What's up guys, my name is Michael and welcome to my YouTube channel. Today we are going to go over codeforces round 667c yet another array restoration. Okay, so you have, they have, so there's a secret array. You don't know what this array is and you need to restore it. Okay, there's some facts you know about the array. All the elements are distinct positive. All right, they're greater than zero. They cannot be zero, by the way, they're greater than zero. They're distinct. So there's no repeating. Okay. The array contains two elements X and Y. And we know that they're given to you X and Y. And if you were to sort the array in increasing order, the difference between any two number is going to be the same. Okay. So basically this means it's an arithmetic sequence. Okay, because if we sort then all the numbers and subtract it, the differences are going to be the same. So that shows it's an arithmetic sequence actually. Okay, it can be proven that any array exists under the constraints given below. Yeah, that is true because if you just add one certain number of times, you're going to get X to Y, by the way, regardless what happens. So yeah, okay. So now what is the problem? We need to restore an array that has the minimum possible maximum element. So we want to minimize the maximum of A1, A2 up to An. Okay. So before we start this out, basically, we're given the arrays. We're given the, so here, we're given, we need to create distinct elements of arrays. Right. So these elements are all distinct. Okay. Basically, we need to create an arithmetic progression, arithmetic series, where we add a certain number of elements, certain number of times, and then we're going to get from X to Y. Right. So we're given X and we're given Y. These two are certain numbers in the array. And we need to create a sequence of n elements. Right. We have n elements. And basically, we want to minimize, minimize, yeah, minimize the maximum number, the maximum number of the elements. So the minimize the maximum number of elements of A1, A of n. Okay. Okay. So what does this mean? Basically, we want to minimize the maximum number of elements of the max number of A1 to An. Okay. Okay. So before you start this problem out, think about what you what does it mean by minimizing the max number of elements, the max element. They're basically saying is that based on the number of elements, the elements in our array, we want to keep the maximum element as small as possible. Right. So this, let's say Y is our, I don't want to say why. But basically, let's say we have the two elements X and Y. Okay. And let's say Y is our maximum element, we want to minimize Y as much as possible. Although you can't really change Y, right, because it's given to us. But we want to minimize this to make sure the maximum element possible is as small as possible. It's kind of like an oxymoron, but we want to minimize the maximum element. Okay. Because we could change the maximum element. So you could just change it anytime. But yeah, based on whatever array you do. Okay. So how do you do this problem? How do you do this problem? Okay. What did I do? First of all, first I looked at this. Minimize the maximum of A1 to An. Okay. Let's look at a first problem. In the first case, 2, 1, 49. Well, if you're given two elements, N, right, your two elements, our N is two, and we have 1 and 49, you can't really change anything about it, right? Your array is just going to be this itself, right? You can't change anything at this point. You're given two elements. There's two elements. So you just have to print the two elements, right? You just print, print both of these. So that's the first basic case they gave us. And that's actually good that they gave us, that's just 1 and 49. Alright. Here's the hard part. Let's say N is five and X is 20 and Y is 50. Alright. So in the second case, N is five, X is 20 and Y is 50. We won't remember. We want to minimize this. So we're given five elements. One, two, three, four, five. And we want to create a progression. Basically a progression. Starting where you, if you, an arithmetic progression where you add a certain number, number every time. Here, remember, based on here, if you sort it in decreasing order, right, you subtract them, they're all going to be the same. So it's an arithmetic progression, right? So if we're going to minimize, minimize, minimize, whatever, the maximum element of a one up to a N, what do I do? Well, if I want to minimize it, the maximum element, let's assume that the maximum element is going to be 50. Right. So we start at 50 here, and then we have 20 is our smallest element. Well, then how do I, how do I come up with the progression here? Well, it's simple. We just take 50 minus 20, which is 30, and we divide, right, the number of spaces that it takes. So in this case, it would be 50 minus 20, which would give us 30. And we just have to subtract divide number of spaces it would take. So in this case, there's how many spaces from 20 to 50, it'll be 1234. And 30 divided by four doesn't give you an even number, right? What is that? That's like 2048. I can't do my math right now. 728 to 7.5, right? So in this case, you would have to add 7.5, 7.5, 7.5. And we can't do that, right? That's not possible. We can't do that, right? Because our sequence is arithmetic. The sequence is arithmetic, right? Remember, it has to be an integer. We're subtracting them. It has to be equal. So what can you do now? Now you think about it. What can you do now? How about we move our maximum element of Y down by one? So instead of being all these numbers, right, 7.5, how about I just clear it? And as five, remember here, we have 20 and 50. So X is 20, Y is 50. So now how about how about I decrease it down by one? So now we have 20, 30, 40, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So remember last time we set our Y as our maximum element on the far side, and we couldn't get a progression there. How about you move it down by one? I'm going to set my Y here now, okay? Let's see if we could subtract by it, find if we could make a progression out of this, right? If we move our Y down by this in case a maximum element does increase, right? Y is not our maximum element anymore, but A, we want to see if we could get a progression here, right? So now let's look at this. 50 minus 20. 50 minus 20 is equal to 30. And how many spaces are there between 20 and 50? 1, 2, 3. Ah, 30 divided by 3 is 10. Huh, this is an even number that we could add. I'm not even, this is an integer that we could add. We could add by 10 every time. 20 plus 10 would give us 30. 30 plus 10 would give us 40. 40 plus 10 would give us 50. 50 plus, then at the end 50 plus 10 would give us 60. Hmm. Do you guys see what I'm doing now here? If we were to simply just set, assume Y is our maximum element, right? In here. And then later we decrease the position that Y is set as, right? Then we could, once we figure out a progression that we could take up to Y, we just add the number of times, add the increment of the progression, the number it would take each time and print that out once we get to Y. And then in the end we just print out the maximum element. We just print 50 plus another 10. 50 plus another 10 would give us 60. So this would actually minimize the maximum element. This would actually minimize the maximum element because we're taking, we're assuming that Y, right? The larger element here that we're given is the maximum, right? And if it's not, well, then we can't create a progression. We're going to decrease Y by the number of spaces it is, right? We decrease, right? We started at, remember we started as the fifth space here. Then we decrease it. So now it's at the fourth space. If it still doesn't work, then we decrease again, third space, second space. And then if it's first space, then that means that we know we just have to add that number of times increment. But yeah, this basically minimizes the maximum number of times it would take because the maximum element here, 60, is as small as it could be here, right? If we're decreasing this number of the Y, the maximum Y, if we assume that Y is the maximum possible here, and then we decrease it until we get an arithmetic progression, the maximum value is not, is going to be the minimum possible, right? You guys want to know what I mean? Because like if you, let's say like if you started Y as in the beginning, then you just add Y number of times, right? So like if I had like 20, and I just add Y, 50, that's 70, I keep going that number of times. This would be the maximum element, right? So in the case where Y gets moved down to the first position that you're at, that would be the maximum that our maximum element could be, right? So if we're trying to minimize the maximum element of this arithmetic progression, we want to make our Y as far this as possible from the beginning of X, right? We want to make Y as far this as possible, right? That would give us an actual arithmetic progression. Do you guys understand what I'm saying? I hope you guys understand what I'm saying. Because like if Y gets closer and closer, right? Like in this case, this case is when Y is like as close as possible because at this point, we're just adding 50, right? We're just adding Y. So this is actually would give us the maximum element, the maximum of max, because arithmetic progression at the end is just going to get super duper large. It's like 20 plus, I don't know, 50 times some number of times of 5, right? That would give us 20, 220, 225, 250, right? That would give us like 270, right? This end at this end would get too large, 270. So we want to make sure our Y is as far this way as possible when we create our arithmetic progression, arithmetic sequence. And then once we get to Y by printing out this number of times of incrementing, we just have to increment Y that number of times, okay? Until we get to N. So we just increment Y 10 times. At this point, we just add 10 to get to here. So I hope I explained this pretty well here. So I'm just going to explain the code, what I did here now. So what do I do here? So whenever it's 2, I just print out X and Y because that's the least possible we could do. Then I take the difference of Y and X, right? I take the difference of 50 minus X, so 50 minus 20 would give us 30. So that's what this was for, right? And then I start the maximum space you could be as possible. It's going to be N minus 1, so that would be here, yeah, at this point, right? And then I just basically just keep decreasing space while it's not divisible by, right? So I keep decreasing where my current location is at. So if I'm at like 50, if I'm at, let's clear it again, 20 here. So we have 20 and then Y is 50. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, right? So I start at the end first. So I set 50 here and then 20 is there. And then what I do here is I keep checking if the difference is divisible by the number of spaces. So the number of spaces that you could do from here is actually just N minus 1, right? Because you start here at the end, this is N, right? The number of spaces between here and X is going to be, since there's 5 spaces here, right? It'll just be 4, right? 