 The word for democracy is Jananaika, that means people are the leaders. If democracy has to work, the feudalistic mindset has to go. We are talking about voting beyond religion and caste, but what about the party? Party has become the new religion. Sadhguru, Pranam, I saw a message this morning which appeared to be you were to eat, you know, in the age of fake news, we don't know whether it was your to eat or not. It said that you suggested the scraping of article 370. If that's really your belief, can you please explain us further how will this help in diffusing the situation? Thank you. See, there is a confusion in the country as to what is India and what is not India. You must settle this. If you don't settle this, these fights will go on endlessly. How many lives have been lost on both sides, for how long you want to do this? We must decide. You must have the courage to decide. Otherwise, if you do not integrate the nation, this problem will go on. This confusion in the new generation that is there also, there is confusion whether I belong to this nation or do not belong to this nation because different people are campaigning in different ways. So, I'm only talking about anything and everything which is coming in the way of integrating the nation must be removed. And in my opinion, 370, article 370 is one of those things which is leaving populations confused, not knowing where they belong. Yes, Mr. Satguru. I want to ask you about psychedelics. Do you think psychedelics can help diffuse violence of given to leaders? You want to dope them now, nothing else. Okay, well, it could be a solution. They'll be so preoccupied with the dragons that they won't worry about each other. See, we need to understand this. We're always thinking one leader is the problem, either here or there. We need to understand we are democratic nations. In Tamil language, in southern India, in Tamil language, the word for democracy is jananayakam. That means people are the leaders. That's what it means. People are the leaders. We cannot simply say that if you give drugs to one leader, our problems will be over. It's far more deep-rooted than that. Well, the majority of the population may not be involved. Even if it's two percent of the country's population, but it is a very dynamic two-percent population. Ninety-eight percent population may be there, but they're a little sleepy. Maybe they're already drugged. They are in a way. They're drugged with their lethargy. They're drugged with stories of their own. They're drugged with these kind of beliefs that somebody will come and save them one day. No, I think we need to get them off the drugs. They're on different kinds of drugs, which is putting them to sleep. It is important to awaken people, not to put people to sleep. Putting people to sleep is a temporary answer. And when they come back, you don't know what all they will do. When the drug wears off, we don't know what they will do. So, that's a colorful idea, though. Guruji, it's an honor to be here. Thank you so much, Amang. Such fine people this morning. In the panel earlier, one of the gentlemen mentioned that the voice of the leadership of our nation is not necessarily the voice of the people. And in a way, you actually led me to my question when you mentioned Chananayakam, which is off the people, for the people, and by the people. So, on one hand, we're talking about empowering people with making decisions that will benefit the nations. But these are the same people that are intolerant when it comes to portraying a fictitious character on the big screen, and they threaten to behead her. Why are we so intolerant is my question, and directly related to the year of tolerance in UAE. I didn't get the point of beheading somebody. So, yeah, okay. Related to the Padmavad Controversy when the actress was… So, we're talking about empowering people, and then we have the same people coming up with trivial issues, which is when we have bigger issues to deal with. See, democracy leaves people with a certain amount of privileges. Without any particular mechanism to insist on a responsible behavior from everybody. So, a whole lot of people misuse these privileges in different ways. Don't take that as the standard. That's not how most people are. Anyway, about whether the leaders represent people or not, the argument generally is, well, only sixty percent of the people voted. Out of that, the present leader got only thirty-one percent. So, how can he be the nation's leader? Well, what the hell are the remaining forty percent of the people doing? When they have not voted, they have no rights to comment, either. So, if it matters to you, you must stand up and vote. It's a privilege. You must exercise that. And how should you exercise it? It's very important now that the elections are coming and maybe many of you do vote in India. See, the important thing is if democracy has to work, the feudalistic mindset has to go in the sense, if even one family votes as one unit, then it's not democracy. This is the idea of secret ballot that everybody should think for themselves and vote. If you vote as a family, if you vote as a caste, if you vote as a religion, even if you vote as a party, I'm saying something which is going to be... I'm going to be unpopular with all the political parties in the country. I'm saying this political party membership should be taken away. There should be no such thing because I see, particularly in United States, if you ask somebody, he says, I'm a Republican. Why? My father was a Republican. My grandfather was a Republican. So your vote is already decided. This is a feudalistic way of existence. Where is a democracy in this? We are getting there also rapidly. In our country, it was not like that in the beginning, but now we are getting there very rapidly. I feel this political membership should not be there. There should be a limit. If they need that many people, maybe a five hundred people, a thousand people to run their party, that many people can be the members. Public should not be members because they're pre-committed, which is not a good thing. Every time when the election comes, you must evaluate what's happened in the last five years. Is it worthwhile whether we should give them another chance or not, is something that each individual should decide. If you decide as a mass, either because of your party membership or because of your religious affiliation or because you belong to a caste or whatever, then there is no democracy as such. It is just feudalism in the name of democracy. And most countries are becoming like this, particularly United States has taken to this and India is going that way. I think if we want a course correction, we are talking about voting beyond religion and caste. But what about the party? Party has become the new religion. It's important that there should be no memberships. People should decide just before the election who they want to vote for. Otherwise, we will subvert the democratic process. It's always a pleasure hearing you, Sadhguruji. Today you have the Facebook lands, the Twitter lands, the Instagram lands, which do not respect national boundaries at all. So when we talk about sovereignty, are we obsessing about a 19th century concept which has become completely passe? Definitely. But we need to understand the region which we are right now referring to, 33% of the world's malnourished children are in this region, in India for that matter. So, nearly a third of our population is not even in 19th century, they are in 18th or 17th century. So when they are in that place, we talking about 21st century as if everybody has gotten there is not fair. Right now you need to strengthen the sovereignty of the nation because you cannot address the people without strengthening that. When populations come to a certain level of well-being, definitely we have to loosen this sovereignty. We must understand this. This making of a nation is at different levels of evolution for a society. Unfortunately, within the first twenty-five, thirty years if we had become a developed nation, we would be talking a different language. I would be definitely speaking a different language. But my engagement, seventy percent of my work is in rural India. And what twenty-first century are we talking about? Twenty-first century we talk only when we come to Bangalore, Mumbai somewhere. When we're in the villages, we are talking eighteen-century talk. That's the condition where they are. So somewhere if we are not able to take hundred percent of the nation's population at once, but little upgradation of at least basic nourishment must happen before we talk about bigger ideas of loosening the borders. First of all, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, reasonably if they're economically in some kind of similarity, then opening up the borders will work. Otherwise when the disparity is too heavy, if you open it up, there'll be chaos and inevitable conflict. This is why I said if economic borders are loosened, political borders are tightened but economic borders are loosened for some time, without scaling up the economy, without increasing the size of the economy, there are really no solutions. Because a small pie, whichever way you break it, it's not going to work. We need to increase the size of the pie. Once the size of the economy is large enough and for it to become large enough, these nations need to function as one, as economic unit at least. At least there is some kind of loose union of doing our economics together, then we can talk about loosening of the sovereignty of the nation itself.