If children can be taught in the right direction then things can rapidly change, Americans are taught to the required level. At present all that has been proposed and done, it’s good, nobody can dispute it, but it does not have the thrust and the speed reaching up to the required horizons, and my dialogue with you helps me towards to reach to that horizon much more easily and that’s why I really very much like that I am progressing myself when you ask me questions and when I ask her to answer a question, then I discuss with her, I have the same experience. She was discussing with me a very interesting problem: of the aim of life, how to introduce a subject to children.
She has 3500 students at her school. She is the in charge of that board school herself. She is the boss, you might say, of the whole school. The school has students from the age of two and a half to eighteen. This whole spectrum of school education is her field of experience. So that gives me sleepless nights because she asks me questions which I cannot answer, and she thinks that it is not possible unless I want to avoid answering. She does not accept my modesty. So she thinks that I am in the opposite camp sometimes and which I am not. I’m exaggerating to some extent so as to make it more dramatic.
The problem is that he first teaches me over the last 15 years so many things and now, when I want to teach it and give it to the children in some manner, I face opposition. But then I say it’s not okay. If I have it, I need to pass it on. Right? That’s the challenge. And that’s where we keep battling. There are no easy answers, but then things need to be done too. So how do we get the new answers and to do things and not have a wrong impression on the children’s minds.
My question to you in continuation today is how to prepare oneself to the inner work, so that one can be more uplifting.. to work for world peace by organising conference..
You know I go back to your nation in relation to this, it is one of the central problems of mankind. There are many organizations which are aiming at, but in your work the most welcome sign is from leaders’ preparedness to reach to the bottom line of the problem. Take, for example, last time we told you that we want to bring spiritual practitioners together, so let me dwell upon this point. It’s a very, very important proposition.
This kind of meeting of these people can be of three types. One is coffee table style, another is combative type, third is comprehensive type. A coffee type table, all people will come together, they all agree in the idea of this, all spiritual people will agree, so your time will be to give an opportunity to all of them to know each other as individuals and people representing certain points of view. Even Islamist will come and argue Islam’s importance. Christians of course believe in peace.. with this are throughgoing peace levels, thoroughgoing, no compromise at all at any stage, so are Jains, thoroughgoing peace at every stage at any cost. in Hinduism there are various shades, but If you bring them on the table, they will not speak of their shades, they will all agree, we are all for peace. This is what I call coffee table conference. We all meet together and we will nod our head and the other one nods his head and the third one nods his head. They don’t progress from there. You only acknowledge and confirm that we are all nice children of the earth. Only the world doesn't listen to us and let us make the world listen to us. Then the only question is how shall we all come together to make people listen to us and by the time you come to that question the time is over. You can't have conference for a long time, by this time coffee table is over, time is over. So there is a utility of this coffee table conference, it’s good to know each other and even to have some side dialogues among each other and to learn from each other. Everybody gets interested and if you make a survey afterwards: did you benefit from that? Everybody will say, yes, we benefitted a lot and we should have another conference like that again and maybe next year again we shall meet together. This is what happens in coffee table conferences. All are in agreement and all part with great enrichment and congratulations all over.
Then there is what I call combative conference where you allow right from the beginning differences. The thesis is where do we differ, and how to create a common program for peace, where everyone is obliged now to open the cards and say where the differ from each other. Now this conferences tend to go haywire and some agreement takes place. Arguments run like this: we have not appreciated our content, there’s no difference between you and me, but you don't appreciate my difference from you, but you understand in a different manner. Ultimately, such conferences end in fresh exchange of views and the need to continue the dialogue. This is the conclusion of this conference. Now this happens because the organizers and the participants have not raised the kind of questions that you have raised. They are good questions.
Then the comprehensive conference, that I have called comprehensive just for the sake of brevity, is based upon a great quest. This is the quest that you are engaged in, and that is why what you are doing is so precious for the world. You are trying to go into the depth of the problem, as we saw last time. The problem ultimately rests on leading with instincts and the manner in which you deal with instincts. In a sense, this is the problem that through the ages has remained a question mark, and that is why whatever has been proposed, doesn't work. People are engaging in war to prevent war. This is what happens. So having reached this point, now our quest should start in a more fundamental way. We don't want either to say hello, how are you and we are good, I am good. Right, we don't want that kind of conference. We don't want to say that we had a fair exchange of views, frank exchange of views and we shall continue next time and we'll just meet as soon as possible. We don't want to end in that one either.