1, 2, 3, 4, right? That would be a number of times it would take if we're adding an arithmetic progression to N. So that's why I start the spaces equal to N minus 1. And then I keep subtracting it when it's not divisible by it, when the difference is not divisible by it, right? So like here I get 30, 50 minus 20 is 30, right? And I'm going to divide by 1, 2, 3, 4. And this is not divisible by it, right? So what I do is I subtract my space again by 1. So then at this point 50 is going to get put down to, 50 is going to get placed here. And then I do 50 minus 20 gives me 30. And then I divide by 1, 2, 3, right? Which gives me 10, which is divisible by it. And then at that point, I just loop from, I loop from X to Y and I just keep adding 10 that number of times. So I just add by 10, which would give me 30, 40. And again, once I get to 50, once I get to 50, I keep track of how many elements that I printed out, right? And at this point, I just print out the rest, right? I just print out the rest here. So yeah, I just keep printing out the rest of the number of elements it takes. So in this case, I would just add by 10 to get to 60, right? Because there's only one element left, right? So yeah, that's what this while loop here is for. So here I kept the number of times of number of elements I printed out. And then while the number is not equal to N, I'm going to increment Y plus by 10. So here, what I did was in this if same as I check if the decrement is less than zero. So the reason why I check decrement is less than zero, because there's two ways you could do it. You could add 10 by the last element here, or you could subtract 10 from the smallest element, right? So normally, it's actually a good idea to subtract 10 from the smallest element. So then you don't have to print out, you could minimize this max element, right? That 50 would still be remain as your max element. So then yeah, you would actually subtract 10 from here and you get like 10 here. But yeah, but if we hit zero, right? If we hit zero, remember we can't have zero here. So if we hit zero, you have to add your increment add by 10 to your largest element of Y. So that's what I do here, right? So while the number is not equal to N, if I subtract the smallest value of X, remember we assume X is the smallest, and if it's less than or equal to zero, which gets negative, then I just keep adding by Y by 10 and print out Y, right? I keep adding the last element of Y by 10, so in this case I would add by 10 to get 60. Otherwise, if it's not, then I'm going to subtract the beginning value of X of here by 10, right? And then I just keep incrementing up here. So yeah, that would actually get you your answer, right? Because we're trying to minimize the maximum number of elements, okay? In this case here in the beginning, if increment is equal to zero, so we get like division by zero. So let's say our space is get too much, right? So let's say it's not divisible by anything, number of spaces. So like let's say we get, let's say this is 20 and then this is like, I don't know, 21, right? And no matter how many times you move 21 down, it's still not going to be divisible, right? One's not going to be divisible by it, it's not going to be divisible. It's not going to be divisible by two, right? There's no arithmetic progression from 20 to 21 here. So at this point, you get 21 is just right next to it. And your incrementation is actually just going to be, excuse me, you're going to get a divisible by zero, right? Because your spaces are going to end up being zero. So I just said an increment to equal x. You could set it equal to y, it doesn't really matter, but basically you're just adding a number, that number of times in the end, right? You're going to add x by like 21 or 22, or you just add 20 by like 21 and keep going in your arithmetic progression, right? Because at this point, you exhausted all possibilities of making 21 the largest value, right? So yeah, that's what I do here. And yeah, I just print it out. And yeah, that's basically the solution. Hope you guys enjoyed this video. Very calm subscribe. This was a little hard to explain, but basically you're creating arithmetic progression and you want to make set your largest, you minimize the largest value as possible, right? And the largest value is possible. You could do that. Do that. You just set your why as a large possible value possible and see if you create an arithmetic progression. If you can't, you just keep moving it downward, downward and downward. If it reaches right next to each other, you're just going to have to add y, that number of times, right? You just have to add 21 and 22 and stuff like that. And then that'll get you your maximum number of elements. But yeah, that's basically how you do this problem. I know Algorithm Thread created another video where he brute-forced it and he didn't do it mathematically. But yeah, if you wanted brute-forced it, you could also do that. But I wanted to just do it mathematically, try to create an arithmetic progression because that's basically what I got from this problem. But yeah, very calm subscribe. I'll check you guys later. And yeah, I hope you guys enjoy this video. Peace. Thank you.


and national organizer at the Stop the War Coalition. And I will be chairing this meeting tonight, organized by the Dawn Extra Diet Assange campaign, which is the WikiLeaks's official UK campaign to stop the extradition of Julian Assange to the US. And today we are going to concentrate, specifically on the campaign on the Assange case and the effects of free speech on arts and politics. And for that, we have three distinguished speakers on our panel, a very warm welcome to all of you. Our first speaker is Brian Eno, one of the most innovative musicians in the UK, best known for his pioneering work in ambient music. He's also known for his political activism and he's also the president of the Stop the War Coalition. Our second speaker is Susie Gilbert. She is a filmmaker and has worked on several high profile visible or defense campaigns. And our final speaker is Alexi Selle. He's one of the UK's most legendary comics and now also a well-known actor, author and political activist. Before we move forward just quickly, if you wanna ask a question, please add it to the comment stream. And also the Dawn Extra Diet Assange campaign is a voluntary campaign that survives on the kindness of donors. So yeah, the legal team is fighting for Julian's freedom and need your financial assistance. So please consider making a donation so that they can continue their work. And also if you wanna know more about the campaign and the legal updates of the case, please visit their website. So let's begin the session now. We'll start with Brian. So Brian, over to you. Thanks for tuning in. So let's start by actually talking about what this case is about. He didn't actually source the material. He simply published something. So a lot of people are trying to sort of suggest that there was some kind of espionage involved. But in fact, he didn't do anything like that. He published some material that was handed to WikiLeaks. That's the first thing. So the first question is, are publishers prosecuted for what they publish? If they are, then why isn't also the Guardian in the dark? Because it was, this material was published with the Guardian and with Frankfurter Zeitungel, a German paper. I can't remember which one there. It was something that was done and the New York Times was involved as well. So the first question is, why is Assange being expected to take the can for this case? When clearly there were a lot of other people involved. A lot of people who now seem to have deserted him rather shamefully, you know, the Guardian doesn't ever write much about Assange anymore. And they really ought to because they did this in collaboration with him. The second question is, if somebody has published something, even if it is controversial, do you then pursue them through the courts for 10 years of their life and force them into a kind of solitary confinement, which is effectively what he's been living in for the last 10 years during embassy when he was there. And it was not a nice way to live. And I'm sure his last year in Belmarsh has been a lot worse as well. Then, of course, then you have to pull the camera back a bit and look at the world in general. We have a prime minister in England and a president in the United States who've made their lives by lying. They are well-known habitual liars who are now occupying two powerful political positions. On the other hand, we have Julian Assange who is imprisoned for having told the truth about something. So that seems to me a very badly inverted scale of values that we're rewarding the wrong people for the wrong things. Assange, if you've read anything about the report by Niels Meltzer, who was the UN rapporteur on torture. So he's asked to adjudicate in cases where prisoners seem to be receiving bad treatment. Niels Meltzer initially didn't want to take on this case because he thought, of course, he couldn't be tortured by the Swedes and the English because we're civilized people who don't do that kind of thing. He finally did go to see Assange and he said the conditions he was living in, the psychological stress he was under was so appalling that this had to be defined as torture. So we have for the last year been torturing him and he is not in a good way. He's suffering quite badly from all sorts of PTSD, actually, I suppose is what it is. So in everything about this case really stinks and it stinks of one particular fact that the Americans were so embarrassed by what Assange did and are determined to get revenge and to make it so bad for Assange that nobody else tries to do the same thing. So you can see what side of the story I'm on. This isn't about whether you think Assange is a wonderful human being or whether he raped those women in Sweden, which it seems now that he didn't, that seems to be becoming clearer, but it isn't about that anyway. It's about whether somebody has the right to publish something which is clearly in the interests of all of us except the people in government. So that's all I have to say at the moment. Thank you, Brian. I'll bring in Susie now. Susie, yeah, go ahead. Hi, thanks everyone for joining us from all over and we know we've got people in Australia who are awake in the middle of the night watching this. I just wanna add a little bit to what Brian was saying and I think what's interesting to notice now is I think there has since Julian's arrest in April of 2019, been actually a change in the narrative in the mainstream media and amongst mainstream human rights groups and press groups in that there's actually a consensus now. Everyone's able to sort of get beyond maybe personal differences, they work together and that kind of thing. But there's consensus amongst all the leading groups, all the leading newspapers, all the press freedom groups that these charges are outrageous and that this poses the greatest threat to press freedom arguably of our lifetimes. So whether that's Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, Freedom of Press Foundation, various UN special reporters, as Brian mentioned, they've been editorials from the New York Times, the Guardian and even Alan Rusbridge from the Guardian said, I had my bumps on the road with Julian, definitely had problems but I absolutely am against these charges and this is not about him, this is about what this means to the press globally. So I think that's a really, really welcome development. We've also seen from the Guardian just in the last few days a really powerful couple of stories from somebody that I hadn't heard from before who was the Reuters bureau chief around the time of the collateral murder video which I'm sure most people on this call know that Chelsea Manning had seen that video and was horrified by the murder of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists and