Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond

Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond 

Srijit Mishra

28 December 2022

Abstract

The post provides a generic interpretation and a lay reading of Rishi Rajpopat’s interpretation of Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryam for conflict resolution. This opens up possibilities for the application of this metarule beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy, John Rawls’ veil in the original position as an aid in his political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator in his moral philosophy.

Keywords:   Adam Smith, Aṣṭādhyāyī, John Rawls, Kāryam, Mahatma Gandhi, moral philosophy, Pānini, param, political philosophy,  Sanskrit, social philosophy,  vipratisedhe.

 

The Context 

Rishi Rajpopat’s doctoral thesis In Pāṇini We Trust: Discovering the Algorithm for Rule Conflict Resolution in the Aṣṭādhyāyī  addresses an important problem for conflict resolution. Pānini’s celebrated Aṣṭādhyāyī on Sanskrit grammar has only one metarule for that, 1.4.2, vipratisedhe param kāryam, “if there are two conflicting rules, the subsequent one prevails.” 

Conventional Interpretation

Conventionally, grammarians had suggested different approaches to conflict resolution. First, the stronger rule prevails. 

• Nitya (obligatory) is stronger than its counterpart anitya (not obligatory). An example of the latter is when the sense in a compound word can be equally expressed by the constituent parts). 

• Antaraṅga (internally conditioned), as the rule has the cause of its application embedded in another rule, the bahiraṅga (externally conditioned), making the application of the former a prerequisite for the latter and in that sense the former is the stronger one.

• Apavāda (exception) is a special rule that sets aside utsarga (the general rule) and thereby makes exception rules stronger. 

Second, if rules are of equal strength, the subsequent one in Pānini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī will prevail. However, all these also led to a host of additional metarules for umpteen exceptions. 

Rishi’s Contribution

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution is in three parts. First, it classifies whether the conflict (that is, application of two rules) is for the same operand or for different operands. 

Second, in the case of a single operand, it develops a method to identify the specific rules. This would further aid in the application of the exception rules, as being specific gives greater clarity. 

And, third, in the case of two different operands, it provides a novel interpretation wherein param in the metarule means the rule that should apply to the subsequent one or the next one from the two operands (say, the rule that is applicable to the latter of the two independent words that aid the formation of a new compound word). Here, I use the subsequent one and not the one that will come to the right-hand side, as indicated by Rishi Rajpopat, because the subsequent one is generic and should hold for people who learn Sanskrit in a script where the writing is not from left to right (while recognizing the limits of the usage because of the script) or even for those who learn (or, have learnt)  Sanskrit largely through an oral tradition.  Independent of this generic usage, this novel interpretation has solved a long-standing puzzle and opens up the logical structure of Sanskrit grammar for wider application.  

A Lay Reading

A lay reading of the metarule could imply that “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This presumes that param (or, parama) means the stronger one or the better one or the best. Such a reading is different from the perspective provided by the Sanskrit grammarians and leaves room for interpretation on what one means by ‘the stronger one’. This reading would be counterproductive as it does away with the clarity involved in interpreting param as the subsequent one or the next one (either in the sequence of rules in the conventional interpretation or in the sequence of operands in the novel interpretation). Nevertheless, we go ahead with this usage as, in our view, it subsumes different aspects of the conventional interpretation as also Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution and also opens up the metarule to a wider application.

In the conventional interpretation, by default, the stronger rules such as nitya, antaraṅga, and apavāda prevail over their corresponding weaker rules anitya, bahiraṅga, and utsarga, respectively. Only when the two rules in conflict are of equal strength then the one that comes later in the Aṣṭādhyāyī is considered to prevail. This interpretation draws from an implicit understanding that in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the sequencing of the rules is from the simpler to the complex ones. And, thereby, making the rules that come later in the sequence in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the stronger ones, albeit the exceptions.      

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution suggests two things. One is the identification and application of specific rules as exceptions in case of the conflict in a single operand. And, the other is the one that applies to the subsequent operand in case of conflict between two operands. Thus, in case of conflict in a single operand the exception rule prevails and is the stronger one while in case of conflict between two operands the one that applies to the subsequent operand prevails and is the stronger one. 

