, but it has been difficult. And I understand the situation with the new regime coming in with the death of Brezhnev. And now, if there are health problems or whatever has had him more or less out of sight, but we have, as I say, we've kept channels open and have tried to communicate there and what our desires are. And they are consistent with what I was saying back during the campaign. Let's start reducing on both sides these stores of weapons and let us try to arrive at a point where there can be a better understanding and we'll find that those weapons aren't necessary. But you don't feel such a letter would be appropriate at this time? Well, I feel a little hard put because of the lack of information and knowledge that we have of where he is and that it wasn't like Brezhnev after years of being in the Kremlin and you knew where he was and felt you knew how to reach him. When you say where he was, Mr. President, you mean in the in the Soviet hierarchy? Yes, in the hierarchy. You don't mean his health or anything like that. In other words, that suggests you're not absolutely sure that he's totally, that he's has yet totally taken control of things. That and I, when I try to visualize myself here trying to get a, and yet I had a few months advanced warning to get a government organized so I know what some of those problems are. Mr. President, I think you're so correct about the public perception, the channels of communication are exceedingly limited. We've had three major sets of talks now either suspended or aware with no dates for the renewal. It would probably be beneficial if you could give us some idea of what kinds of channels you're talking about when you say there are still channels and they're being used. Well, would you forgive me if I suggested that's difficult because I don't want to do anything that might upset contacts that we have made or make it more difficult. So I would prefer to just let you assume that what I'm saying that we do have contacts, we can get our views there and solicit theirs and we have discussed specific issues between our two countries and had some results. Favorable results? What? Favorable results. In some instances, yes. Could you give us an example of that? Well, it was favorable to them when we resumed the grain agreement. But you've based your nuclear negotiating strategy on the conviction that once the modernization of our strategic weapons was well underway and once the Moscow was persuaded that deployment of the INF missiles would go ahead that then the Russians would bargain with us seriously. Now those two conditions have been met. Modernization is underway and purgings and cruises are going in. Yet the Russians are not negotiating seriously, rather they seem to be threatening another lap in the arms race. Now, how do you propose to deal with that? Well, isn't it possible that they had embarked on a kind of a negotiating procedure that didn't result in negotiating directly with us, but was trying to build up forces in other countries and among our allies propaganda devices that would bring some weakening of the alliance, the NATO alliance, in order to prevent the deployment of the intermediate range weapons that NATO had asked us for in 1979 of this program of supplying the NATO front with intermediate range weapons to counter the Soviet SS-20s and 4s and 5s that were there. Remember, that was on my desk when we got here. That program had started beforehand and we're going forward with it because I think it's very important, but the Soviets made it plain that particularly with regard to the Pershing-2 missiles, this was anathema to them and they were making every effort to hold out the bait of negotiations if we would give up the deployment. Well, we had to look at the fact that for a number of years our country has tried unilateral disarmament. We've canceled weapons systems, sort of with the idea that well, if they see that we're willing to do this, well then they'll be nice guys and they'll do something of the same kind. They didn't. They have kept up this constant military build up the greatest the world has ever seen and even with the intermediate range weapons and after 79 when NATO asked for a deterrent weapon on their side, the Soviet rhetoric had to do with, well, a balance has been achieved and we don't need any more, but they kept right on adding literally week after week to the number of warheads on their SS-20s that were targeted on all of Western Europe. These are weapons that could reach their target in five to seven minutes, less with some of the closer ones and we felt that there was only one way to really get these negotiations for reductions underway and that was to make it plain that we were going to deploy on schedule. Now, I offered what I think was a very reasonable and common sense proposal. The one way that there would be no deployment is if they would join and they would destroy their weapons and we'd have zero, zero, no intermediate range weapons in the European theater, no intermediate range weapons on our side. This they rejected out of hand as if it was somehow unfair and so I said, all right, if they're unwilling to go that far, then we'll make a proposal for a reduction to fair and equal amount on both sides and let them come in and let's negotiate out what is a number that they would be agreeable to that would be less than what we presently have and so far they haven't, they have still kept up their program. No, we must stop the deployment. In other words, they bought our zero, zero proposal, 50% of it, zero for us and they had over a thousand warheads already targeted on Western Europe. Now, they have gone out, they haven't really said they won't be back. What they've said is that they are not ready to name a date for resumption of the meetings. Usually this has taken place when there's a recess and then they say, well, we'll meet in such and such a date again and so they're still making this last step. I have to believe that once those missiles of ours are put in place and are being put in place and they see that we have the will to go forward with this, they have not been able to separate the alliance, the alliance is solidly behind us on this, then I think they'll return to the table and we're waiting for any proposals that they want to make and we're open to negotiations. You think the original strategy, negotiating strategy on our part is still sound and yes, it will lead to a reasonable deal when in the next year or so? I don't know what the time period will be but I do know this when we came here, you asked about a surprise. We were all surprised. We thought we knew something during the campaign of the situation but we were still surprised to find how desperate the United States position was militarily. The planes that couldn't fly for lack of spare parts, the ships that couldn't sail for lack of crew, people talking about reinstituting the draft and saying that the volunteer military was a failure, we didn't have enough non-commissioned officers left in the service to have trained draftees but we've been very successful in what we have done and I think this is what has brought the Soviets to the table in the first place. For the first time in years, they have seen that the American people have the will to provide a deterrent force. Mr. President, do you feel they abide by their treaties and agreements? Well, this is like a question that was asked at my first press conference when I was here. It's been misconstrued many times since. I was asked directly about the Soviets and what did I feel about them and could they be trusted and so forth and what did I think were their goals and their ideas and I answered that I didn't have to have a thought of my own about it. They themselves have declared that pie crusts are meant to be broken and so are treaties. They have themselves every leader that has ever been there until this present one and maybe just hasn't had time but every Soviet leader in my lifetime has at more than one occasion publicly declared that the Soviets idea of morality differs from ours, that the only immorality they recognize is anything that prevents the coming of the world revolution and world communism and that anything is moral, any crime is moral if it furthers that cause. And I cited this and then found that no one indicated that I was quoting them. They said that I was calling them liars and cheats and so forth and I was citing what they themselves have said is their doctrine. Now I think that this is one of the reasons why if we're to have really good will and a treaty of any kind then the only way to have good will is to avoid any possibility of suspicion and that is to have legitimate verification. But if you go back through our history of negotiations with them since World War II you will find that when Eisenhower proposed the open skies policy they turned it down. They've turned down on the basis of verification virtually everything that's ever been proposed with regard to limiting arms. Mr. President along this line when you made the remark containing the phrase focus of evil which certainly meddled the Soviets would you make that kind of remark again? Do you feel that it was appropriate to get the kind of reaction you thought it