Acharya Prashant Being Felicitated at IIT-Delhi

Questioner: Acharya Prashant ji, I want to start by asking you, first congratulating you about a recent award that you have won. IIT Alumni Association has awarded you, for outstanding contribution to national development, your alma mater, IIT Delhi. From that, I just wanted to pick up and ask you: what do we understand from national development? What is national development? Is it making your country the super economy, number one economy in the world? Is it about your growth engines? Is it about your GDP, about the trillion-dollar economy, or so and so forth? Or is it also about how aware the people of that country are?

Acharya Prashant: Nation is about the people. It's not about land in the first place or possessions or the economic output. It's about the people. So national development is about the deepest kind of welfare of the people of the nation, that's what it means. But there are many layers to it and many dimensions to it. The word "nation" itself has started carrying several kinds of meanings.

First of all, development is for human beings and begins from within. And all the external kind of growth that you just mentioned is for the sake of inner development alone. This is something that we very frequently ignore. We think that buildings or bridges or ports or airports or schools or grand institutions or grand armies or a thriving economy are for their own sake. No, they are not for their own sake. They are for the sake of the individual — the human being. So whether or not those things are succeeding has to be determined by only one factor: what influence are they having on the individual citizen? Because it is the individual citizen that is at the center, the heart of the nation. Right?

So growth and development, as we know in basic macroeconomics, are different concepts. Growth is external. Development is much more internal, and it is for the sake of my own inner experience that I get into everything external. Whatever I do, morning till evening, it has to be something that gives me fulfillment, right? Nobody wants to get into something that makes him or her more uneasy or agitated or imparts a sense of hurt. Nobody wants to do that.

The purpose of all external activity is internal upliftment, and that is development.

May we now come to the nation?

You see, a nation is a group of people held together by a common understanding. If that common understanding is not there, then some kind of principle is there that keeps them together, right? Those principles are often very divisive and shallow. And that's the reason there have been great luminaries who have cautioned us against misunderstanding nationalism.

We could say we are all together because we all love to inquire, we all have a scientific bent of mind, or we want to do good to the world, or we want to understand how our own inner processes work. That could be a thing that keeps us together, binds us. Or we could say we are a group of thieves and hence we are sticking together. And they do stick together in a very solid way, right? And that's what can keep you together.

So nationalism is a double-edged sword. You have to figure out what makes you feel related to the other person. It has to be something deep, not something as shallow as the color of your skin, or the language you speak, or your food habits, or your history, or your religion.

Unfortunately, most nations are not founded on very deep principles, and that's the reason why, as a curse of misplaced and violent nationalism, we had to suffer the two World Wars. They were very nationalistic in nature.

When we do not come together on sublime principles, then we come together on something that is very divisive. So, for example, we are together because we are all white, or brown, or black, or yellow. If we are all together because we are white, then we are together against all those who are not white, and there will be wars. If we are all together because we speak a certain language or belong to a certain religion, then we are together against all those who do not share the same language or the same religion, and there will be wars.

And wars need not be explicit. You need not have missiles flying and bombs exploding to see a war. We are already and always at war within. You can call that as inner war. That’s what the real cold war is — within.

So the right kind of nationalism is about finding the right ground for unity. And the right ground for unity is: I am a human being, and I exist to realize my utmost potential, and that cannot be done without your help, your cooperation. And definitely, it cannot be done by jeopardizing the same interests that you have. Which means I cannot attain my potential by compromising on yours. I cannot come to my fulfillment by hurting you. I cannot be liberated by keeping you in bondage.

That's what is the basis of the right kind of nationalism. And in India, we are lucky to have the right philosophies behind us — Vedant in particular — and a sublime Constitution that embodies those noble philosophies. so we have at least in theory, at least in idea — the right kind of nation possible in India.

And the right kind of nation will always be about the individual. And the right kind of development will also always be about the individual. So these two converge. So national development then is doubly about uplifting the human being from within.

Ankit Tyagi: It's very interesting, when you are describing the whole idea of a nation. Of course, theoretically a lot of people must have read about it. But can I understand from you — like you said about India — that the idea of this nation is largely different from a majority of the countries that you would see as a nation?

Acharya Prashant: Well said. Yes.

Ankit Tyagi: What are those basic principles that make this nation so different? And we identify ourselves — very different people — in the way we speak, in the way we eat, and the way we look also, at times. But we still identify as a nation together.

Acharya Prashant: We say all that is different amongst us, all that which separates us, makes us distinct and diverse, is important but secondary.

It is important, It is to be respected, but it is not the center of our being. And at the center of our being, you and I are one. That's what keeps us together as a nation. You know, we are different in our body, in our thoughts. So in body and mind, we might be different but at the center of consciousness, we are all the same being, striving for liberation, for love, for realization.

