Look, there is a great need to understand this in our country that the country which we call India with so much pride today, Bharat, Hindustan, with so much love, never existed in our history with this geographical line as a country, as a nation, as a nation state or as a nation state. If you talk about ancient India during the Buddhist period or after the Buddhist period, there were many republics and small republics and there were wars between them too, so their geographical lines, their kingdoms, their sizes changed, they became big and small. Then came great kings like Chandragupta Maurya, a big empire was formed, his empire was also very big, but its geographical lines were smaller than today's India and it did not have many of the states which are there in India today, like the North East did not exist at all, so the entire Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh did not exist at all. There might be a small part of Assam in it, I am not sure, but it was there, it must have been a small part. Similarly, there was neither Andaman Nicobar nor Lakshadweep in it. These two islands are so large, my point is that the maps we have seen of those large empires were different from today's India. The overall point is this: after the Muslim Sultanate came the Mughal era, they too had different geographical lines. One Mughal emperor had one geographical line, another another. So, to say that this new country that has emerged today, after independence on August 15, 1947, is something we have always called India or Gan Hindustan, is not factually correct. The first thing I want to put before you here is where did it come from? It emerged from an unmatched historical mass movement, and that mass movement fought against British imperialism in various parts of India for 150 to 200 years. Very few people even think about this. Historians know about it, but among the general public, a perception has developed as if this geographical line was always there. People will say that this geographical line must be very important. Before partition, today's Pakistan and Bangladesh were also included. Some people say that there is no difference between Nepal and India; both can be called Hindu nations. But this country which we call India and which we love so much, never had such a geographical line before August 15, 1947. The history behind its creation, the 150-200 years of fights fought against British imperialism in different parts of the country, gradually gave rise to the notion that this would be a new India. When independence from British imperialism is achieved, this new country would have such a geographical line which never existed before. If we accept this, then a lot of this blind nationalism of today, blindly, is about making a stick out of love. It is not a matter of love, it becomes a stick to beat people. Instead of changing, it will actually be a country which we can love and we have to love this country. So, the fight for independence that was fought, in another sense, is an absolutely unprecedented fight in the whole world, in my opinion, it has no parallel because This fight wasn't just about creating a new state or a new country. It was about the exploitation of India by British imperialism, the exploitation of its people, the exploitation of its natural resources, the plunder of this entire country. If we emerge from this, we will have a more just and egalitarian nation where there will be equality, free from discrimination, free from all kinds of discrimination. A nation with many languages, many religions, many types of food, many different customs, many different methods of farming, not just one but many different methods. If you look at the way farming is done in Meghalaya today, it is completely different from the way it is done in Uttar Pradesh or Tamil Nadu. The farming in Tamil Nadu is different from the farming in Uttar Pradesh. Even the designs of the ploughs that are pulled down by bulls are different everywhere. The small iron tools used in farming are also different everywhere. The style of farming, the style of growing and harvesting crops, the style of extracting grain from the crop, all these are different. The country with so much diversity that was emerging during the freedom struggle, its development gradually changed. When the fight for independence against British imperialism reached new areas, when it came out of the Ganga Yamuna plains and reached Assam or from Assam it went ahead and reached Arunachal and Nagaland, then a new Hindustan, a new India was born, we should understand this and that fight was for an India which would not be an India of robbers, it would not be an India of only one ruling class, it would not be an India of only the upper classes, it would not be an India of only the upper castes, that India would include all those castes, all those people, the common people who constitute more than 80 percent of the country's population, which is the majority of the country's population, which some people call Bahujan Samaj, the majority population which is not only poor, not only exploited, not only oppressed, but it is the people who actually do the work of production, do the work of production, that is why these songs were written by the tribals in some tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, I do not remember the full story but I remember the sentiment, the sentiment is that