would from them? I thought there was a time in which they really had to know and understand how we saw them, where we were coming from and no I wouldn't say things like that again even after some of the things that have been done recently but I think they're aware of where we come from, what we understand and what I would like to convince them of if it's at all possible believing that in addition to their aggressive policy of wanting to spread their doctrine throughout the world I believe also that there is a great fear on their part that they must be constantly on guard and defensive and this goes even back before communism this was characteristic of Russia before it was communist a suspicion of neighbors maybe it comes who goes back to Napoleon and his march in Moscow maybe it goes back to other things of that kind that they feel they must be defensive. I would like to find and ways to convince them that there isn't anyone else in the world that has aggressive intent where they're concerned certainly we don't and we have proof over 50 years or more that we don't when we were the only power with the nuclear weapons when we had that weapon and no one else did what would it have been like in the world if they had had that weapon and no one else had had it but did we do anything did we threaten the world did we say to everyone lay down your arms no as a matter of fact in 1946 before they even had it we offered to create help them create an international body and put all nuclear forces and energy and weapons in the hands of that international group and eliminate them and they who didn't have them at the time but must have looked at them something they would like to have they were the ones who turned that down there was a case in which they had zero and we had the monopoly and we were offering to give up the monopoly and they wouldn't accept it because they wanted to go down that road of having nuclear weapons also now no i want to open a contact where hopefully we can make them see that it is to their best interest to join in reducing arms it would be in their best interest to join us in eliminating such arms in the world and to their best interest in reducing the conventional weapons what what more of a of an international superpower they could be if it was not just in the military that they were super but if they could join the family of nations as trading partners and out here working together as all of us are for the improvement of their own people and their own people standard of living i don't know whether that's possible for the embassy or not but i think it's worth a try speaking of they are joining the family of nations as you put it mr president and switching to the middle east for a moment do you think they have any useful role to play jointly with us in the middle east or do should be pursue our policy of essentially keeping them out of the middle east right now they're in the middle east in one place and that is where there's trouble going on and that has too been a tactic of theirs that they do not necessarily start the trouble but wherever such things are they have found it kind of helpful to get in and stir the pot right now if they would use their influence to persuade syria to withdraw from lebanon and let lebanon regain control of its own country and have a viable government piece within the country just as we could use our and would use our influence then for whatever we have with israel to persuade them but israel in the other hand has said that they they want to get out and are willing syria said that once and then changed their minds and why syria was invited into lebanon to help preserve order the lebanese government has now asked them to leave now they've refused to leave which makes them an occupying force i was thinking of something slightly larger like for instance the geneva conference which was once proposed that the Russians and we were supposed to chair uh i thought that we abandoned a long time ago i take it you don't think the moment is right to to resume thinking about that no no when i put it on that basis the moment isn't right let me turn to i'm sorry go ahead let me just go back a minute to clarify one item when you said in response to ray's question that you probably would not use formulations like focus of evil or evil empire again is that because you feel you've communicated that to them they now know you're thinking on that and so message delivered or because you think perhaps it was a mistake to deliver that message because it only got their apprehensions and paranoia up no i i felt that at the time that they needed to know how we felt what our views were and why we felt it necessary to build up our military defenses and so there's no use there's no point in repeating that because that's on that right well with the benefit of hindsight looking back over nearly three years of your dealing with them is there anything else that you would rather not have done that you did do or can you spot anything that your administration should have done that it did not do well in this context of our relations with them i know i can't think of anything they uh let's be fair they have made things a little difficult for us there is their efforts in central america here in our hemisphere to create trouble here there was the shooting down of a plane and killing a great many of our citizens as well as the citizens of other countries and then they refused to acknowledge any blame in that to or to make any amends or even hinted an apology for what they had done but instead of flat declaration they'd do it again there is their well their continued expansionism throughout the world including afghanistan we were talking about the middle east and i mentioned syria we forget about over in the horn of africa and they've gone in there in ethiopian south yemenan countries of that kind which indicates that they have some less than peaceful intentions as far as the middle east is concerned so it's been a little difficult for us i was heavily criticized because i didn't do more of uh not only name calling but uh retaliatory actions when the plane was shot down i did the only things that i thought were were practical and that would have any meaning at the time the president has been suggested once or twice on the basis of some things that were attributed to the mr androprov directly a statement issued over his name that they have sort of given up on you that they've decided that really they can't deal with you do you uh how do you what's your comment on that suggestion well maybe they're thinking of getting involved in an american election as they did in germany i would hope with the same lack of success but you have you have not uh well i guess in a sense you've answered that because you've talked about the continuing contacts i take it you don't feel that it is impossible it's become impossible to do business no no i don't because they have to look realistically at the alternative the alternative well it was summed up in a cartoon that i loved to cite and was while brezhnev was still a leader and that was when brezhnev was portrayed as saying to a russian general i liked the arms race better when we were the only ones in it well they have to know that we are not going to go back to where they can't compete as president you've uh held a very consistent point of view on the question of a summit meeting that it needs an agenda a program uh and uh that it should not be involved upon unless there's some visible result to come from it but as internationally concerns uh continue to rise about the strain between the us and the soviet do you conceive of any form of of symmetry uh that there's not that could be less formalized that you could embark on in the near term well i've never thought of as being formalized so much but i think it's one in which uh when one of those things is we know from the past takes place the hopes of people worldwide are brought up to a level and then if there's nothing but that you've had a meeting and you don't either one of you have anything to say when you leave that meeting the let down we saw that once under the uh the johnson administration when they literally had a meeting i guess for the sake of getting acquainted and the the let down the disappointment uh i just don't think that's healthy or good but you mentioned all the strain and everything i have to say that uh i think there is less of a risk and less of a danger today than there was a few years ago i think the very fact of our re-strengthening what we have done the very fact that we have been sitting at those tables and that there's not been a flat no that they're never going to talk to us again i think the world is safer and farther removed from a possible war than it was several years ago do you think that they are afraid that we might regain clear military superiority over them you know and uh i'm not going to use that term uh our military is for a deterrent uh my belief that the soviet union uh is not a threat uh in regard to to starting a war if they could see and believe that the damage to them would be unacceptable so the ancient chinese used to think this and i think it also the most successful army in the world is the one that never has to fight what