Acharya Prashant explains that one must worship every moment. This constant worship is perhaps what is called 'Dharma'. If something is to be remembered every moment, then it must be in every breath of a person. Therefore, every action, whether the hand moves forward or not, becomes a subject of 'Dharma'. If a person is truly religious, the only criterion for any action being right or wrong is whether it was done in 'Dharma' or not. Buddha also said, "Dhammam Saranam Gacchami" (I take refuge in the Dharma). So, how can you separate 'Dharma' and politics? 'Dharma' is not an activity that you do at a certain time and not at another. The one who brings politics into 'Dharma' is a fool, and equally foolish is the one who engages in politics without 'Dharma'. What would politics without 'Dharma' be like? What would business without 'Dharma' be like? What would your relationships be like without 'Dharma'? What would your daily routine be like without 'Dharma'? The one who brings politics into 'Dharma' is a fool because he has inserted his ordinary politics even where he could have been free from all the pains of his life. And just as big a fool is the one who practices politics without 'Dharma'. Politics without 'Dharma' would be chaos. If you do business without 'Dharma', what kind of business will it be? If you have relationships without 'Dharma', what kind of relationships will they be? If your daily routine is without 'Dharma', what kind of routine will it be? If your politics is without 'Dharma', what kind of politics will it be? But we don't understand the matter at all. We have presented the matter as if religious people go into politics and spoil it. So they say, 'Keep 'Dharma' away from politics.' They paint a picture as if religious people take 'Dharma' and spoil politics. So they say, 'Oh no, there should be secularism.' In a sacred place like politics, you brought a dirty thing like 'Dharma' and made our politics dirty. What a thing to say! Your politics was very clean, and 'Dharma' made it dirty. Bravo! 'Dharma' exists to clean every dirty thing. If you are saying that 'Dharma' has made your clean, pure, white politics dirty, then politics must be a thing higher than 'Dharma'. Because only a higher thing can claim that a lower thing should not touch it, lest it becomes dirty. Then the highest purpose of every person's life should not be 'Dharma', liberation, or truth, but politics, because politics is the highest. It is so high that it says, 'Look, 'Dharma' should not touch me anywhere.' Only two places would want to avoid 'Dharma': either a place that is higher than 'Dharma', or a place that is very irreligious and fears that if 'Dharma' touches it, it will be destroyed, burned, because it will be cleansed. What kind of talk is this? The question is not why there is 'Dharma' in politics. Understand the real question. The real question is why the people who are in politics have such a cheap and corrupt 'Dharma'. You have turned the whole game upside down. You have said that a man is born for politics. Then you should write a 'Politics Upanishad' and only that should be studied. Because that is the highest. Vedanta is that, the 'Politics Upanishad'. The problem is not that people have introduced 'Dharma' into politics. If a truly religious person does politics, no one can do better politics than him. If there is a truly religious person. And that is why it has happened many times that religious scholars, religious gurus, have had to step into the affairs of the state, to interfere in politics. When the condition of the world becomes very bad, then sometimes 'Dharma' has to take the reins of politics in its own hands, just as the reins of Arjun's chariot were in Krishna's hands. What was happening on the battlefield of Kurukshetra? Was that not politics? The war between two factions was for the kingdom. Then what was Krishna doing there? Krishna is a liberated being. Why don't you ask? The entire Gita is the intervention of 'Dharma' in politics. And you are saying, 'No, no, 'Dharma' should be kept away from politics.' If 'Dharma' had stayed away from politics, there would never have been a Shrimad Bhagavad Gita. Then Krishna would have said, 'Look, I have come to talk about 'Dharma'. How can I do it in a political field?' 'Dharma' must certainly be in politics, but not a cheap 'Dharma'. All these politicians of yours who pretend to be very religious, they are not religious. This is their problem. You have understood the problem incorrectly. You are saying that they are introducing 'Dharma' into politics. No, they are introducing 'adharma' (unrighteousness) into politics. This is the problem. What do they know of 'Dharma'? They may pretend to be religious, but do they know anything about 'Dharma'? Taking the name of 'Dharma' is one thing, and being religious is a completely different thing.