out of sort of her moral conscious sought to make those documents public through WikiLeaks. Now the Iraqi bureau chief from Reuters, Dean Yates, just did a couple of really powerful pieces on the Guardian Australia and I think it's really worth looking at that story and looking at, as Brian was saying, what were the lies that were covered up? And basically Reuters had been shown, I think a little bit of the video and Reuters had asked to see the full video, they weren't and the video was really a sort of incredible historical document because you see these US gunmen basically laughing when they're blowing up these rescue workers, when they're murdering these civilians and journalists and it made me think of these uprisings we're seeing around the world today around state violence against black people in America and the kind of smirk of that cop in Minneapolis, the smirk as he held down George Floyd and it just reminded me of the laughter that we had in that collateral murder video and I personally feel that there's a connection to be drawn with looking for transparency and accountability with US state violence in the US against black and brown people and journalists as we've seen in these riots and US state violence around the world with black and brown people and journalists. So I think there's a connection to be drawn and as Brian said, this is about transparency and accountability and truth and just to remind you what this case is actually about. People try to complicate it because it's convenient to complicate it but it's actually quite simple. It's not about 2016, it's not about Sweden, it's quite simply about the 2010 Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables and as Brian said, incredibly embarrassing for the US and it brought out a lot of war crimes and WikiLeaks in coordination with other global media outlets like the New York Times and the Spiegel and others published these and these were hugely historic and impactful events arguably led to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq because Iraq said, we're not gonna give immunity to US troops anymore. So the question is, do we wanna live in a culture where we can fight for transparency and accountability or do we wanna make it okay to persecute the publishers who work on these materials? Chelsea was imprisoned, they're trying to give Julian life in prison and this is a watershed moment.  So I think it's an extraordinary opportunity for folks like folks on this call to sort of stand up and get engaged and see what can be done ahead of September 7th which is when the extradition hearing will be in London. Sorry, I forgot to unmute. Thanks, Susie. I'll bring in Alexi now who's our final speaker and then we'll start taking questions. Alexi, please. Mutant lecture, mutant. Thank you, thank you. That was my wife. I think you managed to get on this call. Well, that was weird. All right, to start again. I have tended not, I tend not to give her political speeches, I tend not to sit on panels. My choice has always been as a political comedian to do, to express my opinions through my work and then I feel it's more nuanced and more in my control, more rounded. I suppose I wanted to do this because I support Julian. I've read recently, I think, I think it's in the London Review of Books stuff about him which I didn't read. I also wanted to do this because I'm bored out of my mind. I'm glad that Susie feels that she's got some good news. I don't know whether it's partly lockdown or just I feel we are going through a period of terrifying change, really bad. The artist ability, anybody's ability, the particular artist ability is being more and more constrained. There are multiple forces acting to shut down free speech, speech challenges, the orthodox point of view. I just think it's a terrifying, there are multiple levels. The oppressors are many different guys who now paint themselves as the oppress. There are multi-agency attacks on anything you say. And I just think it's, I've never felt like this before. I think we live in a very frightening world in a way. So I really wanna, I mean, by doing this, I wanna, hopefully I can answer more articulately than I'm speaking at the moment. But also, I'm also interested to learn, I think, about it's already been very illuminating what I've heard from the other two speakers so far, but I'm also, I'm here to be a resource, but I'm also a vessel to learn as well. Cool. Thanks to all the speakers. We've got a few questions now. So I'll probably start with a question for probably Brian and Susie. So like the US establishment, they will go to any extent to suppress anyone who tries to expose their war crimes. And so the first question that I'd like to ask both of you is that, how important were the Wikileaks stories to our understanding of the Afghan and the Iraq wars? Whoever wants to respond first. I think Susie should take that. You probably know more about that than I do. Sure. Well, I think, again, I would refer you to look at Dean Yates's story in The Guardian the other day. Again, he's the poet's bureau chief. But really, you know, Chelsea Manning's bravery and letting those Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the collateral murder video come out really just showed how many lies there were, how much cover up there was as with every war. And it led to the Iraqis saying that they wouldn't allow US soldiers to have immunity for what they were doing in Iraq. And it led to the withdrawal of Iraqi troops. So it had a real impact. And you can just, if you just Google the number of stories that there were from every major media outlet, it got so much coverage, not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but the whole world. I've worked on a number of projects also about Latin America where what the cables revealed about relations between countries, old business of the US interfering in Latin America so much was revealed. So it makes you think of key moments in the Vietnam War when there were revelations about atrocities and that turn the tide in the conversation with Vietnam. So it's a huge, huge service. And there's a lot of sort of films and documentaries you can look about it and I'd sort of encourage everyone to do that. Thanks, Lucy. Perhaps I can add something to that. All of the countries that are called democratic in a way think they have to survive by having a huge machinery to maintain their self-image. And part of the self-image that has to be maintained is that all the foreign interventions we make are for the good of the people that we're intervening in. And of course, what this kind of revelation shows, the collateral damage revelation, all of the things that WikiLeaks revealed is that the well-being of the people that we're intervening upon is the last thing that we're thinking about, in fact. So this is why it's so embarrassing to governments because it sort of shows what the real geopolitical game is and the populations are relatively insignificant in that. And this is why I think it's such an important service that people are doing this because it reminds us that what we're actually doing, not what we claim to be doing. Thanks. The next question, it's from a viewer from social media. It's probably more for Alexi and Brian. And the viewer asks, where are all the pop stars and artists on this? Because we know that Roger Waters has been quite involved, but other than him and Brian and now Alexi. I mean, they're not too many famous people and artists who are involved in the campaign and who are coming forward to support the campaign. Would you like to respond to that, Lysin, as to why do you think they're not supporting the campaign actively? Yeah, well, I did some work doing workshops for freedom from torture with torture victims. And just from my own interest, I asked the people from various countries, what would happen if you did something which criticized the government? They all laughed uproariously and said, the best would be you'd be imprisoned or you'd be beaten to death. You'd be killed in some way.   I mean, I think people have been intimidated. I mean, I think that the atmosphere now is so much more sensorious than it was and people kind of, I mean, fear for their, you know, fear for their livelihoods, I think. And they haven't, maybe they haven't also been given a reason to be brave. I don't know, I don't know what you feel, Brian, I don't know. Well, I think one of the arguments that artists tend to use for their apathy, one of the excuses for apathy is to say, I'm an artist and the best thing I can do is to just make shun there, which is not an assumption I agree with actually. The assumption is that good art all automatically makes the world a better place. So you don't have to do anything about it. You just sort of dump this good art out into the world and everybody somehow mysteriously gets better. Well, this is of course the way people justify, for example, not joining, not supporting BDS in criticising Israel. They say, well, how can I withhold my art from those fans? And this is the assumption there is that your art is so powerful that it will sort of mysteriously transform people into better people. This clearly doesn't happen. Otherwise, Himmler, who had the biggest art collection in Europe at a certain point, would have been a more wonderful human being. He was surrounded by the best paintings of the Renaissance and of the Dutch. So I don't really accept that argument, but I honestly think that a lot of people really believe that. I'm an artist. I should stay out of all of that. I should just keep my vision pure. I personally can't do that. My vision doesn't, it happens to include the world. It doesn't sort of separate it off as something I'm not interested in. But the other thing is, of course, that you don't get particularly favourably reviewed for getting involved in things. You tend to be, the kind of criticism you get is what right do they have to talk about this? What do they know about it? What does a comedian or a pop star know about what's going on in the world? Of course, the question you have to ask is what do any politicians know? What do any of us know what's going on in the world? We're all in a position where we could say something and we pretty much have access to the same information. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone is free to talk about it. But this sort of sneery thing, the biggest crime in England, I always say, is not murder or rape or all the other terrible things you can do to people. The biggest crime is to rise above your station and the criticism you always hear in England is, what right do you, who do you think you are? And I think people are really frightened of that because they don't want to be seen as upstarts or uppity or whatever the word is. Yep, thanks. We've got so many questions. So the next one is for all the panellists actually. It's from Deepa Driver and she asks, could the panellists suggest how we could push through the media and lock out on the facts of the such case? And the second part of the question is, what could be done to make this more mainstream and how could the panellists contribute to doing that ahead of September 7th? Susie, do you want to go first? Yeah, yeah, you tell us. I would urge everyone to write some suggestions in the comments to be honest, because I'm sure we've got an amazing audience of people around the world. So I'm not going to give my humble ideas, but I actually am going to ask you all to put your ideas and I'm sure there'll be some eccentric ones, but I'll give you my two cents. I think one is reminding people that there is an amazing opportunity right now and there's been some great journalism done. There's an investigative journalism outlet in the UK called Declassified. They did some amazing coverage of the hearings, thus far around the extradition and they found some really glaring and egregious conflicts of interest of people involved in the case in the UK. Really, like if that had been picked up by the mainstream media, that would have had huge impacts. So all to say, we have the opportunity to amplify the journalism that's being done. We have an opportunity to share journalism that's being done by the Guardian, like the Guardian Australia in recent days around deniates, for example, and to remind folks that there's a lot to be covered and there's a lot of sort of opportunities to bring back focus to what this case is really about. We can remind people that when Bernie was asked in the debates, I think, would you prosecute under the Espionage Act? He said, no. And we can remind people that the Obama Department of Justice, who was no friend to whistleblowers and was highly litigious, but even the Obama Department of Justice was not able to prosecute WikiLeaks. And so it is the Trump DOJ that is doing this. So to remind people, no matter your feelings or massage, that if you are supporting this prosecution and this extradition request, you are supporting the Trump Department of Justice and you could be asking Biden to pledge not to prosecute. I think in the UK, we can draw some attention to the fact that even Boris Johnson has said that the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is worth looking into and it's probably lopsided. Jeremy Corbyn, I think, asked him a question in Parliament a few months ago, like in February, regarding to another case. And Boris Johnson, himself, formerly a journalist, said, you know what, it's worth looking into and this seems like it's a lopsided agreement because the US always seems to be sending people that way, but not the other way. So there's a lot to dig into. There's a lot of strong arguments against the extradition. There's a lot of mainstream support. So there are opportunities there, but I think we'll all be digging through the comments here and would welcome your input because I'm sure you've got lots of suggestions. Hi, Susie. Brian, do you want to respond as well? Yes, well, I think something Susie said earlier is important, which is that this isn't such a complex issue. There's been a sort of, I think quite a deliberate strategy to make it seem like it's very, very complicated and you couldn't possibly understand it, but it is actually very simple. The background, like any background, is full of tangles and twists and turns, but what the case is about for publishers should be prosecuted for publishing stuff that embarrasses governments. That's all it's about. And we know for sure that if we were looking at Iran doing this, for example, or Pakistan or China or something, we'd all be saying, oh, that's what you get in totalitarian states, but we're behaving in this respect like a totalitarian state. So I think that simple fact has to be spoken again and again, forget all the complications. They aren't relevant to this single question. Should publishers be allowed to publish stuff? And for more to the point, should they be kept in solitary confinement for 10 years for publishing it? Thanks. Thanks, Brian. Alexi, do you also want to add? Yeah, I mean, I just talk in sort of generalities really, but I mean, one of the things, they're looking at like the, I mean, maybe I'll imagine this, but looking at the Labour Party output in the 2017 election and then the 2019 election, then in the 2017 election, it seemed very fleet of the foot and very guerrilla-ish and then somehow it got kind of caught in the machinery in the 2019 and became much more stodgy. And I just think if you, because we're dealing with serious issues, if you're doing stuff from the left, if you're promoting good ideas, then there is a danger sometimes because you're dealing with these serious ideas that you can become sanctimonious, I think. And you have to be funny, you have to be light on your feet and you have to, in a sense, mock yourself as well, I was thinking. One of the things that I've always done, I think one of the things that sometimes allows me to be freer as a performer is that I am happy, criticising the left. I mean, although it comes from a supportive point of view, I make fun of the left as well as the right, really. I am always critical of myself at my own point of view as well as the point of view that I'm pointing which I think is, you know, the truth. So I just think you have to be, yeah, you have to be light and I have to be original, you know, they can get away with recycling the same. If you share time after time, you know, we have to be better than them, really, I think. Obviously, there is, you know, for any thrust, I mean, there must be a gap, really, there must be, you know, for any thrust in young comedian, there must be the space for at least, do I have to do it again? Why is it me, why is it that I have to, you know, be the left comedian, there must be like, you know, there must be space for at least one young brave comedian. Yeah.  You have to find something more original than that. I don't know whether I'm drifting off top with you. Can I just add to that? It's interesting to make that point because Julian's partner Stella was actually saying that comedians have been actually pretty good on this case. And she was wondering if it was because comedians are, you know, truth tellers, I guess most artists are trying to be that, but she, she'd noticed that I think Louis Theroux had done an episode recently. I didn't know if he's not really a comedian. I didn't know whether he's a comedian or not. But, you know, I know Russell Brand in the past had visited Julian. I don't know how much he's saying now, but she felt comedians were actually generally quite good on this. And also that point you made about being self-critical, I think is great because just as, I think Brian was mentioning the UN Special Rapporteur who evolved his position on the case, it's, I think it's important for people who are onside in this campaign to welcome people who are gonna change their position and not be like, oh, you were terrible on this. It's like, we can all be self-critical. We can all change. It's a position of strength to evolve, you know, what you think about some things. So like we can also, like I say this to myself, be welcoming of people who might, you know, have been one way and coming another way. So yeah. The thing about comedy, particularly British comedy, is that it's very often about perspective shift. So you lead people to believe at the beginning of the joke that you're looking at the world in one way and suddenly there's a flip and you're looking at it in another way and it's funny. And I think perspective shifting is actually what we should be thinking about doing. And the reason comedians can get away with it is because they do it in a context where people are prepared to laugh and people like having their perspective shifted in that context. It's funny, you know, it's interesting to do it. But it's very interesting when you get a comedian like Alexei or Amanda Yonichu or Chris Morris who actually start putting content into what they're shifting the perspective about. So they're making what are effectively political comments but kind of in disguise. Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Susie. Thanks, Alexei. The next question is also for all the panelists and they ask what effect do you think this attempt at prosecution will have on aspiring journalists and whistleblowers? I'll let Susie go first again. I think, I can't even begin to imagine really. I think some people maybe now definitely are falling for this. There's a bit of a red herring around, oh, Wikileaks, was it really journalism or not? Maybe it doesn't apply to me. But that's not the point. They're criminalizing the practice so all journalists will be affected.  But if the US can extradite an Australian citizen from the UK to the US, what does that mean? Like the Saudi can do that with a journalist in some country or Modi or Netanyahu, like where does it end? So I just can't imagine. I think I can't even imagine what it's like and I think it's really fascinating if people wanna sit this one out thinking, like, oh, I'm at this like, I'm a different category or something. So, I'd love to be wrong, but what do you both think? I mean, I'm not very closely attached to journalism, but it does seem to me there's been a terrifying shift and I would say that one of the things that happened is with the press's treatment of Corbyn, the Corbyn project, that more or less the entire media has got kind of used to lying and got addicted to kind of just making shit up. And also, you've now got these political correspondences and I know Peter O'Bourne mentions specifically Laura Kuhnsberg and Robert Pest and who don't see their job as holding the government's feet to the fire, but see their job as getting scoops and they trade, I think, contacts from close contact with Dominic Cummings basically. So that they get first dibs on stories, but there's a quid pro quo for that, that you seem to get so many journalists pumping out stuff that had come straight. I read in an article, I think it was in Baili, just Laura Kuhnsberg's tweets about that Dominic Cummings's trip to Barnard Castle where she said, this was all perfectly within boundaries and it was all acceptably did nothing wrong. And then Dominic Cummings kind of like surveyed all that itself, but she was putting out Laura Kuhnsberg's essentially put now a government statement as a BBC political correspondent and it's, I think that's a paradigm shift really. I think that it comes out at the last few years of particularly of their entirely subversive attitude to Corbyn where he was never, he was never, good stories about him were ruthlessly suppressed and bad stories were amplified. And I think they've all become addicted to that really. And it's a problem, you know. Brian, do you want to respond as well? I don't have much to say because I'm so depressed about the state of journalism at the moment. And it's not entirely the fault of journalists actually, it's because the papers are losing their readership in general, in favor of social media, which is possibly the worst way to get your news. So the papers are forced into competition with social media, which means that they are trading in clickbait essentially, they're trying to find things that are sort of sexy enough or powerful enough to get you off Facebook and to read the paper instead in whatever form that takes. And unfortunately, this has produced the worst period of journalism in my life actually. As Alexei says, the Corbyn episode was completely shameful. It would have been shameful for any country, but for one that claims to, I don't know if you've, if you read the piece in Jacobin this week or recently about the destruction of the internal destruction of the Labour Party and the external destruction. And it's a very sad read. And I suppose the future is going to come out of some revulsion against, and some re-embolts start to think again that their job is to tell what's happening rather than to opinion. Thanks, Brian. We just have about 15 minutes left. So I'll take like two questions and then we'll have to end this meeting. So the next, the two questions is from James Mealy. So he asks, how high does the body count have to be before any Western political figure is subject to the kind of heavy-handed legal treatment dished out to a Sange? And the second question he asks is, British legal profession have been largely signed and signed the shameful events at Belmarsh. Why is there a lack of outrage by professionals at the scandal that is unfolding? Susie, would you like to go first? Yeah, I think there has been a bit of outrage. I mean, I hate to sound like Mary Poppins like keep trying to sort of plug good news, but I think there was just the other day, a big letter that came out. There was a big jurist's letter signed by, I forget, dozens or hundreds of jurists around the world.  