about miscalculations either on our part or their part or by both parties that could bring about a war even if it only starts in a small well i know a lot of people in particularly with nuclear type weapons a lot of people are concerned and say like that recent movie that somehow an accidental war could start but here we have also entered into another attempt at negotiations with them certainly a contact with them and that is to see if we cannot come to agreement on improving communications on guarding against such things if we can't agree on treaties that would have to do with prior notification of military movements or maneuvers testing of course of weapons of of of that kind and uh an improvement of the hotline so that anytime there is a thought on either side that something may be happening that isn't understood that we can communicate directly and uh this was initiated by us also as worthy arms reduction talks so i think regardless of their rhetoric uh rhetoric isn't going to start a war but again i say that i think that we are in a in a better position than we've been for a long time because these things are going forward and we're going to continue trying to persuade them to to join us in these efforts you're dealing with the soviets have you found the western european allies a help or hindrance well they have been very much a help here again i think there's been a great improvement in strengthening of the alliance we found it was in kind of disarray and we were the focus of some of it but i think recently and uh this is evident in the i n f deployment here that how they have held up under all of this propaganda under all of these demonstrations and so forth and own people and uh even the success in the german election i think that uh that yes the alliance is stronger and better than it is ever been i can get back for a moment to points you were making about afghanistan angola other uh places in which the soviets have uh have been mischievous or aggressive is it inevitable that for that matter eastern europe uh will remain in the soviet orbit uh what about cuba afghanistan angola is there anything that this government could or should be doing or do you think it's just sort of in the hands of history and fate well no all of those things are of concern to us and uh we have put forth efforts in in a number of directions on some of those things because obviously the world would be better off and peace would be more assured there'd be less chance of the accidental war if these trouble spots could be uh well reconciled in the in the uh for example that well what excuse can cuba have other than taking orders from the soviet union but for having military forces in angola the it's things like that and in the horn of africa the the same thing uh this these are the things that if we can begin talking and uh they can accept the idea of uh reduction in arms and force all of these other things could fall in line so your own uh that's conservative supporters uh have argued that you should be doing more for instance to help the savimbi forces in angola or the rebels in afghanistan that uh that that those are places where you could be showing the russians uh other examples of your determination to to be firm well in both of those uh well in one i'd rather than talk about what is going on in one country in angola uh we have been trying to persuade the uh angolan government to accept the the cubans moving out with regard to the namibia settlement that happens to be one of the requirements uh with regard to south africa south africa is very concerned that with angola uh seemingly a satellite state of the soviet union by way of cuban surrogates that then to accept the independence of namibia right there on south africa's border is like asking for the same kind of a situation only not separated by space but right on their border and we in trying to arrange the namibian independence and trying to help bring it about have been trying to carry that forward this would be a peaceful departure and it would mean no harm to angola domestically and it would bring about the independence of another african nation namibia mr president you have said the one thing that is sort of really contrary to public perception and i wonder if you'd elaborate on it you've said the world's a safer place that is the bottom line question yes tell us why well because if you were looking at the two superpowers and estranged here and that window of vulnerability was there and now that there is a deterrent on our side to conflict arising i think that it that it is safer that there was more risk of someone gambling if it didn't look as if we could retaliate in any extremely damaging way now i think that they understand and that we have the will power to preserve the deterrent so there is logic in our talking and seeing if we now can't eliminate the differences that could bring this about and as i say they have not we have tried some nineteen times since world war two to engage the soviet unions in arms talks and arms reductions the only two that ever really arrived at anything you might say is with assault agreements and yet those assault agreements were simply limitations on how many more weapons you would build and that was why during the campaign when the senate was refusing as it did to to ratify the assault to agreement i expressed my approval of the senate in refusing but made it plain not that i was against arms talks or arms limitations but i believe that the time had come for arms reductions now i was informed by professionals when i got here that had the assault to treaty been ratified that from the time it was ratified until our administration came here under the terms of that treaty the soviet union would have been able to add to its nuclear forces the equivalent explosive power that was dropped on Hiroshima they would have been able to add that much every eleven minutes well that i don't think is very much of a of a peacemaking treaty that isn't the kind of thing that we're after take a look at the different difference if both of us would say hey we've seen the scientists talk about the world itself could be destroyed as long as we maintain so that neither side is able to start a war with the other why don't we reduce and if we start down that road of reducing for heaven's sakes why don't we rid the world of these weapons why do we keep them there was a time not too long ago when the Geneva accords with regard to the rules of warfare made every took every precaution to prevent harm to civilians in a war that wars should be fought between the warriors and not involving the civilian population here's the world today whose principal armaments are armaments that would wipe out the civilians in the tens and hundreds of millions uh let's get back to being civilized in other words let the professionals do the fighting is that what you're saying well no as i say if you have a good enough army then you'll never have to use it right mr president thank you very much thank you mr president


We lived our lives full, but no fear of God, no fear of hell, no fear of anything. Hindu is not a religion, this is a godless land, no morality, no commandments. The moment you make your body and mind into a stepping stone, you will become a Hindu. This must happen to the world. Hindu is not a ism, Hindu is a land and over a period of time, Hindu became a civilization. Hindu never was an ism, nor is it today an ism. Well, because of political situations, power-tuzzles that happen among people, people will twist and turn whichever way they want, but the identity of Hindu is of the land. The land that lies between Himalayas and the Indusagra, which is the Indian Ocean, between the mountain ranges and the ocean, this land is Hindu. The people who lived here naturally became Hindus, so it got referred to as Hindustan, the land of Hindus. The land was Hindu, so people became Hindu because people became Hindu, the nation or all the nations which were there at that time in this region became collectively Hindustan. Like when we say European, it may be French, it may be Italian, it may be Spanish, it may be now Ukraine. We don't know who else will become European, Turkey is becoming European. So like that, different types of people, different kingdoms and empires during different times of history all got to refer to, all got referred to as Hindustan. A civilization is not an outcome of one belief or one teaching or it did not fall out of one book. Variety of things happened. In terms of geography, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of languages, in terms of culture, variety of things happened across this land. A variety which is quite unimaginable for most people, over nineteen thousand languages developed. Nineteen thousand languages just in Hindustan. That means there were that many cultures, that many types of people, that many kind of cookings. Yes, various things, a kaleidoscope, every which way you look at it, it's different. But what is it about?  