who made the Parliament, we made it, it is not the rulers who made the Parliament, it is just another brick and He cannot lift a stone or a cement pan, so this huge building of the Parliament, which is our symbol of democracy, has been built by the poorest section of the country, they are tribals, Dalits, the poorest among the backward classes, they are Muslims, the artisans and craftsmen, most of the workers of North India are Muslims, they come from there, whether they are laborers, auto mechanics or people working in auto garages, a new pedagogy of masters has arisen from there, these people have built these buildings, they have built huge multi-storey buildings, they have built huge multi- storey buildings of Ambani and Adani, they have built all the big luxurious areas of Bombay and Kolkata and Chennai and Delhi, who built the new Gurgaon, the people of Gurgaon, such a wonderful new Gurgaon, this Gurgaon has been built by the poorest section of the society and the fight for such an India was not being fought that these people will build it, the people from 80% of the country, who are from the lowest classes and lower castes, will build it and after that, no one even steps there. If they can't even stand, they will be out of bounds for them, they can't enter again. Once they've set it up, get out of it. Now only the rich people will come, from the upper classes and upper castes. Now the poor people can't even come. The one who is being set up, they can't even scratch the Parliament. The Parliament is out of bounds for them even today. So, the fight for this India was being fought and in this, when Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule in 1848, Savitribai Phule, who is the first renowned educationist of the country's most modern India, opened four schools under the idea of ​​a uniform school system. In 1848, those were schools for poor girls, schools for girls from backward oppressed castes. Then, schools were also opened for boys from the same classes. And taking that whole concept forward, Jyotiba Phule, when he sent the Hunter Commission, which was the first education commission of the British era, in 1882, it is a great irony that the revenue that the British state collects to fill its treasury comes from the productive classes of the country, from the hardworking farmers, from agriculture and from laborers. But when That treasury is used to spread education in India, all its benefits are taken by the upper class and upper caste people, this should not happen. Jyotiba Phule laid down a very fundamental principle for a new India. This should not happen, which is happening now. What is the use of the freedom struggle, even if we win the freedom struggle and drive away the British. After that, what Jyotiba Phule had said should not happen, the same thing started happening, which is happening today. Even today, the source of filling the government treasury is the production of more than 80 percent of the poor and backward caste people of the country, that is their productive power. But the real benefit of this is not only in education, but also in health, education, transport, even in trains, only then will the bullet train be built, otherwise the bullet train cannot be built. In this India, the benefit of this goes to the upper class, upper caste people who belong to the ruling class. The fight to create such an India was never being fought. The situation was clear. Let me give you another example of this, when in the last years of 1890, in Maharashtra, The king of the princely state of Kolhapur in present-day Maharashtra, Raja Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj, conceived the first uniform school system in India and implemented it on the ground. If there was ever a uniform school system in the history of India, then it was only once, neither before nor after that, and that was in the Kolhapur princely state, created with the inspiration of Raja Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj. He gave another formula for the new India when he established a uniform school system, in which children of all, rich and poor, started studying together. This was the system from where Dr. Ambedkar also received education. Raja Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj gave a fellowship to Dr. Ambedkar to study abroad, and when he returned, the entire princely state welcomed him there. The people welcomed him there. Just as I talked about the principles of Jyotiba Phule, Raja Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj gave another principle. At that time, the money that was spent on education in Kolhapur, a small princely state in the southern part of Maharashtra, where the children of a princely state were being educated till high school, was of the princely state. By that time, the Bombay Presidency, which was formed under the British Raj, included four-five districts of present-day Maharashtra, present-day Gujarat, present-day Telangana, and two-three districts of present-day Karnataka. It was such a large Bombay Presidency that the state alone spent more money on school education than the British Raj spent on it. This means that a clear principle is emerging: how much money you invest in schools does n't depend on how much you earn in that state, in that country, in that state. It depends on your political commitment to educating all children. Then you will withdraw. If that's