You know, he's got chronic lung conditions from having been in confinement for so many years. So I think the sort of organizations that, you know, it's being covered, but it kind of needs to be amplified a lot more, I think. But, you know, as others have said on this call, I think there's an effort to make things sound a lot more confusing than they are and make a lot of noise. And yeah, to make things just, you know, it's a pretty simple situation. You know, if you're looking at legally, this is clearly, you know, a political case. Julian, we know, was spied on in the embassy. All the celebrities who went and met with him, everything was spied on. All the lawyers' meetings were spied on. There's a Spanish legal case right now about the surveillance company that was hired to give all the surveillance materials of Julian's legal meetings. So that's a huge, huge breach of due process. Not to mention the fact that one of the points they're trying to use in this extradition is saying that there was huge damage done by the leaks, but that's never been demonstrated even in courts in the U.S. They've under oath, the prosecution have said that there's actually no demonstrable damage in terms of loss of life or anything like that. So, you know, the points of the case are fairly clear in a way. And I think there is institutional support, but whether that can sort of break through and everyone can kind of get a little bit more activated like folks on this call remains to be seen. It's a difficult news cycle. And there's been an excellent job done in kind of trying to demonize him. But, you know, as many people have said, they obviously go for the person who seems like most controversial, like they weren't going to go and do this against the New York Times or the Washington Post at this point, but that doesn't mean they won't. You know, we've just seen in the last few days, journalists blinded in the U.S. on U.S. streets by police and that's now sort of business as usual. There's sort of war on the press around the world. So, yeah, I'm curious what the others think. Yeah. Alexi, do you want to add to that? Well, I think one of the problems is, I think I'm not wrong in saying this, that one of the people who led the persecution of Julian is the new leader of the Labour Party. Is that not right?  So that's a problem. I mean, Starmer was, you know, active, yeah, in the DPP, making sure that the cases weren't dropped and so on and so forth. And that's quite a thing, isn't it? You know, that the leader of the opposition, the Labour Party should have been instrumental in the persecution of this man, a man who's done, you know, a lot of good for the world in terms of making these revelations. If that makes you think, what's going on? It seems like a conspiracy to me. Thanks, Alexi. Brian? So I sort of have this optimist feeling that when the Trump project clearly starts, as I think it's starting to happen now, themselves, so that they're clearly on the other side and they'll want people to think they were always on the other side. So I think as soon as that project starts to collapse and it's quite visible to everybody, there'll be a lot of space for articles that actually are in support of Assange, anything that is against Trump will suddenly become fashionable again and there'll be a lot of airspace and a lot of media space for people who are telling another story because everybody who was quite happy to play the game as long as Trump was on the up will want to show that, in fact, they were never really part of that awful project. And in fact, they always thought Assange should have been set free nine years ago. So I can expect there'll be a flurry of optimistic. Maybe I am. Thanks. We just have about 10 minutes. So I'll just take two more questions related. Hang on one second. Yeah. Joe Cole asks, says that the court proceedings seems from the court proceedings, it seems like that the outcome of this trial has already been determined and what can we do to resist this? And a similar question is asked by John Cramer from America and he asks that, what can he do as an American other than contacting the senators and congressmen kind of support the campaign? And I guess that goes for the British people as well and activists as well, that other than lobbying, what can we do to support the campaign and especially before the 7th of September? So I think these are the final two questions. Susie. Susie, yeah.  So I go there and see what's going on. There's a number of different campaigning groups around the world. There's a really good European ones, Australian ones, but I check out Don't Extradite Assange. I would say, you know, I don't think it's a done deal at all in the UK. The hearing begins on September 7th in London, but then depending on what happens, there are various appeal procedures and then it can go to the European courts. So this could take a few years if Julian survives Belmarsh, which for those folks abroad, you know, is sometimes talked about a little bit like a British Guantanamo.  So that would be my two cents. Thanks. Alexi? Oh, I don't know, I mean, make her forcefully. I was just thinking, it's not really relevant to the question really, but I kind of read somewhere that somebody was talking about Julian's case and Chelsea Manning's Twitter, somebody in the security services and they asked what the security clearance was on the information that Chelsea Manning had taken. And it's quite low that a lot of people have got access, you know, had access to that information and the security services guy said, well, this is quite a low clearance.  This is only the tip of the iceberg really, that they're appalling as, you know, the helicopter gunship footage is, there is tons of stuff probably you can't imagine that they are, that's more classified and is, you know, being suppressed really. So, you know, maybe, you know, we could at least we can stop it here, we can try and protect Julian by, you know, campaigning in whatever way we can, but there's much darker stuff going on. Yeah, I think we have to make a lot of noise. I think we have to make a lot of noise because governments still don't like people making a lot of noise. They kind of can't ignore that. And I think the type of noise we shouldn't be making is to keep saying that this is essentially a Trump, a Trumpian project. I think the more we can link this extradition to something that Trump would want to happen, the better chance we have of it never taking place. Because as I said, I'm convinced that Trump will be absolutely toxic within a few months, or even a few weeks at this rate. And so I think if you can connect a project to him, nobody will want to touch it. Nobody in the British establishment will want to look like they were a Trump supporter or a Trump assistant. So that's, if I were writing to my MP, which I have done actually, I would say this is a Trump project. This is the type of thing he would do. That makes people increasingly uneasy to be part of that. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Susie. And thank you, Alexi. That was a fantastic discussion. We've come to the end of this discussion now because we've only got a few minutes left. But before I leave, I'll urge all the people from the audience today who've joined us to support the Don't Extradite Assange campaign and make the donation if you can. Watch Susie's movies, documentaries, watch Alexi's comedy, listen to Brian's music and do support the campaign and do your best before the 7th of September to help Assange. Thanks and bye, everyone. Thank you, Sparta. Thank you. Bye, bye. Bye. Please, bye.


Good evening, aspirants. Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis session by Shankares Academy, dated 16th June 2021. The list of news articles for today's discussion is given for your reference along with the page numbers in various editions of the newspaper. Now, let us move on to the article's discussion. The first article for today's discussion is Supreme Court Closest Trial Against Italian Marines. Recently, the Supreme Court directed the closure of criminal proceedings in India against two Italian Marines. They were accused of killing two fishermen off the Kerala coast in February 2012. In addition, the top court also termed the rupee 10 crore compensation paid by the Republic of Italy as reasonable and adequate. Also, note that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that the accused would be tried only in Italy. Based on this, the centre filed a plea in the apex court to stop the criminal trial and other proceedings against the duo. In this context, let us discuss in brief about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The syllabus covered under this topic discussion is given for your reference. Now, coming back to the article's discussion. See, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an international treaty which was adopted and signed in the year 1982. This convention replaced the four Geneva Conventions of 1958. These four conventions which were replaced were concerned with the territorial sea and contiguous zones, continental shelves, high seas, fishing and conservation of living resources on the high seas. Note that India became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the year 1982. Now, let us know about the purpose of UN clause. See, this convention lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's ocean and sees thereby establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. Now, let us see the key features of the convention. This convention says that the coastal states can exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea. Here, the states have the right to establish its breadth up to the limit of 12 nautical miles from their territory. And also, through these waters, the foreign vessels are allowed only for innocent passage. See, the passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Next, ships and aircrafts of all countries are allowed transit passage through straits used for international navigation. But, states bordering the strait can regulate the navigation and other aspects of passage. Note that the coastal states have sovereign right in a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. This is with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities. Along with this, they may exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection. It is to be noted that the convention has created three institutions on international sea. They are the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea, the International Sea Bed Authority and the Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf. Now, let us discuss in detail about the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea. See, the ITLOS is established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea. This tribunal acts as an independent judicial body