Acharya Prashant addresses the question of whether one should be apologetic about using the term 'veganism'. He begins by stating that one should never be afraid, so there is no question of being afraid in this matter. He suggests that in the Indian context, the word 'veganism' might seem like a Western fad. Therefore, he proposes using the term 'pure vegetarianism' (shuddh shakahar) instead. This term, he explains, is better because many people in India are already vegetarian, and calling it 'pure vegetarianism' also implies that the other kind of vegetarianism, which includes dairy, is 'impure vegetarianism' (ashuddh shakahar), which it is. He acknowledges that many restaurants use the term 'pure vegetarian' to simply mean they don't serve meat, while still serving dairy. Thus, the term needs to be given its clear and correct meaning. The speaker clarifies that the fundamental issue is not with milk itself but with the entire cruel process through which milk is obtained today. The problem lies in the relationship we have established with animals to extract milk. He notes that in the Indian context, people might become defensive when told there's a problem with milk, as they recall cultural and religious associations like Shri Krishna's butter, and they cannot be blamed for this. Therefore, it is crucial to explain that the issue is not with milk from a different era, like Shri Krishna's time, but with the milk of today. One must educate people about the modern dairy industry's process—how the animal is born, what happens to its calf, and the overall cruelty involved. Acharya Prashant then discusses why many animal lovers and activists appear dramatic rather than logical. He asserts that their activism often stems from internal drama, which is emotion, not from clarity. He gives the example of someone who calls themselves an animal lover because their cat is cute but is afraid of lizards and cockroaches. This, he says, is activism born from emotion, not clarity. He argues that emotion is the root of the world's greatest violence, citing anger, lust, and jealousy as examples. Therefore, activism based on emotion is weak and will not go far; it remains mere drama. The solution is not to balance emotions but to act from a place of depth and internal clarity. He explains that the issue is not about personal likes or dislikes, or which species is closer to us. He connects this to speciesism, which he likens to casteism. Just as people love their own caste, they love their own species. An 'animal lover' who loves only certain species doesn't truly love animals; they love their own ego and preferences. The basis of morality, he concludes, must be a clear understanding, not personal feelings.