not there, you won't be able to educate. You will say everyone should pay fees. Education will be expensive because we don't have the money. You will repeatedly say we won't educate the poor. We will only provide them with skills. What will you do after fifth grade? After studying, you get out and we will provide you with skills. Your parents are poor. Earn quickly. Get skills. Get skills from us. Start building something. Earn money for your parents. We won't provide education. We are poor. This poverty chant has been going on ever since. Macaulay wrote this in his Macaulay's Minister in 1835 that the East India Company does not have money to educate such a large population, therefore, we will educate a handful of people, a few people and the people we educate will have the same skin colour as the people of this country, the colour of their blood will also be the same as that of the people of this country, but their thinking, their lifestyle and their commitment will be towards the East India Company and our people will be our agents, they will be mediators between us and them, they will be intermediaries, they will take our message to the people of this country, to break this, the freedom struggle was fought in India, despite that, in independent India, from the time of independence till today and whatever has been presented till this budget, it is being heard that this government does not have money to educate the country, the freedom struggle was never fought to create such an India. In 1905, the national convention of the Indian National Congress is held, an annual convention and in 1905, and in one The resolution is passed, stating that the time has come in history when we should break away from the British education system and dream of a new education system for India, where everyone will receive high-quality education on an equal basis. The Indian National Congress's promise in 1905 to take the freedom struggle forward has not been fulfilled to this day. When the Jallianwala Bagh massacre occurred and so many Indians were killed, Gandhiji issued a call to all young people to leave the institutions run by the British Raj, colleges, universities, and schools, and establish a national education system. National colleges, national universities, and national schools are the ideas that are giving birth to a new nation, which will not be the same India as the British. A new India is being formed. Inspired by these ideas, many people came forward. Some established Gujarat Vidyapeeth, some established Kashi Vidyapeeth, some opened a national university in Gandhigram, where it is located today in Tamil Nadu. These colleges were opened, and with that inspiration, new such colleges were opened across the country. A young man was studying in a college in present-day Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, affiliated with Aligarh Muslim University. He was studying economics there. He left because of Gandhi's call. He rented a few rooms and, along with his friends, started teaching BA and MA. After a few years, that young man dreamed even bigger, and the idea of Jamia Millia Islamia was born from it. In Karol Bagh, Delhi, where the present-day Karol Bagh market is located, the Hamdar dispensary operated there. He donated a large piece of land and a fully constructed building. After independence, the present-day Jamia Millia Islamia emerged as a central university. Who was that young man? Dr. Zakir Hussain, who later became the President of the country. I am telling this story because it was the social character of the freedom struggle. It did not arise on its own. I have done a lot of research. African countries have also fought similar battles, and they have fought very fierce battles. They deserve to be saluted. Their condition was very bad. Things were worse than ours, they had been looted a lot, despite that, in their fight, such a clean and clear picture of a new India had not emerged. Although it must be said that such a movement definitely arose in Kenya, but here, the way leaders are emerging one after the other, people are working for it, writing about the kind of India that needs to be built, and the culmination of this is visible in Bhagat Singh and the number of documents he has written while sitting in his prison cell, it is amazing. We cannot even imagine that at such a young age. Sometimes I cannot even believe that someone could think so much at such a young age. When Bhagat Singh started writing about the new India, he wrote that what difference would it make after independence if white rulers replace black people, black rulers replace white rulers, white rulers go away and black rulers take their place, then what difference would it make to the people of India? He wrote that what difference would it make if Tej Bahadur Sapri comes in place of Clive, it will not make any difference unless our economy changes. There will be no social difference; our concept of education will not be different; our culture and our languages ​​will not be managed differently; and the only way to do this is to overthrow imperialism and establish socialism in India. That is why Bhagat Singh became such a big threat to the British Raj. If he had only been fighting to remove white rulers and bring in black rulers, he would not have been such a big threat. He would not have been hanged. He did not become a threat because he threw a bomb