Essentially the idea of heaven or paradise or swarga is appealing only because they are infested with greed. What is here is not enough, something more out there, silly exaggerations of what you know here. If these three things are removed from human intelligence, human intelligence will naturally seek the ultimate nature of who we are. So in this search, this civilization encountered astronomy. Today everybody's got intellectual property rights, India is the only country which doesn't have intellectual property rights. Everything that's Indian or that belongs to this Hindustan has been stolen and used all over the world, everybody claiming it as their own. Well, because they had gunpowder, that's a lot of power, you know. So we encountered astronomy, we encountered mathematics. There wouldn't be mathematics in the world without this land and this civilization. No, are you all clapping? Oh, no mathematics in the school. No, that's not what I'm saying. If there is no mathematics, there is no science. All the many things that we are doing in the world today, many things we are enjoying in the world today in terms of technology would not exist if there is no complex mathematics, which we encountered in our pursuit, in our search, because we had no conclusions in our minds, we had no fear, nor were we infested with greed or guilt. We lived our lives full, but no fear of God, no fear of hell, no fear of anything, because we saw the most important thing is to seek, to know. So astronomy, mathematics, music, well, there are a variety of music, but if you pay attention, you will see the classical music that evolved in this land. In terms of complexity of its foundations, there is no other like it, this is not my opinion. The greatest musicians in the world will say this, when there is a complex foundation, what you build can be anything, there is no limit. If you do not have a complex enough foundation, what you build is minimal, what you can build is minimal. So there is a very complex understanding of mathematics, different aspects of it, particularly geometry, astronomy. This is the culture even six to seven thousand years ago, clearly, we are speaking about the planet being round and planet going around the sun, we did not believe that earth is the center of the universe. This came to us not because we were full of scientists in this country, this came to us because we were seekers. If you are genuinely… genuinely into science, you must be a seeker, you can't be a believer and be a scientist, simply not possible. Because belief means you've made conclusions about things that you have no clue about. All these things we encountered, we came across mathematics, music, astronomy, mysticism, many magical and mystical things, but we still pursued. Because our pursuit was not to find this and that which we think is useful to us, we want to find the truth about our existence, the nature of what this is. In this pursuit we pursued endlessly. As the seeking and the pursuit and the perception deepened and it became very profound, we found nothing. When we found nothing, we said, Shiva, then we found the basis of everything was this nothing. The greatest miracle in the universe is this, that everything comes out of nothing and goes back to nothing. Everything else, what you call as you and me, what you call as this planet, what you call as this solar system, what you call as this universe or galaxies or cosmos, these are all only manifestations. But we were not interested in the manifestations. We enjoy the manifestation, we appreciate the manifestation, but our interest is to know what is the nature of the source. We realized the source is actually not something, it is nothing. And it's not in one place, it's just everywhere. So we say, Shiva, that means that which is not. Well, people could not relate to it. So they were looking for a form. Then human beings who are in very profound pursuit, who realized the nature of the manifestation and its source because they realized that which is not. We called them Shiva. So the Shiva that you talk about today, that generally it's worshiped in this land, he doesn't need worship because he sits disinterested. He is not somebody who is going to be influenced by your praise or your offerings of this and that, he simply sits disinterested. This is why a more appropriate description of him is Adiyogi. Shiva means that which is not because that which is not cannot be seen, heard, smell, touched. One who realizes that, also we hold as Shiva because one who realizes that becomes the doorway for that. See, when you say my home, if you think of, oh, I'm going home, you're not think of all the rooms and bathroom and toilet and back door and kitchen. No, it's a front door which is your home. When you arrive, this is my home. You're pointing at the front door and saying this is my home. So the door is very important. So one who becomes the doorway for that which is not, we call him also Shiva. So this pursuit, what is the point? The point is this, if you know the nature of the source, if you have the time and inclination, you know the nature of everything. If you know something, you will know only something, but if you know nothing, then everything is possible. So this pursuit is the basis of this civilization.  There is no the God anywhere. As I have told you many times, we know the technology of God making. Well, there are words like this, we say, call something Bhagawan. You must understand the Bhagawan. The word Bhagawan comes from the root word bhajj, which means that you look up to. That you revere. That which is glorious. So if you're human being or a tree or a mountain looks glorious to us, we say Bhagawan because it's worthy of my reverence. Anything that deeply impacts you becomes your Bhagawan. When we say Bhagawan, we're not talking about the God sitting up there in heaven. Who knows how to manage everything here?  Hello? Are you willing to hand over your life to God and say, do it the way you want? No. Things that are not in your hands, you're willing to give it to him.   What you don't have, of course. Lot of people come to me also and say, Satguru, usir kurutruva satguru. Ayu, usir udhu venda pa. That means I want to… I'll give my life to you, Satguru, right now. Don't, don't hold it, hold it. If you hold it there and then give yourself, then I know how to use it. If you give it away, what do I do? So this is not that kind of civilization. This is a civilization of exploration and whichever way you explore, it is regarded well. You may explore in a very stable, proper manner or you may explore in freaky ways, whichever way, as long as you're seeking. In this culture, it's okay. There are very systematic disciplines in the country, in this land. At the same time, there are absolutely wild ways. There are agauris, there are tantric, there are a variety of people because nothing is a taboo as long as you're seeking, as long as your intent is to touch the core of life that you are. Knowing that, the core of life is not somewhere in the center of the galaxy. The core of life is in every life.  All you have to do is find it. All you have to do is find access to it. You don't have to invent it. You don't have to make it up. You just have to find access. Life cannot be happening without the source of life throbbing inside, otherwise it will not happen. So, today, human intellect is not yet but definitely far more active than what it used to be 500 years ago or 300 years ago or even 100 years ago. Becoming less influenced by the dogmas of the times. The dogma can be your religion, the dogma can be the current political ideology that's going about, the dogma can be some local philosophy. At different times, different things have ruled human beings. For the first time in the history of humanity, intellect, the human intellect is not as ruled by the dogmas of the place or the doctrines of the times as it has been in the past. I believe this is going to be much, much more in the next 15 to 25 years where human belief systems will become very thin. People only believe to the extent it's necessary. Already it is so. Hello? Only to the extent it's necessary. Rest is all in your hands. You don't trust anybody. Well, I'm not encouraging that but it's a good beginning that you understand. Somewhere you understand. Unless I handle this life well, it won't work. This means you understand my life is my karma. You're becoming a Hindu. So you must understand Hindu is not anism. Hindu is not a religion. Hindu is not a particular way of life as people are trying to define. Hindu is a land. Because of the land, people became Hindu. Because of the people, the civilization became Hindu. Because of the civilization, the nation became Hindustan. So this needs to be understood that if you release human intellect, as I said earlier, from the influence of fear, from the influence of guilt, from the influence of extreme greed, you will become a Hindu. Or Hindu, maybe in your mind, is the context is very small. It's a particular type of people. No, no. So let's put it this way. It is called sanathana dharma. The word sanathana literally means eternal. Dharma means not religion, dharma means the law. So the eternal law, what is the eternal law? They ask, we sit here, you and me are different.   