   

Beyond grammar: Gandhi, Rawls and Smith

The lay reading is subjective to what one considers as param or, more specifically in our lay reading to what one considers to be stronger or better.  However, this lay reading opens up the application of the metarule beyond grammar, including for decision-making in other situations of conflict.

For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s invoking of the talisman, John Rawls’ recourse to be under a veil in an original position, or Adam Smith’s reliance on the impartial spectator are the basis to guide decision-making to resolve some conflict. Gandhi’s is a powerful social philosophy for the individual to rely on thyself to resolve a conflict in one’s own mind when in doubt, Rawls’ is a transcendental political philosophy that requires a democratic ethos with identities under wrap to move forward in a reasonably plural world, and Smith’s is a moral philosophy where an individual falls back on thy conscience by being in the shoes of an impartial spectator.

Getting back to Pānini’s metarule on conflict resolution, one sees that the param kāryam (that is, the stronger one or better one prevails) in Gandhi’s talisman is a reliance on  thyself (one’s own conscience), in Rawls’ veil in an original position is the focus on the democratic ethos with individual identities being under wrap (the free and equal citizens deciding for themselves while being blind to their own identities or self-interest), and in Smith’s impartiality is in identifying thy conscience by putting on the hat of independent and disinterested persons (being open to other perspectives to help visualize propriety in the larger social space).

Conclusion

A novel interpretation of  Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryamIn by Rishi Rajpopat  has opened it up for wider application. It is in this spirit that we have suggested a generic interpretation followed by a lay reading of the metarule, “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This lay reading is not for usage in Sanskrit grammar. Nevertheless, this lay reading, in our opinion, subsumes the conventional and new contributions on the interpretation of the metarule. It also opens up the lay reading to applications beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, in understanding some specific rules that aid decision-making to deal with conflict resolution by thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy for an individual in doubt, John Rawls’ veil in an original position with a set of other fundamental ideas leading to his principles of justice as a political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator that aids his moral philosophy.

Acknowledgements

At the outset, I must state that I have no knowledge of Sanskrit, less so of its grammar. My limited understanding is in having heard some recitation and their interpretation as a proximate illiterate.  This note is out of my curiosity, as I was intrigued by the recent discovery that has aided a long-standing puzzle in Sanskrit grammar. I am thankful to PK Viswanathan and through him Br Achutamrita Chaitanya for helping me in my understanding of the word param (परम्), and how it is different from parama (परम), and the metarule.

© Srijit Mishra

CC BY-SA

-x-o-x-

Essence of Deepawali by Sant Jnaneswar: Odia and English Interpretation

The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute have put out a nice Deepawali greetings based on Sant Jnaneswar's c.1290 commentary on Bhagavad Gita. My Odia and English translations as also original Marathi and Bhandarkar Institute's English message are given below.

ଅବିବେକତା କୁ ଜଳାଞ୍ଜଳି ଦିଅ। 

ଫେଡ଼ଣମୋଚନ ସହ ବିବେକରଦିପ କୁ ଉଜ୍ବଳ କର। 

ଯାବତ ଯୋଗସାଧକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଦୀପାବଳି। ନିରନ୍ତର ॥୫୪॥ 

ସନ୍ତ ଜ୍ଞାନେଶ୍ୱର, ଜ୍ଞାନେଶ୍ୱରୀ (ଭାଗବତ ଗୀତାର  ବ୍ୟାଖ୍ୟାତ୍ମକ ମରାଠୀ ନିବନ୍ଧ), ୧୨୯୦।

ଅନୁବାଦରେ ତୃଟିଥିଲେ କ୍ଷମା କରିବେ।

ଶ୍ରୀଜିତ୍ ମିଶ୍ର

https://twitter.com/srijitmishra/status/1455748206663372801?s=20

Burn away thy moral turpitude. 

Let go and get liberated by lighting thy conscience. 

