Acharya Prashant addresses the controversy surrounding ripped jeans. He begins by stating that the common reasons given for wearing more or full clothing do not hold much weight. If a person is sensible, they have the complete right to decide what to wear, and no one else has the right to comment on it. He explains that in India, there has never been a tradition of hiding the body; this concept is Victorian. The practice of covering up (pardadari) in India began in the last thousand years due to war and conflict. As India is a hot country, both men and women traditionally kept their bodies mostly uncovered. Therefore, the argument to cover the body for cultural reasons is weak, as true culture stems from spirituality. Spirituality, he elaborates, teaches one not to be too attached to the body. If one is not attached, why would they pay so much attention to covering it? This is one side of the argument. On the other hand, he posits that the condition of being a 'sensible person' is a significant one, which 95 out of 100 people do not meet. The problem is not having fewer clothes, but having less understanding (bodh). When understanding is low, the body is used for futile purposes, such as showing it off to attract others' attention. This is done to gain some material benefit, which is foolishness. He gives the example of Lalleshwari, who roamed without clothes, and no one could object because her choice was sovereign and came from a great height of understanding. Acharya Prashant concludes by addressing both sides of the debate. Those who claim Indian culture mandates covering the body do not understand Indian spirituality, culture, or history. In Indian tradition, there was a detachment from the body, so there was no shame associated with it. Conversely, those who strategically display their body to attract attention are also body-identified. This act is a form of violence, an 'attempt at mental rape,' as it seeks to invade the minds of others. This is harmful to both the exhibitor and the observer. Therefore, while one should have the freedom of choice, that freedom is only valid when the decision comes from a place of understanding. A choice made from ignorance harms both oneself and others.