to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the convention. Also know that the tribunal is composed of 21 independent members where they are elected from among persons enjoying highest reputation for fairness, integrity and of recognized competence in the field of law of sea. Note that the jurisdiction of the tribunal comprises all disputes submitted to it in accordance with the convention. But the main disputes relating to the convention are concerned with the delimitation of marine zones, navigation, conservation and management of living resources of sea, protection and preservation of marine environment and marine scientific research. This jurisdiction of the tribunal also extends to all matters specifically mentioned in any other agreements. But these agreements should confer jurisdiction on the said tribunal. Till date, 16 multilateral agreements have been concluded which confer jurisdiction on the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea. Know that the tribunal is open to state parties to the convention. But in certain cases, it is also open to entities other than state parties such as international organization and natural or legal persons. With this, we have come to the end of this topic discussion. Hence, in this discussion, we saw about the UN clause and the tribunal that comes under the convention called International Tribunal for the Law of Sea. Now, let us move to the next news article. Our next news discussion is going to be based on this open editorial article titled, Needed Full Disclosure on Electoral Bonds. As the title hints, this article deals with the electoral bonds and in addition, it critically examines the Supreme Court's suggestion on political donations. So, in this light, let us see about the court's judgment and also some important points mentioned in this article. The syllabus covered under this topic discussion is given for your reference. First, let us see about electoral bonds in order to understand the article better. See, the electoral bonds were introduced with the finance bill 2017. And on January 29, 2018, the government notified a scheme named Electoral Bond Scheme. The electoral bond is an interest-free banking-bearer instrument which is in nature of a promissory note. See, these bonds can be bought from select branches of State Bank of India where the citizens or corporates can use them to donate funds to any eligible political parties. Also note that they are similar to banknotes as they are payable to the bearer on demand and are free of interest. The feature of Electoral Bond is that they are made available for purchase for 10 days in the beginning of every quarter. By that, the first 10 days of January, April, July and October has been specified by the government for purchase of electoral bonds. And on addition, the period of 30 days shall be specified by the central government in the year of general elections to the House of People. On talking about its concern, there is a controversy that electoral bonds pay way for corrupting influence of anonymous corporate and foreign money. That is, before the Electoral Bond Scheme, no foreign company could donate to any political party under the Companies Act. In addition to it, if a firm has to donate to any political party, it can donate only to a maximum of 7.5 percentage of its average three-year net profit. This condition is based on the Section 182 of the Companies Act. And the SED Act also mandates that companies should disclose details of their political donations in their annual statement of accounts. But later on, the government moved an amendment in finance bill to ensure that these provisions would not be applicable to companies in case of electoral bonds. And this has enabled Indian, foreign and even the shell companies to donate political parties without having to inform anyone of their contributions. The next concern is the anonymity that is associated with the bonds, which deals to reduced public and legislative oversight. See, the purchaser can buy an electoral bond only on due fulfillment of all the KYC norms and by making payment from the bank account. But here, the payment will not carry or include even the name of the payee. This means that the donor and the party details will be available with the bank, but it will not be disclosed. In addition, it is said, the ruling party has an advantageous position. Because the ruling party via the State Bank of India has a full account of all donations being made through this electoral bonds to itself and to opposition parties. So, the concern is that since neither the purchaser of the bond nor the political party receiving the donation is required to disclose the donor's identity. Thereby, the shareholders of a corporation will remain unaware of the company's contribution. Also, the voters will have no idea of how and through whom a political party has been funded. This anonymity would also lead to an influx of black money in the political system. Now, coming to the Supreme Court's judgment. See, the Association of Democratic Reforms filed a PIL challenging the electoral bonds to be unconstitutional and having concerns of corrupting influence of anonymous corporate and foreign money. And with this, it also requested to stop the sale of electoral bonds till the validity of these bonds, which is under examination by the top court is finally decided. But however, the Supreme Court refused to stay the sale of electoral bonds and in its judgment, the Supreme Court listed down several documents and said the purchase as well as the encashment of the bonds are always reflected in the document which are accessible to the public. The Supreme Court further states that the donor information could be obtained by doing a match the following on the basis of public records of companies and the parties. And according to the author, this move of the Supreme Court is seen as impractical and plainly incorrect. This is because no ordinary person has got the adequate time and resources to navigate documents and government websites or to examine their income tax returns. Compared to this method, the Right to Information Act of 2005 enables easier access to information held by public authorities. In addition, the author further listed down three reasons to substantiate why the match the following approach suggested by the apex court is impractical and not feasible. Firstly, the full scale of registered donor entities is unknown. And even if the registered companies have filed annual financial statements, there are many chances for them not to disclose their political donations. Secondly, when you take into account the donations made by the companies and firms, there are close to 25 lakh potential donors. As per January 31, 2021, this includes 12.6 lakh active private companies. On most cases, the annual reports of all these companies are not readily accessible on the websites of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. And when you take firms, they have no regulatory mandate to submit their annual report, except for filing their annual tax returns. This is because they are regulated by acts other than Companies Act of 2013. Thirdly, let us assume that these documents are filed and available in public domain. And even in that case, we may not ensure that they have mentioned their donations to parties. And in fact, the law paves way for it. This is through the Finance Bill of 2017 that amended the section 182 of the Companies Act of 2013 in order to remove the requirements for declaring disaggregated donations to political parties. Therefore, even if we succeed in finding the required data by matchmaking, it may not be accurate. According to the authors, based on the above grounds, the match the following suggestions by the Supreme Court proves to be failure. Since it is impossible for an average voter to examine a large number of documents and to track the potential company and firm donors. As per the author, the electoral bonds give political power to companies, wealthy individual donors, and foreign entities. And by this way, it undermines the value of universal franchise of one voter, one voter. If the company begins to influence policies through hidden donations, there are higher chance for the vote of an individual to lose its significance. And such instances will only lead to win-lose situations with the ruling party at gain and the average voter at loss. And the author concludes by suggesting that the companies and the political parties can exercise their moral leadership and voluntarily disclose the identity of recipients and donor. Because such a measure not only provides accountability and transparency, but also reduces the donor's influence over the policies in a significant manner. So, these are some of the important takeaway points from this article. With this information in mind, let us move on to the next part of the discussion. Coming to the third topic for today's discussion, the invisible tax. See, we can observe that the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic has been subsiding. So, people were in high hopes that the economy would soon start to recover, but this hope was shattered by the recent inflation numbers. And this editorial is a discussion on that. Let us discuss it. The syllabus covered under this topic discussion is given for your reference. First of all, let us see about the wholesale price index. See, the inflation based on wholesale price index has hit 13 percentage in the month of May. This has happened after almost 25 years. So, what is this wholesale price index? See, the wholesale price index is an important index necessary for calculating inflation in a country. The wholesale price index represents the price of a basket of wholesale goods. See, the wholesale price index measures the average change in price of commodities for bulk sales at the level of entry stage of transaction. That means it accounts for change in prices at an earlier distribution stage, which is before the retail level sale. Importantly, know that it does not cover services and it is calculated using the base year 2011 to 2012. Now, coming back to the article. The article mentions that the retail inflation for the month of May has touched a six month high of 6.3 percentage. What is this retail inflation? See, the consumer price index is a measure of retail inflation rate. It means it is the measure of increase in the price experienced at retail shops. This inflation gives an actual reflection of the price rise in the country. So, we can define CPI as a measure of change in retail prices of both goods and services consumed by a defined population group in a given area. The reference base year for CPI is 2011 to 2012. Coming back to the article. See, the month of May saw severe widespread lockdown restrictions in many places of our country. In spite of this lockdown, both the retail as well as the wholesale inflation saw a huge rise. This comes as a negative surprise. What were the reasons for this steep rise? Let us see. According to the editorial, high excise duty and taxes on fuel prices were a key factor in driving up both the inflation indices. See, the inflation in fuel and light categories hit 11.6 percentage in the month of May. This was the highest increase in over nine years. In addition, the pump prices for petrol raised past Rs. 100 a litre in even more parts of the country this month. Also, the diesel has crossed the century mark in Rajasthan's Srinagar district. See, the increase in the price of fuel affects the prices of commodities across various sectors. Also, during