in the Imperial Assembly at a very selected place where no one was standing. He threw it after designing it. When he was asked why he threw the bomb, he talked about three bills. One of them was about making a bill in favor of workers. The new law that was made against the workers was freedom of speech and expression. This is very important. Remember, Bhagat Singh opposed the three bills for which he threw the bomb. One of them was freedom of expression, which is being tried to be completely eliminated. And at least after the suicides of Rohit and Mula, which was an institutional murder, it should not be called suicide. The institutional murder of Rohit Woola. This has been done by all the systems of the country, from the HRD Ministry to the Hyderabad University and the Minister, not only the HRD Minister but also the Labour Minister of the Centre, along with the Vice Chancellor, the Executive Council under the Vice Chancellor, the protocol committee formed by him, the entire system was involved to force Rohit and Mula to be hanged, so from then till now the entire issue that has emerged in JNU, in which young people, some who are studying history, some are studying political science, some are studying physics, some are doing MPhil, PhD and those young people are studying on government scholarships, and most of them are extremely poor people, people from extremely backward castes, their castes have been oppressed for 5000 years, the young people coming from them must have come through so many hardships, so many struggles, and today they are doing MPhil, PhD in English, they are told that you are traitors, they are called extremists, all kinds of labels were pasted on them, hence it is very important to remember Bhagat Singh. Let us understand that the bomb thrown by Bhagat Singh was against three bills. One of them was the bill that the British Raj was bringing to suppress the freedom of expression in the country and to control newspapers. Secondly, labour laws were being made against the workers. So, for those purposes, for those purposes, for which Bhagat Singh decided to sacrifice his life, it did not matter to him whether he had to hang on the gallows or not. It seemed as if that young man had already decided to hang himself. And the new voice that emerged from that sacrifice has not died till date. It is the voice of Bhagat Singh that inspires the students of Hyderabad Central University, which inspires the students of Film and Television Institute, Pune, which inspires the students of JNU. When the students of Delhi University unite and attack their university in the name of four-year undergraduate program, in protest against that attack, they raise slogans of Bhagat Singh Zindabad. When the students of JNU are told that you are traitors. So, they raise slogans of "Long Live Bhagat Singh." When students of the Film and Television Institute, Pune, fight to save their institute, they raise slogans of "Long Live Bhagat Singh." And when students of Hyderabad Central University fight this battle, they raise another slogan of "Long Live Bhagat Singh" and say that socialism should prevail in the country. On the other hand, they add slogans of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar. This character is the political character of India's freedom struggle. If we remember this, then this kind of blind nationalism, the new wave of which is currently being imposed, will never work on us. I also believe that if those who talk about nationalism understand this history of the freedom struggle, most of them will also abandon whatever the ruling class is doing. They will understand that we gained independence to build a new India, not to keep the old British rule alive. So, remember Subhash Chandra Bose. When he emerged as a powerful leader of the Congress, most of his speeches talked about socialism. Listen to Jawaharlal Nehru. He is talking about socialism, although there were different definitions of socialism, Bhagat Singh 's, I would say the most radical definition of change was that of creating a new India, but even then a new socialism has to be brought where at least there will be no capitalism, its idea was linked with independence, no one could speak against it, there could be no talk and when India is formed, we forget this fact that in 1946, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly of that time, till then he had not become the chairman of the drafting committee, he gave a memorandum in front of the Constituent Assembly, in which he said that it was on behalf of the All India Depressed Classes, which had set up an all India level system of backward castes, that memorandum was given on its behalf, in which he had said that it is very important to have independence. To ensure that we distribute the land in the country equally and in such a way that the wealth of the country is distributed equally and the gap between the rich and the poor is eliminated, no attention was paid to this and he only wrote that if this has to be done then it cannot be done by just making a policy because policies can be changed, today we will make a policy, if the next one comes and if he does not like it then we will change it, therefore it should be included in the Constitution of India, it should become a part of the Constitution, his demand that the land should be distributed equally was not accepted and till today the condition we