This for a seeker will be enlightenment (or, Deepawali).

https://twitter.com/srijitmishra/status/1455826864845377540?s=20

Original Marathi Verse

मी अविवेकाची काजळी । 

फेडूनी विवेकदीप उजळीं ।

तैं योगियां पाहे दिवाळी । निरंतर ॥ ५४ ॥

Sant Jnaneshwar (संत ज्ञानेश्वर) in his epochal commentary on Bhagavad Gita, "Jnaneshwari" (completed in 1290 AD), articulates the most profound essence of Diwali. #Diwali2021 

https://twitter.com/BhandarkarI/status/1455568734521729032?s=20

Bhandarkar Institute's English message of the verse. The verse means:

(Written from the perspective of lord Shri Krishna)

"As I erase the gloom of ignorance and apathy, 

the light of knowledge burns bright within the conscience. 

Such an enlightened mind experiences immanent diwali"

https://twitter.com/BhandarkarI/status/1455568736430145541?s=20

 

I must admit that my knowledge of Marathi is limited and that of Odia is no where near to attempting to any translation. But, perhaps the spiritual essence behing Sant Jnaneswar's message pulled me into it. 

In attempting the Odia translateion I benefitted by going over Bhandarkar Institute's Marathi and English versions and Odia-English and English-Odia dictionaries at my disposal. One thing that I had to struggle was whether to write or not to write the verse in the first person from the perspective of Sri Krishna, which the Marathi versio does, as it begins with मी (or, I, referring to Sri Krishna). I did try that. See the highlights in bold below. 

ମୁଁ  ଅବିବେକତା କୁ ଜଳାଞ୍ଜଳି ଦିଏ। 

ଫେଡ଼ଣମୋଚନ ସହ ବିବେକରଦିପ କୁ ଉଜ୍ବଳ କରେ। 

But,  decided against that because I thought Sri Krishna's Bhagavad Gita can also be a call to self. The latter I thought would be represented if one considers that Sri Krishan represents each and every individual rathe than rather than Sri Krishna speaking to one. It is true that Sri Krishna speaks to Arjuna. But, it is also true that Sri Krishan wants Arjuna to see for thyself. It is a matter of interpretation and I leave it to you the reader.

In the third sentence I was thinking of beginning with ତାହା ହିଁ as I thought that was perhaps closer to Marathi तैं. I decided in favour of ଯାବତ.

My English translation was done after I did the Odia one and also exluded the first person version, which has been used in the interpretation shared by Bhandarkar Institute.

At some point, I was contemplating the second sentence to be: 

Let go and liberate thyself by the light of consciousness.

But then I thought through and decided that "get liberated by lighting thy conscience" would better convey than "liberate thyself by the light of consciousness."   

In the third sentence, an earlier version read:

This, for a true seeker, will be enlightenment (or, Deepawali).

I decided to do away with the word true because each seeker is a true seeker in their own way.

Your comments and perspectives are welcome.

Meaning of Protective Efficacy from Vaccines

The other day I came across a debate in a vernacular channel where there was a reference to at least 60% protective efficacy from vaccines against COVID-19 even for some new variants of the virus even if one cannot say much about future variants. From the discussion, there seems to be a popular misconception in the understanding of protective efficacy. The purpose of this write-up is to address that misconception.

In popular understanding, 60% of protective efficacy from vaccines could mean that if 100 people take vaccines then 60 of them would be protected from the disease.

In actual practice, protective efficacy refers to relative risk reduction (RRR). Or,

RRR=1-RR.

RR is relative risk, that is, the ratio of the risk in the treatment group (proportion infected from among those who have been administered with the vaccine, R_t) with the risk in the control group (proportion infected from among those who have not been administered with the vaccine, R_c). In other words,

RR=R_t/R_c.

If the proportion of infected is equal in the two groups then a benchmark relative risk, R_tb/R_cb=1. RRR is a reduction from this benchmark. Hence, 60% of protective efficacy in the debate should have been identified with RRR%=RRR*100.

Now, what could this 60% of protective efficacy imply. If the treatment and control groups had 100 people each and if the number of people infected in the two groups are 2 and 5, respectively, or, R_t=2% and R_c=5%, then RRR=60%. This means that if there are 100 people each in the two groups then 2 could be infected from those vaccinated and 5 from those not vaccinated.