Now the aspiration for you to become what I have become, that's a different thing. But when everybody is put back, everybody becomes the same thing without any problem. So the realization that everything comes from the same thing, will it happen to you with death or now? That's a big difference. If you're aspiring that it should happen now, you are a sanathani. You're aspiring for your eternal nature. That means you are other sanathana dharma, not as a religion, not as a philosophy. You are in tune with the eternal laws. Only if you're in tune with the eternal laws, the limitations of this manifestation, the individual manifestation has many limitations. These limitations you will suffer endlessly.   You are not searching for its source. You have not found access to the fundamental nature of its existence, which is its eternal nature.  No. I'm saying you understand, you gather the body and you shed the body.  Okay? I gather this and am it's going to go one day, what is this about? Because this is not unreal, this is true. Your existence is true.  This is a good trend. They're trying to look like the Hindu sages of the past. So essentially, a totally godless, philosophiless immoral, immoral is not the word, amoral, no morality, no commandments, no God, no philosophy, what kind of lousy people will there be? That means you don't trust the intelligence of creation. You think creation will be good only if some fools manage it. No creation is good without management. It is just that once, as I said, if human intelligence is not encumbered with these imposed values of fear and guilt and greed which is encouraged all the time, naturally this will seek its eternal nature. So what you call as the Hindu civilization or better that we call it sanathana dharma is a consequence of fearless, guiltless, greedless human beings. So it is not because of Hindu way of life they became like that. Because they were like that, this is the consequence. This civilization is a consequence of that. But as all of us know in recent history, in this land when we say recent, we are saying thousand years ago, in recent history it has been ravaged like no other land. Probably most of you do not know because those who wrote our history books and textbooks, they wanted to be nice to you so they eliminated all the ugly parts of our history so that we may once again walk into similar situations. But the land has seen, the people have seen enormous atrocities, atrocities which are way bigger than anything that is normally talked about in the world. The greatest things that we talk about in the world is how Africa was subjugated by the Europeans and how Adolf Hitler did what he did in pre-World War II times and what happened in North America to the Native Americans. But what happened in this land, both in numbers and quality of torture much, much, much more. But this is the only land. After thousand years of extreme torture, we still retained our way of being. This is simply because of the way the entire thing was naturally structured because it was not a religion.  There was no one doctrine. There was no one book. If you burn it, everything will be gone because it was individual seeking. The invaders who came, they did everything possible. They killed all the leaders, religious teachers, they ravaged thousands of temples but they didn't know how to kill it because it was in everybody's hearts and minds. You cannot kill that one because, because it was not a philosophy that could be corrected. It was not a belief system that could be obliterated. It was a natural longing to know. There is no way to curtail that. As I said, I'm repeatedly saying this, if you free this mind of fear, greed and guilt, this will naturally seek its eternal nature. Because of thousands of years of establishing that kind of thing, doesn't matter how much torture, it still lived. It's the only land which has been invaded with the vengeance or with the force with which it has been invaded. Still retained its culture to a large extent. Damages happened but it retained because this is not the culture which is organized. It is an organized kind of chaos, intentional chaos.  Hello?  So it doesn't matter what they did, it survived. A lot of people are writing books today around the world. Many American and European writers, they're amazed how this culture survived. How did it survive? What is the basis? Where is the foundation for this? Foundation, that's why it survived. Because the foundation is in our evolution. The foundation is in the nature of our existence. The foundation is not in what we organized as human beings. It is not a church. It is not some kind of organization. It is not, there's one leader that if you kill him everything will collapse. Do what you want. You don't even know where it exists but it exists. So if we do this one thing, if we do this one thing in this generation that in the world, it's beginning to move that way but I would like to see it in my time. If we move the society, if you move the world's population in this direction, they are free of fear, they are free of guilt and they are free of greed. You will see Sanatana Dharma will sprout across the planet. This you must understand. Sanatana Dharma does not mean all of them will chant your mantra or all of them will do this. No, all of them will seek. That's all that matters. Which way they seek? We don't care. Hello? Hello? We don't care how they seek. As long as they're seeking their eternal nature, as long as they're seeking their ultimate possibility, we call them Sanatani because Sanatana does not mean a particular group of people. Sanatana means eternal nature. So what is Hinduism? There is no such thing. There is no ism. People are trying to make it into ism for survival purposes, unfortunately. But I don't fear survival. I only see a metamorphosis. Many people think I am not Hindu enough because I don't know any… I'm not doing any puja. I'm not doing any mantra. I'm not going here and there and doing what a Hindu is supposed to do. So what kind of a Hindu is he? Well, because I'm born in this land in terms of geography, I am a Hindu because my longing has always been to know the eternal nature of who we are. And because of that I am a Sanatani, not because I subscribe to any of their philosophies. I want to see every human being looks for that which is the ultimate nature of who we are. Then everybody is a Sanatani, but don't think they are converting to your religion because there is nothing to convert to. There is no ideology, there is no philosophy, there is no God, there is no God's army for you to convert and join. It's just that from its manifestations to its source, your attention has shifted from the manifestation to its source.  It's like a footprint. It'll be there today, it'll be gone tomorrow, but the source is always there. So once your interest has shifted from the body to the source of what it is, you have become a Sanatani.  This must happen to the world, not as a religion, not as a philosophy, but as a natural longing to know beyond what is right now manifested because manifestations are many and fantastic. But if you get identified with the manifestation, then you will become so small that see, largely human beings don't even consider other lives as life.  But now in that also, in 21st century we've come to a place where we're beginning to think men and women are two separate species. Hello? We don't think we are the same species anymore, we're different species because everything you have to say, both. But now there are many other species. I'm not saying this with any disregard for anybody. I'm just saying we are unnecessarily complicating a simple process of life. First of all, biology is a simple thing. Its purpose is very simple and limited. We don't have to complicate the biology. See when we say you are a Sanatani, this does not mean you're disregarding the biology or the psychology of a human being. We are not going away from it. We want to be above it, that's all. Is it worthwhile? We are not talking about discarding it. We are not talking about moving away from it. We want to be above it, so that we can use our biology and our psychology the way we want. That our biology doesn't uses up. But for most human beings, their biological needs and psychological needs are occupying the whole time of their life, isn't it? They don't get to settle their biology or psychology for their entire life. If they live to be hundred, they're still desperately doing the same things. So Sanatana means this, that you're above the manifestation of physiological and psychological manifestations that we have. And that goes for every manifestation.  If I take you to a place, let's say we took you to the greatest, most sacred place in the universe, there are steps. But you miss understood steps as blocks. What to do? Tragedy, you are, isn't it? Hello? Right now, that's all that's happened. This body, this mind, this level of cerebral capability, these emotions, these energies, this chemistry, these are all stepping stones.  They're blocking you completely. Life is getting mortgaged just to settle physiological needs and psychological needs. You can call it what you want.  But essentially life is getting mortgaged just to settle physiological and psychological needs.  But unfortunately they have become sinking sands. So the moment you make your body and mind into a stepping stone and stand above that, you are a sanathani.