are in, due to which you say that Naxalites have emerged, why have Naxalites emerged, Naxalites emerged because Tata, Birla, Ambani did not emerge, if Tata, Bila, Adani had not been promoted then Naxalism would not have been possible, it would have been impossible, if you had kept the promises of the freedom struggle, created new aspirations in the people, the dream you had seen, shown, the common dream of the people of India, had you followed that path then there would have been no Tata, Birla, Ambani There would be no Naxalism. What Naxalism is saying is establish a socialist India. You establish that on your own. The Naxalites will not resort to violence, thinking that their objective has been achieved. It is such a simple and true thing. We have so much difficulty understanding it. When you see the dream of a new India through the freedom struggle, not only free from the British, but also free from discrimination, free from hunger, free from plunder, free from exploitation and free from capitalism, all this was connected in that freedom struggle. When the dream of India that the freedom struggle saw does not come true, then crores of people of the country, who are many, get troubled. Their faith is shaken. The faith in the foundation of this country starts shaking and then they fight in their own way. Some fight in the name of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, some fight in the name of Bhagat Singh, some fight in the name of Subhash Chandra Bose, some fight in the name of Gandhiji, some fight in the name of Jyotiba Phule, some set up an organization for Savitribai Phule. All these are various types of fights. This is all a fight for that India which we fought against the British Raj to get freedom. This India never existed and does not exist even today. So when these students raised those slogans in JNU, Kanhaiya raised those slogans, he was put in jail for raising those slogans. He raised slogans like, we want freedom from hunger, we want freedom from Manuism, we want freedom from capitalism, we want freedom from plunder and exploitation, we want freedom from violence, we want freedom from all these things so that the dream which Bhagat Singh had can come true. So in my view, this is the definition of patriotism. The definition of patriotism is not geographical lines, it can be exchanged, but the people who live in this geographical line, those programs whether economic, social, cultural, industrial, health, education, anything, whether in favor of women, in favor of children, programs to destroy caste, those policies, those programs which lead towards that, take towards this dream, those are I would say that are nationalist programs and those which do not take us towards that, are anti-national programs which benefit the big capitalists. They raise funds and waive taxes worth Rs. 5 lakh 6 lakh crores every year in their favour. Those who build bullet trains, the donations are for the extremely rich people, for such rich people, there will be richest among the rich, not one in 100, not one in a thousand, not one in 10,000, one in a lakh, they build bullet trains for one lakh people, for that they take a loan of Rs. 9,000 crores, they kneel before Japan, how can they be nationalists? Today students are saying that these current capitalist policies are wrong, if these are changed then students will also be in danger, like Bhagat Singh became a danger because he became a danger, he used to say give freedom of expression to the workers, prepare labour laws in favour of the workers, these were his demands, it was a danger for the British rule because it went against the economic foundation of the British rule, the economic foundation through which the British rule was looting India, if laws are made in favour of the workers then they will not be able to loot India, the workers will get a share, they will get a respectable share in the production which they have done and when If the media stands in their favor, then you will face difficulties, therefore, impose restrictions on the media as well. The same provision of cession countries that the British Raj used is still being used. This is the same cession clause in the Indian Penal Court and it was used for the same purpose for which the British Raj did it. The present government is using it for the same purpose and previous governments have also done it many times. This is not the first time this is happening because the understanding of the country by the ruling class is completely different from the understanding of the common people. The ruling class believes that being a traitor means that those who rebel against corporate India are anti-nationals. Those who speak against corporate interests are anti- nationals. And when the World Bank is welcomed in India to loot India, when the WTO is invited to loot India's education system, to destroy India's agriculture, then those who oppose the World Bank and WTO are traitors. Someone should ask them who gave this definition of countries, from Savitribai Phule to Gandhi to Bhagat Singh to Babasaheb Ambedkar, and where did this definition of countries originate from? From the corporate market, from the corporate capital, which is not controlled here, which is not controlled in our Parliament, which is controlled in Washington DC. By Washington DC, I do not mean the American government, I mean that global capital which is