In response to a question about the view that the Constitution has replaced the need for the Gita, Acharya Prashant explains the fundamental differences between the two. He begins by pointing out that the Constitution has been amended over a hundred times, whereas the Gita has had no amendments. He calls those who claim, "Our religion is the Constitution," fools, stating that such a statement reveals ignorance of both the Gita and the Constitution. If one truly understood the Constitution, they would not dismiss the Gita's necessity. The Constitution can be changed by a simple or two-thirds majority because it was made by humans at a specific time and for specific circumstances. If it couldn't be changed, it would be a form of tyranny, imposing the will of a past generation on the present. This is the core difference: the Constitution was made by man and is meant to be changed, while the Gita is not. The speaker further elaborates that the purpose of the Constitution is to govern society and the country, a political entity. It does not address the inner world of the individual, the 'I'. The Constitution does not guide how the mind should function; that is the domain of the Gita. Therefore, there is no valid comparison between the two. The Constitution is for the country, but nations are built from the Gita. He distinguishes between a country (desh), which is a political entity, and a nation (rashtra), which is a cultural and spiritual one. The Indian nation (Bharat Rashtra) existed long before the political country of India was formed in 1947 and even when it was subjugated. The foundation of the Indian nation is the Gita and Vedanta. In this sense, the true 'Rashtrapati' (head of the nation) is Shri Krishna or the sages of the Upanishads, not a political figure. Acharya Prashant emphasizes that the individual comes before society, as society is composed of individuals. Therefore, any scripture that addresses the individual, like the Gita, is supreme. The Constitution will not teach love; the word 'love' does not appear in it. The Gita, however, teaches love. The two documents operate on entirely different dimensions. He uses an analogy: something on the first floor of a building, even at its highest point, cannot reach the tenth floor. Conversely, something on the tenth floor, even if it falls, remains on a higher level than the first. The Constitution, even at its best, cannot reach the level of the Gita. He concludes by stating that Truth is immortal and unchangeable, which is the essence of the Gita. Everything else, including the Constitution, is subject to change. Thus, comparing the two is a futile exercise.