But, one would get the same value of RRR=60% with umpteen other possibilities where both the above-mentioned values of R_t and R_c are multiplied by a common factor, k. An extreme situation can be when R_t=40% and R_c=100%, which was the position taken by a panelist in the debate who conveyed that among those vaccinated 40% would be infected and among those unvaccinated everyone would be infected. This is an extreme scenario and in some sense a misrepresentation of facts.

It calls for the relevance of absolute risk reduction, ARR=R_c-R_t. A Lancet Microbe paper (see discussion in earlier blogs here and here), drawing from phase 3 trials of five COVID-19 vaccines indicated that RRR was in the range of 67%-95% while ARR was in the range of 0.84%-1.28%. And, in a population setting for which data was available in one case, ARR comes down to 0.46%.

Based on this, it is quite likely that RRR=60% is to be commensurate with ARR in the range of 0.2%-1.5%, that is, R_t=0.2% and R_c=0.5% where ARR=0.3%, or, if one wants to give some benefit of doubt then R_t=1.0% and R_c=2.5% where ARR=1.5%. By not doing this, the panelist amplified the risk by 40-200 times. This can create panic and fear among the public and should be avoided.

The role of the State in providing vaccination to people by considering it as a public good is a relevant matter. Equally important, in a democratic polity, as conveyed by another panelist in the debate, is the fact that that vaccines being administered are with Emergency Use Authorization and that it is a voluntary act by an individual  who has to weigh the information provided. An informed consent and right to refuse, after being provided with information that leaves questions unanswered, is not the same as hesitancy. For a complex, evolving and uncertain scenario, questions would be the first step for better science.

Comparing Deaths from COVID-19 among Uttarakhand Police in Two Periods

The Indian Express put up a write-up on incidences of COVID-19 and fatality among police personnel of Uttarakhand. It indicates that the police personnel of the state had started vaccination in January 2021 and more than 93% among them have been vaccinated. This is an impressive figure because for a disease with reproduction number or R₀ "R naught" around three (R₀=3), the proportions needed for herd immunity (including natural infection) should be around 67%.

Given this backdrop, it might be a matter of concern that in April and May of 2021 the number of police personnel inflicted by the disease in Uttarakhand were 2,382. However, it is comforting that from among these 2,204 have already recovered while five (5) of them, bless their souls, are no more with us. The proportion of death from those inflicted by the disease is 0.21% (which could increase if there are additional deaths from the remaining 173 who have not recovered). The write-up further points out that the severity of the disease and and the number of deaths were lower than previously observed.

For instance, the proportion of deaths from the start of the pandemic till March 2021 was 0.40% (that is, 08 deaths from among 1,982 inflicted by the disease). Even if one ignores the fact that we are comparing more than 13 months of data with two months and that there are 173 cases for which we still do not know the final outcome but consider them to have recovered, a proper comparison would be to estimate absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) and their statistical significance for deaths among those inflicted by the disease in the two periods. 

The ARR and RRR estimates and their 95% confidence intervals are:

ARR%=0.19% (95% CI: -0.14%, 0.53%) and

RRR%=48.1% (95% CI: -58.7%, 83.0%). 

This indicates that when one compares the second period with the first, ARR in per cent is 0.19% and RRR in per cent is 48.1%, but more importantly both the estimates are not statistically significantly different from zero. This suggests that one should be cautious with the comparative statements between the two periods by using absolute numbers.

ARR is d1-d2 

95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ARR is ARR±1.96*Standard Error (SE) of ARR

SE of ARR is {[(d1*r1)/N1]+ [(d2*r2)/N2]}^(1/2)

RRR=1-RR; RR is d2/d1

95% CI for RRR is 1-95% CI of RR

95% CI of RR is {exp^[Ln(RR)±1.96 SE of RR]}; SE of RR is {[(r1/d1)/N1]+ [(r2/d2)/N2]}^(1/2)

In the above calculations, d  and r denote share of death and share of recovery from among those inflicted by the disease with subscripts 1 and 2 denoting periods 1 and 2, respectively, such that in each period their sums add up to unity, d1+r1=d2+r2=1. N1 and N2 denote number of people inflicted by the disease in periods 1 and 2 respectively.