dominated by the American government, without whose permission the President of the WTO or the World Bank cannot be appointed, without whose permission the policies of the WTO cannot be decided, so Washington DC is asked what kind of education should be there in India, what kind of health system should be there, what kind of transport system should be there, how should trains run, how should farming be done or not, what kind of industries should there be, whether cottage industries should be promoted or pushed back, should small industries be run or not, all these policies are directed from Washington DC and hence when the workers, farmers and students of the country raise their voice against it, poor women protest against it, then you feel that the country is crying. I would just like to add here that if we want to make India as per our Constitution and as per the dreams of people like Bhagat Singh, Doctor Baba Saheb Ambedkar, then instead of national love, we will have to learn patriotism and the meaning of patriotism. This is what loving the people means, so when students say we want freedom from hunger, we want freedom from Manuism, we want freedom from capitalism, we want freedom from WTO, we want freedom from the World Bank, then instead of playing another audio tape over it and drowning it with slogans of Pakistan Zindabad, you should make the people of the country listen to it loudly, this is the India for which they are demanding, for which we too have to work, and this country is not crying, this is love for the people of India, so you should not panic, and this Sultanate panics because it knows that if the student movement goes ahead, corporate interests will be harmed, Tata, Birla, Ambani, Adani, all those who are coming in the Forbes list, they are all panicking, what is happening, why is this happening, why is our voice not being heard here, no one is raising slogans of freedom for our voice, it is they who are raising slogans of freedom, if that is accepted then the loot that we have caused in India, and in this loot, FDI companies and big companies of the whole world are also involved, through which Indian companies and their Indian companies FDI has come, slogans of freedom from FDI were also raised in JNU, Hyderabad Central, these are those people, these are those students who understood Bhagat Singh, understood Ambedkar, these are those students, I want to ask, what is your problem with today's rulers, what is your problem with Bhagat Singh, what is your problem with Babasaheb Ambedkar, why are you scared of Periyar, Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule, because they are talking about equality, they are talking about freedom from discrimination, why do you not accept it, if you do not accept it then why did you take oath on the Constitution of India, why did you deceive us, why did you keep us in illusion that we will follow you, on this great book, on this historical book, on the book which is born out of the freedom struggle, you put your hand on it and say that we will follow you, you knew that you were not going to do it, you knew that there should be a case against them in the Supreme Court, why did you lie, you swore, you did not accept the policies in the manifesto which was your manifesto, your election manifesto, so what was your intention expressed in your election manifesto also It was not of an India free from equality and discrimination, so despite that ill intention, you took oath on the Constitution of India which has Article 39, Article 14, that no such law will be made, this is not what I am sorry, this is what I said, Article 14 says that all citizens of India will be equal before any law made in India, all citizens will be equal, whether it is Kanhaiya's poor father living in a remote village of Bihar, or Rohit Bamola's mother living in Guntur who grew up by working hard, a law of equality will be made for all of them, which was not made, sub-section 1 of Article 15 says that the Indian state shall not discriminate against any citizen of India, whether that citizen belongs to any religion, any class, any caste, any gender, any language, any area, in the presence of these two constitutional principles, Article 14, Article 15, how did you make such policies that the rich will get very expensive hospitals and the poor will not get any. They won't even get a primary health center in their villages. How did you not create such a health policy? How did you create such an education policy that to study in good engineering colleges, students from Nagaland and Manipur will have to come to Delhi or Mumbai or Bangalore. This means they will spend thousands of rupees on travel and then rent a room there. You haven't built a hostel there, they will rent a room and then they will have to pay huge fees. This means only the children of the rich in those states will study there, you haven't made any arrangements for the children of the poor. So, when you don't establish good institutions in Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh, it means you are saying that we didn't accept Article 15, we did n't accept Article 14. If you don't accept the Constitution, then leave the throne. You ca n't sit on this throne without swearing on the Constitution. And an oath is n't some kind of drama that you'll make by getting a video clicked. An oath means you believe it, you believe it from the heart. You