Hi everyone Sean with jaspyscasebrakes.com here doing 2017 Optic football fat pack break number 59 random teams At the end of the break. We're actually gonna be giving away seven spots in the Football mixer that's coming up next. So here's the list of customers in here. Oliver Soria last-spot mojo Reed Pierce with the first spot purchased and here's the list of teams from the Washington football club to the Arizona Cardinals New dice roll for both lists One of the six seven times one two three four five six and seventh final time George Cobb down to Oliver seven times on the teams one two three four five six and seventh and final time from the Detroit Lions Down to the Kansas City Chiefs. Let's get everything on video Quick trade window if anybody involved is in the chat Jaguars London for net Chicago Bears Adam Harper you've got chances at Mitch biscuits Kansas City Chiefs down to bottom Oliver with chances for Patrick Mahomes and Houston Texans, where were you? Oh Right there above them Jason Cool, so no talks about trades, so we'll print and rip so we had a randomizer on the front There we go. So we did a randomizer on the last pack. I had two packs here We rolled a dice and the one that it was was what we open for 58 pack 59 right here the biggest thing to come out of the pack 58 was the anti-theft We did have a Taywan Taylor rated rookie Here we go. Good luck It's only one pack, but we've seen crazier things happen in a pack, so Let's see Charles Harris is the rookie going to the Dolphin some Reed Pierce and nothing spectacular But let's go back to the randomizer and see if we can give away a couple spots So here's the original list Oliver with last spot mojo back up to Reed in the first spot new dice roll 6 and a 6 12 times 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 And 12th and final time. Good luck everyone And from 8 down to 32. Thank you very much for giving it a shot. Hopefully I can do better for you next time Congratulations to Travis Jason Jason George Reed Jason and Jason Jason did very well, so There you go guys. You are now all in the Football mixer that is coming up right now And that was 2017 optic football fat pack break 59 random team. I'm sean jaspys case breaks calm Football mixer coming up next. We'll see


Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankar IAS Academy. Displayed are the list of news articles selected for today's analysis and their page numbers in Chennai, Delhi, Bengaluru and Thiruvananthapuram editions of the newspaper. The link for the handwritten notes and the time stamping of the news articles are provided in the description box and the time stamping for the news articles are provided in the comment section for the benefit of mobile phone viewers. Now let us move on to the first news article. This news article is about the issue of denying relief or financial assistance to the victims of endosulphan. This article is relevant in your prelim syllabus under current events of national importance, general issues on environmental ecology and general science. In main syllabus, it could be relevant under environmental pollution and degradation in GS paper 3. In January 2017, the Supreme Court has asked the state government of Kerala to give the entire financial relief to all the victims affected by endosulphan within a period of three months from the date of order. Despite the order of the Supreme Court, the state government of Kerala has denied the relief or the compensation to four children. As a result, a contempt of court petition was filed in Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court has ordered the state government to pay around 5 lakh rupees as compensation to each of the four minors who were affected by the toxic pesticide. See, endosulphan is a pesticide that was used in Kasergod district in Kerala. This Kasergod district is the northernmost district in the state of Kerala. This pesticide was actually an insecticide and acharicide. Now by insecticide, it is meant to kill the insects that are detrimental for crops. And by acaricide, it is meant to kill the subclass of arachnids, which is acari. This acari subclass includes ticks and mites. We can also say that ticks and mites are a subclass of arachnids. See, arachnids have eight legs, but they don't have antennae. And some of the arachnid species are spiders, scorpions, mites and ticks. This pesticide endosulphan was used in Kasergod district of Kerala by aerial spraying over the cashew plantations in the region since late 1970s. But in 1990s, it was found that the pesticide is toxic to human beings and also the environmental ecology. The local population in the Kasergod district claimed that there were mass deaths of bees, fishes, frogs, birds, foxes and congenital deformities were found in domestic animals such as cows. When we say congenital deformities, these are those deformities that exist since the birth. Due to several social movements, protests and democratic actions, many health and toxicological studies were done between 1998 and 2002. During those studies, it was found that the usage of endosulphan on cashew plantations has also caused congenital abnormalities or deformities in human beings also. Children were born with birth defects and deformities. And it was confirmed that this toxic pesticide endosulphan was the reason. The pesticide was also the reason for neurobehavioral disorders, cognitive disorders, hydrocephalus, mental retardation and other severe lifelong illnesses among female children. When we say hydrocephalus, it is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid within the ventricles or cavities in the brain. This condition increases the pressure within the head and it can make the head to grow in abnormal size and also leads to brain damage and ultimately even death. And this endosulphan is also the reason for abnormalities related to male reproductive system. And it can also cause cancer at younger ages.  And therefore Kerala High Court banned the sale and use of endosulphan in Kerala in 2002. And following this, the state government issued a ban in the year 2003. And the state government has also devised a mechanism for providing financial relief and assistance for the victims of endosulphan. It is in this matter of providing relief, there was a discrepancy and the matter has been approached at the Supreme Court. So, with this we come to the end of this news article. The displayed practice question will be discussed in the last session. This news article is about UNESCO World Heritage Site List. The analysis of this news article will be relevant in prelim syllabus under current events of national and international importance and under physical and social geography of India and the world. It will also be relevant in mains preparation in GS paper 1 under Indian culture, the salient aspects of architecture from ancient to modern times. Now, let us see with respect to the world heritage sites. See one of the visions of UNESCO that is the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization is to promote cultural heritage. So, what do we mean by cultural heritage? We can see many monuments across India and also in the world. All those have a story inside them of how the people and the community have lived in those early times when the monument was constructed. And these monuments are preserved by the communities and are passed on from generation to generation so that we are able to see them even now in the contemporary present times. So, we call these monuments or these places as cultural heritage. The simplest meaning of cultural heritage is the culture that we have inherited from our ancestors. So, it is not just restricted to the monuments that they have built, but the people also inherit the customs and practices followed by the ancestors. People also inherit the places they have lived and they also inherit the artistic expressions in the form of paintings, music, dance forms, etc. And more importantly, people also inherit their values that is the values of ancestors. So, we can see there are many forms of defining this cultural heritage. According to UNESCO, the term cultural heritage has several categories. The main categories are tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage. Tangible means something that can be felt by a touch. We can literally feel. Under tangible heritage, UNESCO has listed three types. The first one is movable cultural heritage. This includes paintings, sculptures, coins and manuscripts. All these can be easily moved from one place to another. The next type is the immovable cultural heritage. Now, this includes monuments, archaeological sites, cities, etc. So, all these remain at the same place. So, we need to go and see them. The third type is underwater cultural heritage, which includes shipwrecks, that is a ship that has been destroyed or sunk. The underwater cultural heritage also includes underwater ruins and underwater cities. Now, by underwater cities, we mean those cities which are now submerged under water. The next main category is the intangible cultural heritage. This includes oral traditions, performing arts and rituals of the people or community of a particular area. We have discussed in detail about intangible cultural heritage on 21st June 2019 in our news analysis. The link has been provided for your reference. In the overall definition of cultural heritage, we could see three areas, one cultural heritage within which we saw about tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Then, those natural heritage that have cultural aspects, these are also coming under cultural heritage. According to UNESCO, cultural landscapes, physical formations, biological formations or geological formations are cultural aspects associated with the natural heritage. Therefore, a natural heritage with cultural