The write-up also had mentioned that from among the family members of the police personnel 751 were inflicted by the disease and from among them there were 64 deaths. This is indeed an important sacrifice by their family members. The adverse effects, in terms of deaths, is much higher then that on the actual force and this should be an important concern.

One is also curious to know what would be the incidences and deaths by family members across the two time periods. Has that number increased in the second period then a question that comes to mind is the possibility of adverse impact having increased after a public health intervention among police personnel. A period wise break of the data will help us examine that.

Vaccine Effect in Trials and in Populations

In my blog How Not To Read Vaccine Efficacy based on a Lancet Microbe paper it was shown that five COVID-19 vaccines with emergency approval (that is, by bypassing certain regulatory requirement) had relative risk reduction (RRR=1-RR; RR=SDT/SDC, relative risk is the ratio of the shares exposed to disease in treatment and control arms) that ranged from 67% to 95% but, their absolute risk reduction (ARR=SDC-SDT) ranged from 0.84% to 1.28%.

The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA) as per its phase 3 trial has an RRR of 95%. This immediately gives the impression that the proportions of the shares exposed to disease are 1% for treatment and 20% for control, but this could be 2% and 40% or any in other proportions that satisfy k times 1% and k times 20%.

If the proportions for SDT and SDC are 1% and 20%, respectively, then ARR will be 19%. But, ARR is actually 0.84%, which suggests that in the trial k=0.044. And, hence, SDT=0.04% and SDC=0.88%.

It is difficult to replicate this in a population, as design and methods cannot be the same as in a trial. However, following mass vaccination in Israel using Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA), a study shows that RRR is 94% (almost close to what was observed in the trial), but ARR was 0.046% (SDT=0.02% and SDC=0.48%) suggesting that k=0.024 is much lower than the trial.

A further decline in ARR means that the number of people that need to be vaccinated (NNV=100/ARR) to prevent one more person from being exposed to the disease is further increased by 83% from 119 in the trial to 217 in the specific population setting. In other words, the vaccine effect was further reduced in a population setting when compared to the trial.

The authorities associated with mass vaccination need to design studies to arrive at RRR and ARR, along with other aspects, in their population, as that would be of help in their public policy designing. The individual concerned should also have such information, along with other aspects, for them to take an informed decision.

How Not To Read Vaccine Efficacy

To address COVID-19 pandemic, many vaccines have received emergency approval (that is, by bypassing many regulatory requirements that are otherwise needed for vaccines or other therapeutic interventions). The third phase trial data for relative risk reduction (RRR) are referred to as efficacy of the vaccines. 

A popular perception is that if an individual takes the vaccine then the possibility of being afflicted by the disease gets reduced by this RRR%. This, however, is not the case. Then, what does this efficacy mean? From a lay perspective, RRR% is total risk in per cent (100%) minus relative risk in per cent (RR%).

Now, what is relative risk (RR) in a trial. It is the ratio of the share of those afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial (SDT=nt/Nt, number afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial divided by number of people in the treatment arm of the trial) to the share of those afflicted by the diseased in the control arm of the trial (SDC=nc/Nc, number afflicted by the disease in the control arm of the trial divided by number of people in the control arm of the trial). In other words, RR=SDT/SDC and when it is multiplied with 100 it gives us RR%.

The absolute risk reduction in per cent (ARR%=SDC%-SDT%) is the proportion of those afflicted by the disease in the control arm of the trial (SDC%) minus the proportion of those afflicted by the disease in the treatment arm of the trial (SDT%).   

A recent Lancet Microbe paper reports that for five COVID-19 vaccines that have received emergency approval the ARR% are as follows: 

1.28% Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), 

1.24% Moderna-NIH (mRNA 1273), 

1.19% Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S), 

0.93% Gamaleya (GamCovidVac) [Sputnik V], and 

0.84% Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA).  

