Acharya Prashant addresses a question regarding a recent advertisement by a clothing company, featuring actress Alia Bhatt, which questions the Hindu ritual of 'Kanyadaan' (the giving away of the daughter). In the ad, the actress states that she is not a thing or property to be donated. This has sparked a controversy, with some people calling it progressive and others opposing it. Acharya Prashant begins by narrating an old story about a sieve and a winnowing fan. The sieve, which is full of holes, laughs at a man with a single hole in his dhoti. He quotes an eastern proverb: "It's one thing if the winnowing fan speaks, but what right does the sieve have to speak, which is full of holes?" He explains that the winnowing fan, having no holes, has the right to point out a flaw, but the sieve has no moral ground to do so. He uses this as an allegory for the hypocrisy of those criticizing the ritual. He identifies the critics as the clothing company, the actress, and the liberal media. He agrees that the objectification of women, treating them as property, is wrong and that a person is primarily a consciousness that deserves respect. However, he points out that the very entities criticizing the ritual are the biggest objectifiers of the female body. He argues that the film industry, advertising, and liberal media extensively use the female body for commercial gain. He questions how an actress who does photoshoots with captions like "Do you like my hot bikini bod?" can speak against objectification, stating that she herself is objectifying her body for money. Acharya Prashant asserts that these industries have corrupted the minds of millions of girls, making them their own exploiters. He says that while in the past men might have exploited women, today these industries have conditioned women to exploit themselves. He argues that these critics have no moral right to question religious customs. He clarifies that he is not in favor of 'Kanyadaan' and, as a scholar of the Vedas, states that the ritual is not mentioned in them. He believes the right to reform religion belongs to those who understand and love it, not those who are disconnected from it. He distinguishes between liberalism and liberation (Mukti). He explains that the goal of religion is liberation, which is freedom *from* the ego and false identities. In contrast, liberalism is the freedom *of* the ego to indulge its whims, which he calls a base, animalistic tendency. He concludes that while liberalism might be better than false religion, true religion (liberation) is far superior. He also links a spiritual society to a healthy economy, explaining that spirituality teaches right valuation, which in turn dictates what is produced and consumed.