aspects also coming under cultural heritage. Then, the cultural heritage also includes heritages in the event of armed conflict. So, we have seen the definition of cultural heritage. If you take the overall classification of heritage sites, world heritage sites, there are three. Now, they are natural heritage sites, cultural heritage sites and mixed heritage sites. Now, mixed heritage sites are those sites that have both cultural heritage and natural heritage value. In order to preserve these cultural and natural heritage sites, UNESCO has an international treaty. This treaty is called as the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. This convention was adopted by UNESCO in the year 1972. So, under this convention, UNESCO aims to identify, protect and preserve the cultural and natural heritages around the world. These sites are identified based on their outstanding universal value and if they are able to meet at least one out of 10 selection criteria given by the UNESCO. In some other day, in our news analysis, we will discuss the criteria with respect to this selection. So, it is based on this convention concerning the protection of world heritage sites. The world heritage sites are listed by UNESCO. So, these sites become a part of UNESCO's World Heritage List. Now, India has ratified this convention in the year 1977. So, we can tell that India is a state party to this convention and since India has become a state party to this convention, India is expected or obliged to protect the heritage values of the properties that have been listed under the World Heritage Sites List. Also, India should report on a periodic basis to UNESCO about the conditions of the World Heritage Sites in India. So, there are around 38 sites from India which have been declared as World Heritage Sites. The latest addition to this list is the City of Jaipur. That is our news article. Jaipur has been added as a cultural heritage site under the World Heritage Sites List. Let's see in brief about Jaipur. Jaipur city is a walled or a fortified city that was founded in the year 1727 by Savai Jai Singh II, the Rajput ruler The city was built on the plains. This is different from other cities in Rajasthan because we could find that other cities in Rajasthan were mostly built on hilly areas for protection. So, Jaipur city was built according to a grid plan as per the Vedic architecture. Now, as you can see in this picture, Jaipur is a walled city that is the old city and is completely protected by walls. And it is known for its grid plan based architecture. You can see from this picture that the major roads cut at right angles. So, it is a planned architecture. The architecture of the city reflects a mix of ancient Hindu, modern Mughal and western cultures. Most of the front portion of the buildings inside this walled city, which is all the front portion is also called as Fakkad. And these are pink in colour. So, we can see that the city of Jaipur is known for its cultural heritage since even now people live within this walled city inheriting the culture of their ancestors. The news also states that the International Council on Monuments and Sites has inspected the Jaipur city in the year 2018. The council was impressed with Chowpa's of Jaipur.  So, people gather in this Chowpa during festivals to celebrate in those olden days. As we saw earlier, the entire city of Jaipur is known for its uniform pink facades that is the front portions of buildings having uniform pink colours. So, for all these reasons, the Jaipur city has been recommended as a cultural heritage site. Now, this International Council on Monuments and Sites in short, ICOMOS is a global NGO. It works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places. Now, we saw that there are three broad classifications of world heritage sites that are cultural, natural and mixed. Out of 38 sites in India, 30 sites are classified as cultural heritage sites. So, seven sites are classified as natural heritage sites and only one site is classified as a mixed heritage site. So, from this, we can say that majority of the world heritage sites in India are cultural heritage sites. So, there are 38 world heritage sites and all of these are important and all these have been declared just because they have outstanding universal values and they are fulfilled at least one out of the 10 selection criteria of UNESCO. You may face difficulty while remembering these sites. You can use many tricks for remembering these sites. Some may find it easy to remember through a chronological order and some may use some mnemonics to remember it. You can use one another method. You may first learn about the sites in your own state or your own union territory. Then, if you have a friend from another state, you can learn about the heritage sites in his or her state also or you can move to your neighbor state or neighbor union territory. Now, another method is through current affairs. Every time you see a news on world heritage sites, you may add one extra site to your memory. Definitely, before June 2020, at least for around 40 times, the news about world heritage sites will be there in the newspaper. So, thus you can link these sites to your memory so that it will be easy for learning and remembering. In 2018, last year, Victorian, Gothic and Art Deco ensembles of Mumbai was added as a cultural heritage site in this World Heritage Sites List. The one mixed heritage site in the list from India is Kanjanjunga National Park in the state of Sikkim. We saw Jaipur city has been added as a cultural heritage site in this World Heritage Site List. We also have the historic city of Ahmedabad that is also listed as a cultural heritage site in this list. We can also see the Jantar that is located in Jaipur, which is also listed as a cultural heritage site in World Heritage Sites List. We can also see the ancient capital of Myanmar, the Bagan city and the Augsburg city from Germany, city of Babylon from Iraq. The city of Babylon from Iraq is an ancient city since the Mesopotamian civilization. These were also listed as World Heritage Sites. These are some of the important sites. With this, we come to the end of analysis of this news article. The displayed prelims question will be discussed in the final session. Now let us move on to next news article. This news article is about a stranded sea cow in one of the beaches in Thailand. The analysis of this article will be relevant in your prelim syllabus under current events of national and international importance and also in general issues on environment ecology. The article can also be linked to environmental pollution in GS Paper 3 in main syllabus. The news is about a mammal dugong. Mammals are animals in which the female feeds her young by the milk secreted in her own body. Dugong is one such mammal like human beings and dogs. Last month, in one of the beaches of Thailand, a baby dugong was washed ashore. This baby dugong was named as Mariam. Last week, another baby dugong also found stranded in a beach in Thailand. This dugong was named as Jamil. The meaning of the word Jamil is the handsome prince of the sea in Yahweh language. This name was given by one of the princesses of Thailand. This Yahweh language is actually a dialect of the Malay language. This dialect is spoken in the southernmost provinces of Thailand. These southernmost provinces of Thailand that are along the border with Malaysia. And it is also the main language in these four provinces of Thailand such as Naritivat, Yala, Patani and Songla. We can see the Malay ethnic group as the dominant group in these four provinces of Thailand that are southernmost provinces bordering Malaysia. The news article states that the southern Thailand's waters are home to around 250 mammals that are listed as vulnerable in the IUCN red list. One among these vulnerable mammals is dugong. Dugong is also called as Sikau. In 2015 preliminary examination there was a question on dugong. We have also added that question for reference. The stranded dugong is now being rehabilitated in Phuket Marine Biological Center that is located in Thailand. This center was established by the first bilateral agreement between the government of Thailand and Denmark. Now dugong as we have seen is a Sikau. It is a herbivorous marine animal. They feed on seagrass and are found in seagrass buds, sheltered waters, gulps, lagoons and bays. When we say sheltered waters, we mean water bodies that have the shorelines where there is no direct action of continuous ocean waves. And globally a dugong can be seen in both tropical and subtropical waters. In India it is not found along the entire coastline but it can be found in Gulf of Manar, Park Bay, Gulf of Kutch and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. And it is also protected under the Schedule I in Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 that is the utmost protection given for animals under WPA 1972. Under Sides Convention it is protected under Appendix I. Appendix I of Sides Convention includes the species that are threatened with extinction. Sides is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It is an international agreement between governments to ensure that the international trade in the specimens of wild animals and plants should not threaten the survival of these animals and plants. India has ratified this Convention in the year 1976 and therefore India is a party to this Convention. The beaches of Thailand are mentioned as plastic choked beaches in the news article. See Thailand is the world's sixth plastic waste generator which is detrimental to the water forms there. The world's top five countries in plastic waste generation or first China, then United States, then Germany, Egypt and then India. India is the fifth largest plastic waste generator in the world. We