So in that sense, at that point, and only at that point, can there be real unity. Otherwise, there is only diversity. And in a country like India, where things—culture, food, and thought, and appearance — are changing every few hundred kilometers, it would be impossible to keep the nation together if it were not for the great principles of Vedant, which are — we can safely say — enshrined in the Constitution as well.

Because, you see, if you look at the Balkans, for example — a little difference in ethnicity and language — and they split. You look at the countries of Europe or Central Asia. I mean, what is it that lies at their being? Not something very, very fundamental.

Why did India have to be divided between India and Pakistan? They said, because, you know, religion is at the center of our being. We are Muslims, you are Hindus — we cannot live together. So fine, there was a split.

Did that experiment really work? Because you are keeping not the most important thing, but something lesser than the most important thing, as the center of your nation. So Pakistan again split.

The Bangladeshi said, "Fine, we might share the same religion, but then our language is different." And West Pakistan was not ready to honor the Bengali language, and that led to a subsequent division. So those are the foundations underlying several countries of the world, and that doesn't work and then there are wars.

India doesn't say, you are an Indian because you have a particular complexion or because you are coming from a particular history. You are an Indian if you can identify with what the Constitution says. Our Constitution is almost a spiritual document. You look at it, and I find it very interesting to map the articles of the Constitution, starting from the Preamble, then the Fundamental Rights, the Directive Principles, the Fundamental Duties. Especially these parts — I love to map to the utterances of the Upanishads. And that's the basis of our nationhood.

And that's why India, the nation, has been sustainable and always will be.

Ankit Tyagi: Is the whole idea of nationalism then adversely proportional to the idea of India, the nation? Because we are a very diverse nation.

Acharya Prashant: I can see where you are coming from. You see, the way nationalism is commonly understood, simply does not correspond to the sense in which India is a nation. Whereas India is the most glorious example of what right nationhood must be like, in spite of that, the common idea of nationalism is not akin to the foundation of the Indian nation.

Our nationalism, as an idea, is not divisive, is not comparative, not dominating. Whereas the usual run of the word, the usual sense of the word nationalism is: I was born here, this is my land, this is my country, this is my culture, my history, so I'm superior to my neighbor next door. There is always a certain comparison and a feeling of superiority, which is very egoistic.

Whereas real nationalism is about challenging one's own ego.

Real nationalism is about getting within and challenging the demons within.

While the world-war kind of nationalism is about saying, "I don't want to look at myself. I just want to kill the one who's out there and occupy his land because I am the best." And why am I the best? Because I'm just the best. And because I am the best, so my language is the best, my food is the best, my history is the best, my kids are the best, my land is the best, my culture is the best, my songs are the best — everything is best because I am the best.

And that's the most vicious, and also the most juvenile form of ego that there can be. No, that's not the kind of nationalism India really corresponds to.

Indian nationalism is a different dimension. Indian nationalism is not about hitting someone or attacking someone. It is, in fact, about teaching everybody.

Swami Vivekananda put it so beautifully. He said, all nations — because nations are founded by people, we say we are a nation. All nations have a particular source, a particular character, and a particular responsibility.

So, for example, he said, the Brits — he said they are, they are traders, and their nationality is about trading and making money, making profits, sometimes at whatever cost. If it includes colonization, they will go and colonize, right? But even colonization is for the sake of trade—you know, we'll trade and we'll extract and we'll become richer, and Manchester and everything.

Indian nation — the very character and concept — is different. You are supposed to be inwardly liberated, to strive for greatness and teach the same to the entire world. That's what the Indian nation is about.

So the Indian nation and, for example, let's say even the Pakistani nation — they're not comparable.

You cannot say, "Oh, India and Pakistan, two neighboring countries," and hyphenate them. No, no. The Indian nation is very, very different — right in its origin, right in its very concept — from the Pakistani nation, or even the Chinese nation, or even the American nation. The Indian nation is one of a kind, extremely unique because we are not coming from man-made principles. We are not coming from a sense of tribal and parochial kind of identification with each other.

"For 4,000 years we have lived here on this land, therefore we are one." No, no, no. That kind of statement doesn't go down well with Indian nationhood.

Ankit Tyagi: I picked up on two very interesting words while you were speaking, and that's my next question. While you were quoting Swami Vivekananda and yourself — self-liberation — can a self-liberated person, although I'm sure it's a very difficult process to be self-liberated, but is somebody who is striving to or are trying to be self-liberated — can that person be a nationalist?

Acharya Prashant: Only that person is a nationalist.

Ankit Tyagi: How?

Acharya Prashant: But that nationalism is of a different kind, a different dimension we said. Because when you are doing good to yourself, something corresponding happens spontaneously, effortlessly, which is: you start doing good to others as well. And there's a great relationship then. This relationship then becomes the foundation of the nation.