However, the RRR% for these are:

66.84% Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), 

94.08% Moderna-NIH (mRNA 1273), 

66.62% Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S), 

90.97% Gamaleya (GamCovidVac) [Sputnik V], and 

95.02% Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA).

Note that the reporting of RRR% are at times in misleading ways, as a Lancet Infectious Diseases paper shows. An informed consent, among other things, should also provide this perspective to the vaccine recipients before they take a decision.

Farmers' protest: response to queries from Infobae

A few days ago (27 January 2021)  a journalist from Argentina, Dario Mizrahi, who works for the Spanish newspaper Infobae, sent me some queries on farmers' protest in India. The ensuing piece (31 January 2021) cites Jonathan Kennedy (Queen Mary, London), Surabhi Mittal (Independent Consultant), Arvind Panagariya (Columbia), and me (Srijit Mishra, IGIDR).   My response to Daario Mizrahi's queries in English are given below.

Q: The Indian government argues that agricultural reforms are necessary for greater economic progress for the country. To what extent is this truly the case? Why did these reforms spark so much anger among farmers?  

A: There has been a crisis in India agriculture, which, analytically speaking, has two inter-twined dimensions - the agrarian and the agricultural. The agrarian crisis concerns the life and livelihood of nearly half of India's working population that is dependent on agriculture, which includes the multitude of smallholders with less than five acres of land holdings and the agricultural labourers, and that they have been adversely affected by the decreasing share of the pie. At the same time, the agricultural crisis is about the inappropriateness of the input-intensive agricultural production that is guided by a thinking of one-size fits all wherein costs and risks have been increasing and that these have been further aggravated by the changing climatic conditions. 

These twin concerns require substantive reforms that address the livelihood sustenance of those dependent on agriculture, that are agro-ecological in nature, that are based on resilience inherent in local conditions, and that they reduce costs and risks. More importantly, these require the coming together of knowledge, policy and practice. 

I am afraid that the three recent laws related to trade and commerce of farmers' produce, contract farming linking agricultural production to sale, and removal of limits on storage of farm produce for those who trade on these produce, respectively, do not address the agricultural crisis, and any claims to address the agrarian crisis is at best indirect and limited. Rather, a careful reading of the three laws indicate that these laws are meant to facilitate the trade and commerce of agricultural produce by large entities. This means that the multitude of smallholders will be pitted against few large entities who will buy their produce and thereby leading to their apprehension, and justifiably so, that their life and livelihood concerns are not only not being addressed but are likely to be worsened. In fact, the ongoing pandemic put that evidence starkly in front of them wherein the economy as a whole, including that of the smallholders and agricultural labourers, decreased, but at the same time there are a few large entities, particularly the billionaire club, whose income increased.

Q: What could be the political consequences of these protests if they continue, and how might they affect the government of Narendra Modi?  

  

A: I must admit that I am not a political commentator and my knowledge of this evolving scenario has been constrained by the lockdown on account of the pandemic. Nevertheless, as I understand, the farmers' protest seems to be spreading in its intensity. While the protest has largely remained peaceful and non-violent, it is unfortunate and shameful that there have been some untoward incidents in New Delhi on India's Republic Day on 26 January 2021. 

Sans these incidents, credit needs to be given to the administration and to the protestors for keeping the movement within the realms of democracy, as BR Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of India's constituent assembly, had forewarned us. However, having said that, one is reminded of Mahatma Gandhi's calling off of the Non Cooperation Movement in 1922, after more than a year of the movement, because of retaliatory violence leading to the burning down of a police station. In the same vein, irrespective of who has been responsible for the untoward incidents in New Delhi on India's Republic Day in 2021, the protest can gain in strength by avoiding chaos and anarchy only if it follows the paths suggested by Ambedkar and Gandhi. 

As an observer, my view is that this movement has been growing in strength because of its apolitical nature in the sense that it has tried to keep the political parties at a distance. The minimum reading that I see from the movement is a request to the Narendra Modi government to address their genuine concerns. At this juncture, a possible scenario is that both sides may come to an agreement or even agree to disagree and I do not visualize any political implications. However, if this continues for a longer time then your guess is as good as mine.       

[The above responses were sent on 28 January 2021]