won't do anything that violates Article 14 or Article 15. You wo n't do anything that violates Article 39. You have violated all these and have done so continuously. You did it, your predecessors did it, everyone did it. I want to raise one more question in this context. Many times people ask me that you are saying so much, this government is also doing the same. We have been reading that the different subsidiary branches of the Sangh Parivar talk about patriotism and they also talk about Swaraj and they also talk about self-reliance. So what does that mean? It is correct to some extent, such things have been said by their different people, their different organizations. I believe that at this time, the small organizations which were associated with the Sangh Parivar also talked about a new economy in the country, if by mistake they also talked about self-respect or they also talked about Swaraj, for some they also talked about Gram Swaraj, such things have happened among them. This was never the central understanding of the Sangh Parivar even at that time and how could it have been? A central understanding is formed only when you become a part of this long freedom struggle, when these ideas are incorporated. When the fight to establish these ideas was being fought, you were sitting on one side with your saffron flag and were making compromises with the British Empire and were supporting them, so where did you understand this? It could not have come from. It comes to some people because somewhere or the other they are seeing that there is so much poverty, so much discrimination, so much mess in the country, so somewhere consciousness awakens within them and they start raising their voice. Now they too have disappeared. Why did it happen that they too have disappeared? The few who were there sometimes were seen here and there, they too are not there now. And the rest, we did not expect anything from the Nagpur headquarters. We should never have expected anything and it would be our misunderstanding if we expected anything. I remember that within a month of Modi becoming the Prime Minister, a report was published on the front page of a major newspaper. The title of that report was very important. It was written in the report that not even a month had passed that the Sangh Parivar will either change or be destroyed. It will either change or be destroyed, it will end. And then the author explained that a few days ago, the head of the Sangh Parivar, Mohan Bhagwat ji, had gone to Bhopal. There, a youth training program was conducted for the youth. In that program, he said that when Atal Bihari ji's government was formed, he had proposed that there is a need to ban 26% foreign direct investment or FDI in the defense sector. Mohan Bhagwat himself told the students and the youth that we strongly opposed it because we felt that no foreign capital should come into the country's defense system. Then Mohan Bhagwat further said that now Modi ji is saying that there should be at least 50% foreign direct investment in the defense sector. So we have thought a lot about it and we have come to this conclusion in Nagpur that Modi ji's words should be accepted. In today's need, 50% foreign capital is not such a strange thing. It should be accepted. This means that whatever the Sangh Parivar understands about the country's independence, sovereignty, security, it is changing very fast and now they are ready to accept the dominance of global capital by mortgaging India's sovereignty. The sovereignty that we achieved at independence through the Constitution of 1950, we have not lost it. If they are ready to mortgage it too, then whatever definition of patriotism they keep speaking, this is included in it, then what can we expect from them when you yourself are saying that you have changed and are ready to invite world capital to rule India, that too in a sensitive matter like the defence sector, on one hand you repeatedly remind us of a brave soldier like Hanu Thampa who gave his life in the irrigation ditch, to please Kanhaiya, and on the other hand you do not mind if at least 50 percent foreign currency (foreign capital) comes into the defence sector, how will this be in the interest of the country, then will the map of the Pathankot air base not be in the hands of those who will give you the capital, despite this you agreed and then you remind us of that same poor soldier Thampa who gave his life for the people of this country, he himself is the son of an Anganwadi mother, to beat Kanhaiya, so we do not agree with your nationalism at all, brother, this is not nationalism at all, it is an agenda to sell the country and I absolutely It is clear that at this time the Sangh Parivar has become an agency for imposing global imperialism on India and is working for them. That is why it gets scared of students raising slogans for a socialist India. That is why it is scared. That is why they will garland Bhagat Singh and teach Bhagat Singh's teachings. They will also go and teach in their shakhas. But the message to the community that Bhagat Singh issued while sitting in a prison cell has stirred and inspired people in the country till date. It tells how to build a socialist India and what will be the agenda for building a socialist India, step by step, step by step. There is a complete plan for it, what will be the strategy for bringing about a socialist India. If he