The third is to make us before a conference comes, you make a big study and our conclusion is not to be let us have war to prevent wars. Keeping this in mind how do you make inquiry? You see right from the time, the last time in Jaipur, you raised the question of Shakti, you came into the real throb of the problem. There is a problem of Shakti. The shakti of today is embodied by a lot of good women. Not only women but largely good women. They are prepared to understand this problem in its real depths which men don't today because men are too busy. They want only conference tables and combative conferences.
So what is that root problem? As I tried to say last time, the root problem is: how would we deal with the instincts? Is there a method by which the instinctive desire to kill can be changed?
I want to put the same problem in another context. In the west today among psychologists Freud has played a great role. Even today, although Freud has been overpassed by Jung and Adler and many others, still people still tend to turn to Freud, because certain things that he has said even though glossed over, passed over, we find still there is something which is so fundamental that they turn to him. What is it fundamental in him? He made a statement that human beings are ruled by two fundamental instincts: Eros and Thanatos. This is his basic terms: Eros is the enjoyment, in drastic terms it is sexual enjoyment and Thanatos is desire to kill. In brutal terms he has declared to the world that however much you try, these two instincts are themselves opposed to each other, but both of them ruled man before he came to the conclusion that civilization is doomed to remain what it is and may even be destroyed finally or if not destroyed there is no prospect in the world to overcome this state of human being, nature is like that. What can you do about it? You may gloss over, we may put all paddings, this is fundamental. Now this is his argument. I don't say I’m favoring it. I am only stating his argument.
So according to Freud, you can create ego, superego, and try to moderate somewhat the explosion of these two forces of Eros and Thanatos, desire to enjoy and desire to kill, but we can do no more. This is exactly opposite to your aim of peace. Now why does he put this problem? He also knew that there are many other instincts, but he came to the conclusion that all the instincts can be grouped into two. Therefore, your proposition there are many instincts, even that can be combated. So I immediately had the conference of view and I immediately agreed with you, because you are right, I am right, you can speak of many instincts. I speak of one instinct. Freud speaks of two fundamental instincts and there can be debate on this subject. It doesn't matter, the essential problem is that there is a force of instinct and one of the instincts, let us not say the only instinct, one of the instincts in man is very much in favor of killing.
Okay, all right. We have to move towards comprehensive. Now what is the message of many thinkers of today who have spoken of peace in this context? Are they not aware of what Freud has said? According to me, great many thinkers of today are quite aware of what Freud has said. What is that the root of that claiming that now we want peace in the world? It is because seeing the horror of war, particularly Second World War, the idea of world peace has become very powerful. Seeing the bombardment of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, mankind’s deepest self has been stirred, and mankind has come out saying this this this aught not to be, this shall not be repeated. Can we interpret this reaction of mankind in terms of Freud at all?
If only those two instincts were really present, then this kind of reaction in mankind would not have been possible. They would have said, good, that sort of like Heraclitus said war is the father of all things. Darwin say struggle for existence, the law of life and struggle means wars, so in evolution you cannot move forward without war. In spite of these messages, why is it that there is this stressing towards peace? What are we going to say at the root level? This is what requires us to think at a very deep level, and what I like very much is that you as a leader of this movement, are looking into the depth of the matter. That’s why it is so fruitful. You are striving to make a conference truly meaningful, because I have seen many organizers of conference who don't go around about asking many people as to what should be the thrust of the conference, what is strictly the purpose of the conference? How should we put forward the conflicts? Because I have seen hundreds of conferences being organized, everybody is very nice.
They stay on the surface.