saw Thailand as the sixth. With this we come to the end of analysis of this news article. The displayed practice question will be discussed in the last session. This news article is about the importance of Indian Crested Porcupine in a particular ecosystem. The analysis of this news article will be relevant in prelim syllabus under current events of national importance and also under general issues on environmental ecology, biodiversity. A research study shows that Indian Crested Porcupine shares burrows or its habitation with 22 different species that include birds and reptiles. Burrows are holes that are dug by certain animals below the soil surface that is underground for the purpose of living. The research study states that the porcupines are known to be great engineers because the burrows that they dig go up to 13 meters in length. Also the burrows are not dig in a linear or a straight fashion. This is because there are a number of side chambers of varying depths which have been dug by these porcupines. These burrows are shared for living by almost 22 different species. This condition of sharing the same place to live together is called as cohabitation. Now this research study was conducted by researchers from the Salimali Center for Ornithology and Natural History in Coimbatore. They conducted the study in Keoladev National Park in Bharatpur in Rajasthan. Now know that the Keoladev National Park in Rajasthan is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. We also saw that Jaipur city is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. While we studied that Jaipur city comes under cultural heritage category, the Keoladev National Park comes under natural heritage category. Now in this national park the temperatures vary from 0.5 degrees celsius to 50 degrees celsius. So these burrows play a very important role in giving shelter and protection against the extreme weather and also from the predators. Now when we say predators we mean those animals that hunt other animals for food. The researchers set up cameras around porcupine burrows and took note of the animals which visited the burrow. For a time period of almost two years the researchers tracked about 20 active burrows and studied the different animals which lived in this burrow. The four major occupants or the four major animals that lived in these burrows were porcupines, jackals, rock pythons and bats. And some birds such as peafowl, robins and babblers also visited the burrows to eat the insects that lived there. Now one can think how so many animals can live in the same burrow. In order to know this the research team has noted the different interactions between the animals that visited the burrows. Out of these four animals the researchers found that porcupines pythons and bats co-occupy a co-habit in peace whereas jackals were not at peace that is jackals were fears against other animals that were living in the burrows. And because of these jackals fierceness sometimes this has led to death of pythons and pythons were sometimes driven out of burrows by these jackals. The research study also tells that most of the animals used the burrows on temporary basis. For example in the case of pythons they preferred to be directly under the sun during winter but in nighttime during winter they preferred to live in burrows. Using the camera traps and field surveys the researchers have found at least 9 to 15 pythons living in a single burrow. The same team which published this research paper has already published research paper in 2017 almost in the same area. That research paper states that each animal preferred a particular type of burrows. For example jackals like to live in larger chambered burrows which means they preferred burrows with huge space. If you take pythons they chose smaller compact burrows. When we come to bats they preferred burrows with few branching and very less number of openings. So from this we can say that each animal prefers a different type of burrow that is with respect to preference. One of the authors of this research paper has said that the decline of porcupine species will have a domino effect that is the decline of porcupine species might affect the presence of other species. See if porcupines are not there there will be less number of burrows or no burrows. So during winter months the other animals who once lived in burrows will not have any place to protect themselves especially during night times. So it might lead to their death and subsequently their population will decrease. So this research study has clearly shown that porcupines are a keystone species in the semi arid region. When we say semi arid region it is a dry region with lesser rainfall. Now let us see about the keystone species. Keystone species are those species whose absence will have an effect on other species in a particular ecosystem. The survival of keystone species is very much crucial for the survival of other species in that ecosystem. A typical example is the porcupine that we saw. The burrows which the porcupines construct are the reason for survival of many species in the particular ecosystem or a particular habitat. If the population of porcupines decline then that particular ecosystem will be affected. We can see that porcupine is the keystone species here. The conservation of a particular keystone species may help to preserve the structure and function of wide range of animals that are linked with the keystone species during their life cycle. But this research study was restricted to only one area that is Kiyoladev National Park of Rajasthan. So the burrowing behavior of porcupines needs to be studied in other regions as well. Now let us see about this Indian crested porcupine that we saw in this news article. The scientific name of Indian crested porcupine is Histrix Indica. They are found in certain countries of Indian subcontinent, Central Asia and Middle East. They are classified as least concern under IUCN Red List. They are also listed or protected under Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 in Schedule 4. Now we saw that this Indian crested porcupine is protected under Schedule 4 of Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. So it cannot be hunted because of this protection. But in situations when the animal becomes dangerous to human life or to property, chief wildlife warden or the authorized officer may permit any person to hunt the animal under section 11 of Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. The property here includes standing crops also. But if you take those animals that are protected under Schedule 1 of Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, those animals can be killed only if they become dangerous to human life. If those animals that are protected under Schedule 1, if they damage property, if they damage standing crops, they cannot be killed. So that is the difference between Schedule 1 protected animals and the animals that are protected under Schedule 2, 3 and 4. So with this we come to the end of this news article. Now let us move on to the last session of discussion of practice questions. Now the first question is with respect to endosulphane. We have seen in our first article with respect to the state of Kerala. Now they have given four options, a vaccine in testing stage to cure Ebola, an endothermic chemical reaction, a toxic pesticide, a new gas detected outside solar system. The correct answer for this question is a toxic pesticide. We saw that endosulphane is a pesticide that kills insects and also ticks and mites. These ticks and mites become part of Akkari subclass in arachnides. Now these questions may appear very easy when you see immediately after the analysis. But with the same energy you should attempt these questions after some months and after some days also. The second question they are asking us to choose the correct pair from the given options. They are asking us to choose the correct pair from the given list of UNESCO's World Heritage Site and the category in which they are listed. Now Kanjanjanga National Park during our analysis we saw that this national park in the state of Sikkim is the only site in India that is categorized as Mixed Heritage Site. So the first pair is wrongly matched. So if you know that the first pair is wrongly matched you can easily arrive at the correct answer because option A, option C and option D have first pair in it. So you can easily eliminate A, C and D. So option B is the correct answer for this question. The Sundarbans National Park is listed as natural heritage site in the list of World Heritage Sites of UNESCO. So only the third pair is correct that is the Jaipur city in Rajasthan is classified under Cultural Heritage Site. So the correct answer is option B, three only. The third question, which of the following provides protection to various animals under its schedules except in certain circumstances? Biological Diversity Act 2002, Environmental Protection Act 1986, Forest Conservation Act of 1980 and Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. We have been seeing under various news articles that the protection have been given under Wildlife Protection Act in 1972 under Schedule 1, 2, 3, 4 and in our today's discussion we saw that the sea cow Tugong is protected under Schedule 1 of Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and we also saw Indian Crested for Cubine is protected under Schedule 4 of Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. So the correct answer for this question is option D Wildlife Protection Act 1972. With this we come to the end of today's the Hindu News Analysis. If you like the video, press the like button, share it with your friends, comment and subscribe to Shankaray's Academy YouTube channel for more updates and content on civil service preparation.