the lockdown period, the prices of commodities like pulses, eggs and edible oils saw a steep increase. This was the main reason behind the steep increase of retail inflation. Even if one were to discount food and fuel prices, core inflation has crossed the 6 percentage mark for the first time in 31 months. And it is estimated that it is around 6.6 percentage. The core inflation is the change in the cost of goods and services, but does not include those from the food and energy sector. This measure of core inflation excludes these items because prices are much more volatile in case of food and energy sector. In addition, the steep rise in inflation rate leaves less room for growth supportive policy. Growth supportive policy is essential for economic growth during the post lockdown times. But this high inflation rates have given a stumbling block. We all know that in order to create demand and increase economic growth, interest rates have to be eased. But easing the interest rates will also lead to increase in money supply and thereby increase in inflation. Also, according to the experts, inflation will remain higher than the average 5.1 percent estimated by the central bank for this year. See, we all know that the RBI's Monetary Policy Committee aims to achieve an inflation target of 4 percent through determination of policy interest rates. Since the current inflation rate is way higher than the Monetary Policy Committee's target, we cannot expect any easing of interest rates from the RBI. Hence, this leaves less room for growth supportive policy. So, what can be done now? According to the author of this editorial, the government must take some actions of its own to curb the price rise. For example, the government can cut fuel prices thereby bringing the prices of fuel and reducing the prices of various commodities. Such moves can speed up our economic recovery. See, our population is already reeling from job and income losses and higher medical costs since the pandemic's onset. But in addition to this grave situation, a persistently higher inflation is insupportable. According to the author, no welfare scheme can offset the adverse impact of high inflation on the poor. So, it is high time that the government takes some proactive steps to curb inflation. With this information in mind, let us move on to the next part of the discussion. The fourth news article for today's discussion is an acquittal with no good, but the bad and the ugly. Look at this news article. Recently, a trial court in Goa acquitted Tarun Tejpal from charge of sexual assault. See, he was a former editor of a news magazine in which the victim also worked as journalist under him. This judgment has created an uproar and raised many questions about the law. In this article, we shall see about the case in brief and in addition, we will also see some women specific legislation in that context. The syllabus covered under this topic discussion is given for your reference. See, this article has focused on the issue in hand and how criminal jurisprudence has evolved over a period of time to make it victim centric. Let us look at the evolution which is important from exam point of view. See, in the year 2002, based on the recommendation of 172nd report of Law Commission of India, major changes were made in the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the amendment prohibited the defense advocate from asking questions to the victims in a rape case about her general character that tarnished her credibility as well as her character. Another major milestone in evolution is the Supreme Court's judgment in Aparna Bhatt and others versus state of Madhya Pradesh case. See, in this case, the Supreme Court specifically said that courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion about women. It also includes that the conduct of survivor of sexual assault cannot be questioned just because of inconsistencies in behavior or expression. It affects women's right to fair trial. In addition, the court said that every individual behaves differently under given circumstances. Taking this into account, the judiciary must be careful not to create inflexible standards based on stereotypes. Thirdly, the disclosure of identity of victim was also banned. The Indian Penal Code was amended in 1983, where disclosure of identity of the rape survivor by anyone was made punishable under a newly added section 228 of subsection A. Further, the Supreme Court in the state of Punjab versus Ramdev Singh case held that the name of the victim should not be mentioned in the judgment in any court, where she should be described only as a victim in the judgment. All these have collectively shaped the criminal jurisprudence with respect to the crimes of rape over years. Now, in this context, let us look into some important legislations that are important concerning women's safety. First, let us take up this act, the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act of the year 1956, the act which was enacted to curb the human trafficking. See, this act directly flows from article 23, subsection of 1, prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labor. See, in the year 1950, the government of India ratified a convention named International Convention for Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Persons and Exploitation of Prostitution of Others. Following that, in the year 1956, India passed an act named Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956. This act was further amended and changed in the year 1986, resulting in the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, also known as PETA. Here, note that PETA only discusses trafficking in relation to prostitution, whereas other purposes of trafficking such as domestic work, child labor, organ harvesting were not included in this act. But later on in the year 2006, the Ministry of Women and Child Development proposed an amendment bill that is yet to be passed. Next, let us look into the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplaces, Prevention, Prohibition and Drill Dressel Act of 2013. See, this act has been viewed as a landmark case in many aspects. It flows directly from the Visakha Guidelines as laid down by the Banwari Devi case by the Supreme Court. In this act, it defines the sexual harassment as one or more of the following unwelcome act or behavior, such as the physical contact and advances or the demand or request for sexual favors or making sexually colored remarks or showing pornography or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal contact of sexual nature. This act also defines workplace, where it says that workplace includes any government or private sector organizations, establishments, etc. It also covers unorganized and domestic workers, hospitals, any sports institutes, stadiums or complexes and any place visited by the employee during her course of employment. In addition to this, the act mandates an internal compliance committee to be set up in any establishments having more than 10 employees. In this case, if there is any complaint need to be registered, the complaint should be made three months from the occurrence of incident. However, the complaint committee may extend the time period as deemed necessary. In addition, note that the section 10 of the act deals with conciliation. Based on that, the internal compliance committee, a before inquiry and at the request of the aggrieved women, can take steps to settle the matter between her and the respondent through conciliation. But it is provided that no monetary settlement shall be made as a basis of conciliation. With this, there are other important laws that are enacted exclusively for women which are presented for your reference. They are the Dauri Prohibition Act of 1961, which was later amended in 1986, the Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act of the year 1986, the Commission of Sati Prevention Act of 1987, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and finally, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013. With this, we have come to the end of this topic discussion. Now, let us move to the next topic. Coming to the fifth topic for today's discussion, House Standing Committee on IT summons Twitter representatives. Now, let us take up this news article. This news article is about the Standing Committee on Information and Technology, where the committee has summoned Twitter representatives to appear before the panel. The purpose is to hear their views on the steps they have taken to prevent the misuse of social media and online news. So, in this light, let us see some important facts about the parliamentary committees. See, a parliamentary committee is a committee that is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker or Chairman. In addition, these committees assist the Parliament in discharging its duties. Also, the committees usually work under the direction of Speaker or Chairman. Also know that the committee presents its report to the House or to the Speaker or Chairman. The committee has a secretariat provided by the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. These parliamentary committees are mentioned in the constitution at different places, but it does not provide any specific provisions regarding their composition, tenure, functions, etc. Note that the parliamentary committees are broadly classified into two types. They are the Standing Committees and the Ad hoc Committees. Note that the Standing Committees are permanent committees which is constituted every year or periodically as they work on a continuous basis. Based on the nature of work performed by these committees, the Standing or Permanent Committees are classified into six categories. They are the Financial Committees, Departmental Standing Committees, Committee to Inquire, Committee to Scrutinize and Control, Committee relating to the day-to-day business of the House and Housekeeping Committees or Service Committees. Now, coming to the Ad hoc Committees. See, these committees are temporary and they cease to exist on completing the tasks assigned to them. The Ad hoc Committees are divided into two categories, namely Inquiry Committees and Advisory Committee. These Inquiry Committees are constituted from time to time either by two houses on a motion adopted by the House or by the Speaker or Chairman. The function of the Inquiry Committee is to inquire and report on specific subjects and the advisory committees include select or join committees on bills which are appointed to consider and report on particular bills. Note that the procedure to be followed by the advisory committees is laid down by the rules of procedures and directions by the Speaker or Chairman. With this broad overview about the Parliamentary Committees, let us move on to the next news article. The next news article is this. Commons sought on draft rules on compensation. Recently, the Ministry of Labor and Employment had notified the draft rule relating to Employees' Compensation. This draft rule on Employees' Compensation comes under the Code on Social Security 2020. Now, the Ministry has sought Commons from the stakeholders on the proposed draft rules within 45 days from the date of notification which is on 3rd June. In this context, let us discuss in detail about the provisions of the draft. As we know, the year 2019, the central government consolidated several central laws regulating various aspects of labor into four courts. These four courts regulate wages, industrial relations, social security and occupational safety, health