Yes, and then you spend so much money. So many people come and ultimately everybody is congratulating the other and the survey says it was a very fruitful conference. No conference that is I have heard about was on these matters a very successful conference, but here he is an organizer who says I want to make it truly meaningful. I want to give an answer or propose an answer for discussion which will really meet a real problem, and that is your search
Now I have another question. I came to India with a certain vision. It’s now turning in a different direction, in addition to what we're doing in the US, I have great concern for for what’s happening on the deeper dimension in the US, but I also have great concern on what’s happening here and my thought was that if the yogis and sufis came together and passed if the light of India could come to Pakistan, something could be sorted in here. So my thought was: how can we create some kind of healing with Pakistan. But now being here, I realized there’s a bigger issue emerging and that’s China, and that a very profound spiritual outrage needs to be made to China and so I’m thinking, maybe to organize a coming together of spiritual leaders from India and China, because I feel something very unsettling. So I don't know which one has priority. Where should I focus my attention?
I think it’s a really interesting, really important issue.
What’s happened with Nepal, what’s happening with the [Chinese] in India, what’s happening in Pakistan, a lot of it, I mean China’s the biggest investor now in Pakistan, financially, there’s in a way this. These are forces to destabilize India and I think, looking ahead, the next five ten years how will the dynamic shift I mean? There’s a really a gathering of moral tension that can only be diluted from a spiritual force from spiritual action. I don't think it can be dealt with at a political level. It really has to come from the spiritual planes, so to awaken the spiritual energy change is of great importance, and India has a role because, after all, Lord Buddha came from here.
No, in this task a very important role has to be played by intellectuals, not scholars but intellectuals. China is intellectual, is neither spiritual if you look at the depth of China. If you really bring Buddhist of China, the Taoists of China or the Confusions of China and Indian Buddhists, Indian Vaishnavas, Indian yogis, sufis put them also together, people from both India and Pakistan , and put them all together, it’s a first effort. It is a good effort, provided that it’s not the only effects. This basic function would be that all these people share a common problem, not for solution, but share that aspiration. To share a coffee table conference situation is necessary, indispensable, provided that is not the final one.
Ah, so you're saying the first one has to be at that level of niceties and words.
Yes, but it has to have a thrust right from the beginning. That is how when the conference is held, a problem has to be fixed. Emphasis will be on your meeting and niceties, but already the real problem is to be shaped in that.
So you think we should combine it. So should we combine it, Pakistan and China and India Sufis, yogis, Taoists, confusions, Buddhists?
Let’s just discuss a few more before answering this, the greatest problem of the world—I am just making a statement for this discussion—the greatest problem of the world is India and India is looked upon as a potential prize of all the rival competitors. All rival competitors want to meet India so that they will compete with others. That is why India is so important. America must be in India. China must win; whoever out of these two will India will be superior in the world. That’s right now. The question for India is: does it want to be won by other? which is a deeper problem. India does not want botheration at all. India at present wants to win both America and China. So you see all our industries moving from both the countries, some go to China, some go to America, then they turn, some again go back to India to America. Those who go to China, those want to go to America, they're going to pretend, they keep both doors open and India wants to keep both away from each other and yet to derive benefit out of both. If India really took a decision, they want to sign with America. So, problem will be much easier. If India decided to want to go with China, problem will be much easier, the world plan will be much more clear. But that is not happening.
Should India be doing that because it would be against India’s basic nature to go on the other side, to go with one party against the other, because what could be seen as against the nature of India?
The fact is in India there is a big communist party which, during the last four years was ruling party. It had managed to rule the whole country until last year, till this year and during these periods, which has weakened India’s will to have friendship with America. The tension of the last four years was America or China, and the tension was so great. It is now have been broken. In the meantime, they have been able to strengthen Nepal in the favor of China. It’s the net result. You might say that this is the churning going on and the net result is, Nepal has become communist. Nepal would not have become today Maoist if communist party in India was not ruling the country.
I never realized that!
It’s like the tentacles of China rooted in India in our Indian communist party.
You asked me the question: does India want this at all? I’m answering the question. It is Indian communists, Jyoti Basu, Harkrishan Singh, Karat, it is these people who want a Nepal to be converted into communist country. Can you imagine Nepal becoming communist country? It has happened concretely.
I know, but maybe it’s not permanent.
Nothing is permanent in the world, but there is no consolation on this account. There are semi permanencies, temporary permanencies.
So do you think that the Hindu dharma has been weakened?
India has been greatly weakened in the sum total of the last four years, whatever we've done.
So what needs to be done here?
I know this kind of thought actually bearing down on me, the kind of thoughts that you are having in your mind, you go around in India, how many people are having the same thoughts? Very few, very few are concerned about the problems that you are considering.