If I'm not self-liberated, sir, how will I relate to you? I'll only relate to you in a selfish way, even if it appears quite beneficent. I might appear a very easygoing fellow, nice-to-be-with fellow, but I'll still be violent if I'm not all right within. Even if I'm someone who is gregarious and appears quite light-hearted all the time and friendly, yet I'll be insidious, and the others might not even realize how I'm cutting through their interests to serve my own.

So only the person who realizes where his real self-interest is can be of use to others. And when I start being of use to others — starting from, first of all, myself — I'm of use to myself, and hence I'm of use to others. That's when the real nation comes into being. Now we are together, all basking in the light of self-knowledge. We are not together because we come from the same tribe. That's not a nation that's a very shallow kind of nation.

Ankit Tyagi: It's not even an attempt at oneness. It's — we accept how we are.

Acharya Prashant: Effortless. So the word 'attempt' doesn't kick in.

Ankit Tyagi: Because we are talking about nationalism and a nation, can I then ask you: is there a difference between a nationalist and a patriot? Because does the nationalism as we understand it now — does it allow you to question the nation that you are in? I mean, can you do that? it's now seen as blasphemy, but can you do that?

Acharya Prashant: No, you must do that. You know, the only thing that should be forbidden as the existentialists used to say in their heydays in Paris — 'Forbidding should be forbidden.' Nothing else is beyond the scope of inquiry.

So, patriotism is a nice word. Patriotism is about loving your land, your people, and all that is around you. Includes your rivers, your animals, your history, your culture — whatever there is — your cuisine. That's patriotism. It's between me, my people, my community, my history all those things. That’s patriotism. Between these two, I'm there, and my country is there, and there is a certain amiable relationship. That's patriotism. Wonderful, nice thing.

Ideally Nationalism too should be the same thing — the right kind of nationalism, nationalism detoxified. It'll be the same thing as patriotism. But unfortunately, the whole concept of nationalism stands corrupted since long. So, nationalism then does not comprise only of these two — me and my country. Nationalism inevitably brings in a third one into the picture, which is: some other country to hate, some other country to dominate, some other country to compare.

It does not suffice that my relationship with my land is wonderful. It does not suffice that I'm striving to make myself and my people better. In the common kind of nationalism, in the pop kind of nationalism.

Ankit Tyagi: Beautiful word, that actually describe it better.

Acharya Prashant: In pop nationalism, you are a nationalist only when you hate someone. You have to be a hater, and then you are a pop nationalist. Whereas the real nationalist is like Swami Vivekananda. The real nationalist is like Rabindranath Tagore — bringing laurels to the country and doing something that can inspire other lands as well.

These two personalities represent India abroad even today. And the world loves India because of these two people — others included as well, obviously, not only these two people. So, that's the right kind of nationalism. But pop nationalism has gone insane.

Pop nationalism is about saying: "Me, my thoughts. I was born here. So everything about me has to be great because I am great. I am great, so anything that I do has to be great.”

That's very juvenile.

There is this, Einstein — saw the horrors of the World War and the atom bombs exploding. And he said: "Nationalism is the measles of mankind." It is so juvenile. It's a disease that hits you when you are very childish — like measles. When you are a kid, then you have measles. So, nationalism is the measles of consciousness of mankind — something to that effect.

So he was talking about pop nationalism. He was talking of the Hitler kind of nationalism.

Ankit Tyagi: hTe ethnonationalism that they started.

Acharya Prashant: Yes. Ethnoism. You could attach, hyphenate a lot of things. If it were possible, we could even have gender nationalism — just that our lust probably won't allow that.

and you could exclude everybody, men or women, from your nation. You know, "We are a nation." Or, just as we are doing today, you could say: "Our nationalism does not include flora and fauna, animals and rivers, and the climate. So our nation exists only for human beings."

And we have wiped out 70–80% of wildlife from the jungles in the last 50 years.

That's the exclusive and divisive kind of nationalism. Whereas our Indian philosophies — the Sat Darshan, the constitution itself — and we are talking of Tagore and Vivekananda, they were representing a very different kind of nationalism. And that's the nation India should aspire to become.

you remember — "Where the head is held high."

Beautiful.

That's, that's what epitomizes the nation that we should be.

Ankit Tyagi: Like you said in the beginning, I think it all stems from realization — and self-realization — and that's going to be the very root of the understanding of what nationalism means to you and what this nation.

Acharya Prashant: Nationalism that just keeps staring at the world with angry eyes is a disease. Let's be clear about it.

Real nationalism, first of all, looks inwards. And it is this inward glance that produces a light that illuminates the whole world.

So, it's not that the real nationalist — the inward-looking nationalist — doesn't look outwards. It looks outward, but in the light of the self. And then you get the right kind of nation—the glorious nation that India must be.

Ankit Tyagi: That's a beautiful thought, uh, to end this discussion. We can go on and on. I'm sure there will be many other things to talk about, but for this moment — thank you so much for speaking to us. Thank you so much for speaking to us.

show_less