and working conditions. Know that all these courts have been passed by the Parliament. Coming to the Code on Social Security 2020, it amends and consolidates the law relating to social security. See, the goal of this Code is to extend social security to employees and workers in the organized as well as unorganized sector. See, the Code has replaced nearly nine laws related to social security. This includes the Employees' Providence Fund Act 1952, Maternity Benefits Act 1961, Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act 2008 and many more. Have a look at the complete list of repealed Act given for your reference. Now, know that the Chapter 7 of the Social Security Code 2020 deals with Employees' Compensation. It provides for employers' liability for compensation in case of fatal accidents, serious bodily injuries or occupational diseases. Coming to the recent developments, now, Centre has released the Code on Social Security's Rules 2021. This majorly deals with the Employees' Compensation where it is supposed to supersede the Employees' Compensation Rules 1924. Along with it, it also makes changes and supersedes the Employees' Compensation Rules 1935, Employees' Compensation Rules 1996, where all these are concerned with the transfer of money, venue of proceedings and other aspects of employees' compensation. See, the draft rule provides manner of applications for claims or settlements. In addition, it also mentions about the rate of interest for delayed payments of compensation, venue of proceedings and transfers of matters, etc. In addition to it, the draft rule provides for the manner of transmitting money from one competent authority to another and arrangements with other countries for the transfer of money that is paid as compensation. Now, let us discuss two important provisions of draft rules. See, the Section 77 of the Code says that the compensation for loss or damage shall be paid as soon as it falls due. But the draft rule says that the employer shall pay this amount of compensation within a period of 30 days. If not, for those unpaid days, the employer shall pay a simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum. Secondly, presently, the Section 159 of the Code provides for rules to give effect to the arrangements with other countries, especially for the transfer of money paid as compensation. But the draft says that when any sum is transmitted by any authority in India to any other authority, the cost of such transmission may be deducted from the sum that is transmitted. That is all about this news article. Now, let us move to the next topic. The last topic for today's discussion is this, brazing for a threat. See, recently an emerging form of delta variant called AY.1 is rising global concern. This editorial is a discussion on that. See, AY.1 is closely related to the delta variant AY.1 or B1 617.2.1. This has a mutation K147N which has been associated with the beta variant. See, the beta variant was first identified in South Africa. This K147N mutation found in beta variant was linked to high infectivity of coronavirus and reduced waxing potency. Now, this same mutation has been found in the AY.1 or the B.1 617.2.1 variant of delta. This has raised a global concern. See, the delta variant is reportedly the most prevalent coronavirus variant in India. This variant caused huge loss of lives during the second wave. Now, with the discovery of AY.1 or B.1 617, 2.1 has caused a severe concerns. As we previously saw, this variant has the K417N mutation. This mutation has shown resistance to the newly developed monoclonal antibody treatment drug cocktail, clasivimab and imdevimab. This drug cocktail is usually prescribed for those patients assessed with a moderate to severe disease risk. See, the K417N mutation has shown resistance to this drug cocktail. So, the medical community now fears high fatalities due to this drug resistance of AY.1 variant. Also, according to the scientists, AY.1 marks the continued evolution of the delta variant. The delta variant has already developed a mutation called D614G last year. This mutation was responsible for the high infectivity rate of coronavirus. The D614G mutation made the delta variant globally prominent due to its high infectivity nature. See, the coronavirus are marked by convergent evolution, which is a kind of evolution where some defining mutations become more common in subsequent variation. These defining mutations emerge in different strains from around the world. Also know that these mutations are beneficial to the virus. They help the virus to infect human cells more efficiently by escaping defensive antibodies. Also, the evolution is an incessant process. So, it is impossible to forecast if SARS-CoV-2 will become part of human ecosystem. To put it in simple words, it is impossible to forecast whether the coronavirus will become less contiguous. Also, it is impossible to predict the efficacy of vaccines with these new mutations. So, what can be done? See, according to the editorial, we have a powerful tool which was absent in previous global pandemics. The name of the tool is rapid genome sequencing. Rapid genome sequencing will help us to track these threatening mutations. It can also help us to improve vaccines by enabling researchers to perform quick tweaks to develop upgraded vaccines that could counter the threat from emergent variants. But the problem is that India has chosen to restrict genome sequencing studies to 10 government labs and not involve private laboratories. Because of this, it has reduced the capability and expertise of rapid genome sequencing. So, it is high time India understands the importance of rapid genome sequencing. Without proper rapid genome sequencing infrastructures, we will struggle to fight the upcoming pandemic waves. Hence, with this, we have completed the article's discussion. Now, let us move on to the prelims practice question session. First question, with reference to international tribunal for the law of C, consider the following statements. Statement one, it is an independent judicial body to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of C. Statement two, it is one of the specialized agencies of United Nations. Which of the statements given above is sure or correct? The options given are option A, one only, option B, two only, option C, both one and two, option D, neither one nor two. See, from our discussion, we saw that the international tribunal for the law of C is an independent judicial body, which is established under United Nations Convention on the Law of C. Also, we saw the aim of this tribunal is to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the said convention. Also, its jurisdiction includes all disputes that are provided in any other document or that is provided in any other agreement, which specifically confers jurisdiction on the tribunal. Hence, the first statement, which says the judicial body to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation of the convention is correct. Whereas, the second statement, we have to note that the tribunal does not come under the specialized agency of United Nations. Whereas, we already saw the tribunal is established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of C. Hence, the second statement is incorrect. Also, note that United Nations has 17 specialized agencies, where the list of agencies are given for your reference, aspirants can have a look at it. So, the answer for this question is option A, one only. Coming to the second question, consider the following statements. The statements given are statement one, the parliament is assisted by a number of committees in discharge of its duties. Statement two, the committee is appointed or elected by the house or nominated by the speaker or chairman. Statement three, details of the composition, tenure and functions of the committees are present in the constitution. Which of the statements given above is or are correct? The options given are option A, one only, option B, one and two only, option C, two and three only, option D, one, two and three. As we know, the functions of the parliament are varied, complex and immense. So, due to this, the parliament has neither the adequate time or necessary expertise to make a detailed scrutiny of all legislative measures. Therefore, it is assisted by a number of committees in the discharge of its duties. Hence, by this, the statement one is correct. And also, we saw that the committee is appointed or elected by the house or nominated by the speaker or chairman. And in our earlier discussion, we also saw they work under the direction of speaker or chairman. So, the second statement is also correct. Now, considering the third statement, we saw that the parliamentary committees, although they are mentioned in the constitution at different places, the constitution does not prescribe any specific provision regarding its composition, tenure or functions. So, this makes the third statement incorrect. Hence, the answer for this question is option B, one and two only. Moving to the third question, which of the following acts are superseded by the Code on Social Security, 2021, Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, 2, maternity benefit act of 1961, 3, employee's provident fund act, 1952, 4, minimum wages act, 1948. Select the correct answer using the codes given below. Option A, 2 and 3 only, option B, 1, 2 and 3 only, option C, 2, 3 and 4 only, option D, 1, 2 and 4 only. See, this is a direct factual question where in our discussion, we saw that the code on social security amends and consolidates the law relating to social security. Along with this code on social security, we also saw that there were three other codes that were enacted such as code on wages, code on industrial relations and code on occupational safety, health and working condition. The following acts that were superseded, which are given here are part of code on wages such as the Equal Remuneration Act 1976, minimum wages act 1948, which comes under the code of wages and not the code on social security. Hence, by eliminating the first and fourth act, we can conclude the answer for this question is option A, 2 and 3 only. The nine acts that were repealed by the code on social securities are given here for your reference. The aspirants can have a look at it. Along with this minimum wages act of 1948 and Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, there were other acts that were superseded by code on wages. They are payment of wages act 1936 and payment of bonus act 1965. Now, let us see the next question. K417N, seen in news, often is associated with which of the following options given are option A, supercomputer of China, option B, nano satellite launched by Japan, option C, SARS-CoV-2 mutation, option D, Trojan virus targeting digital services. In our earlier discussion, while discussing about the Delta variant, we saw about the K417N mutation that were related to the variant Ay.1. In addition to it, we saw that this mutation has shown resistance to the newly developed monoclonal antibody treatment, drug cocktail, Casary V map and Imdevi map. Hence, this mutation K417N is associated with SARS-CoV-2 mutation. The answer for this question is option C, SARS-CoV-2 mutation. These are few main questions that are given for your practice and you may write and post them in the comment section for peer review. That's it for today's discussion. If you like the video, kindly press the like button, comment, share and subscribe to Shankaraya's Academy for further updates. Thank you.