is not taught, he is thrown out. The Sangh Parivar and the government run by them, their ruling class are also afraid of him. They are afraid of the message to the community. Why am I an atheist? It is Bhagat Singh's most historical article. It is an absolutely classic article in the world. It is of such quality that if it had been written in English, it would have been awarded the Nobel Prize. Why am I an atheist? Because it has logic, it has philosophy, and along with philosophy, there is logic. Standing on logic, the young man is saying while sitting in a prison cell, I Why am I an atheist? Because I believe in logic. Let's remove that and keep that. So, they ca n't worship Bhagat Singh by keeping the message to the community. Nor can they do it by keeping the reason why I am an atheist. And similarly, his amazing article written in 1923, seven years before his hanging, about which we know very little, The Problem of the Untouchables, it has such a small title, The Problem of the Untouchables. He started saying this even before Baba Saheb that the problem of the untouchables is related to the distribution of land. The unequal distribution of land, as long as the distribution of land remains unequal, the word Dalit did not exist for the problem of the untouchables at that time. It came after Baba Saheb Ambedkar. At that time, the words 'untouchable' and 'untouchable' were in use. So, Bhagat Singh used the word 'untouchable' and said that the problem of the untouchables was that as long as there is unequal distribution of land and this distribution continues, the problem of the untouchables cannot be solved. He had said, O untouchables of India, if you want respect in India You want to be free from discrimination in society, you want respect in society, so fight for equal distribution of land and this is what Baba Saheb Ambedkar said in 1946 when he gave his memorandum to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of All India Depressed Classes that there should be equal distribution of land in India, that idea and Bhagat Singh's idea become one, they are afraid that the Sangh Parivar will include this in its agenda, it cannot do it because it is against equality, it is against equality, that is why it believes in the caste system, that is why it believes in Manuism, that is why it says Manusmriti is more important than the Constitution of India because it does not believe in equality, Manusmriti is not only against us on the question of caste, it is against the society and that is why it is against us, it treats women like animals, it is against the equal rights of women, it is against the equal rights of the disabled, it also makes fun of the disabled, Manusmriti makes fun of Dalits and tribals, that Brahminical text called Manusmriti is an Indian Those who are against the Constitution are against our tricolor flag. The tricolor flag was hoisted after fighting for independence in the exact opposite direction. Those who raised the tricolor flag can never talk about Manusmriti. So when we go deeper and understand these things, we understand that our fight is to restore the dreams of independence. Our fight is to establish the Constitution of India. And when I talk about the Constitution, I am not saying that there can be no mistakes in the Constitution. It is possible that there are some weaknesses in the Constitution. You may try to point out one or two of its parts tomorrow and see that this is not right. I also know that there are two or three such parts. But this is not the time to find weaknesses in the Constitution. This is the time to make the Constitution a weapon and advance the fight for socialism so that an India can be established which will belong to the people of the country and not to a handful of rulers. It will not be just about replacing white rulers with black rulers. It will actually be about creating a new India. I believe that if we fight for this new India, then many voices of India which do not scare the ruling class will be heard. It seems as if she will ruin the country. Why are you talking about equality? Why are you talking about changing the distribution of land? Why are you saying that hospitals shouldn't be exclusively for the rich? But that should n't be the case at all. Hospitals for the rich should be for everyone. There shouldn't be such colleges and universities where the children of the rich go. We need everyone's children to attend such colleges and universities. They are afraid of this. But if this fight moves forward and the dream of the freedom struggle, the dream of the Indian Constitution, is established, then the voices of instability that you hear will be the voices of building a new India, a strong Hindustan. Because these will not be the voices of building a nation, they should be the voices of building a happy people, a prosperous people. And a happy people doesn't come from atom bombs, bullet trains, smart cities, digital India, or skill India. A happy people comes from following the Indian Constitution. A happy people comes from dreaming new dreams by connecting with Bhagat Singh and Ambedkar. If you are afraid of these dreams, then I will say again, leave the throne you are sitting on. Hand it over to the Rohit Bamalas and Kanhaiyas of the country, and they will handle it. Because his thoughts are right, he is really a people lover and a patriot, give this much to such people.