People are not seeing deep enough.
That’s right! That’s why when I say that you are looking deeply, you are not interested only in organizing conferences, that’s why I see your organization so fruitful. You have leadership in your organization which wants to go into the truth. You are searching the real solution, real. I have seen so many people, interfaith understanding, philosophical movements and peacemakers and kindness. You are not one of them. I have not had much interest in other peace conferences, but I’m interested in your movement, because of this reason that you have got a leadership, it wants to understand the problem at the depth.
Your first question, which I answered about instinct is one. Second question you raised today is sufis and Muslims on one side and Hindus coming together. The third question is Chinese and Muslims and Hindus coming together. Why are we thinking in these terms? Because we are aiming finding the solution, the thrust for the solution and therefore I would like to explore, not that I know the answer, but I would really like to explore the problem at that level. Even the question you are you're asking: what shall we do? I’m not answering the question, I am only exploring so that it may come to right premises and right conclusions, because premises are not yet sure.
I personally believe America is a great role to play, much greater than what America thinks itself. America wants to win India. Therefore America ought to be friendly.
I want India to win America. America needs India.
No, that’s true, but how does India become part of America? The puzzle I gave is this: at present America wants to win India as against China trying to win it. This formula is not enough. America should win the friendship of India and not India. America should win the friendship of India and India should be friendly with America without being partisan, what she was saying: can India be partisan and yet it can be more friendly with one country rather than the other. Can you be more friendly with one country rather than other countries? We have to make a distinction, solutions can come only when you go into subtleties. I can be total friend with you without being partisan.
You have to be neutral.
No! No! No! I can be strongly friendly with America without being partisan with America, it’s a subtlety which has got to be grasped. Sri Krishna became was a friend of Arjuna, but not partisan with others. He offered himself to both sides. It’s a key concept. Can you ever be, when people think is not possible, but it’s possible, and that is the subtlety that is required and we have to read that subtlety. The spiritual leaders and political leaders chaste men have to come together in this spirit.
Krishna was a perfect example.
Yes, a great example, yes, without being a partisan, he was friendly with Arjuna and when Arjuna wanted to be partisan with Kauravas by running away from the field, he said you shall not. So, in a sense you might say that, even he went one step further so that attitude, it is what I call the true attitude of universality, it is neither of the neutrality, it’s an attitude of universality. India has to recognize, America has to recognize that these two countries, by being very very friendly with each other, can make all the world nations friends. The universal aim can be satisfied most fruitfully if these two countries come together in this service.
You have to work on that.
That’s why I’m telling you, because you belong to America, you just know more easily than anybody in India can help. There has to be a great movement. We can have twelve good Americans who are chaste and twelve great spiritualists of America, and they have to convince the statesmen, strengthen India, not winning, not for winning the market in India which in any case you will gain, even if you run politically you'll gain it, because India is so vulnerable today and America is bound to gain at present. That’s the competition of America and China is such.
This is a very complicated problem. We do you need a lot of spiritual help with this.
That’s what I’m saying that you can be a very important instrument for this thing at this level. The problem is that problem of peace is not connected with spirituality, it’s a highly political problem, more than political, it is statement problem. Fortunately, America has statesmen, India has none. I’m telling you very categorically. India has none, they have politicians and petty politicians, all statesmen are being thrown out.
So what do we do about that?
It will come if American statesmen, they awaken and they should tell Indian leaders you pretty politicians are quarreling among yourselves, and China is in your neck and you'll be finished. China is nearer to you than America is nearer to you. This is the function of the spiritual leaders and politicians government to tell India to make them aware. China does not want universal friendship, America wants it. This is where India and America can grow together. China wants to be superpower and that is all and it doesn't care for Unity of mankind, doesn't care for peace in the world, it wants superpower position. Whereas America, although politicians of America, may like superpower position, but the soul of America is awakened, it’s awake and there are statesmen in America who stand for universality, and that is why that is where being not partisan, you can be extremely friendly, but at present we do not know either.
Sraddhalu is coming to this spiritual reflection retreat. If you can come, you should come too, because I see this as a model, we're looking to do a very deep reflection on the course the country has taken, but I said to Shraddhalu that perhaps the same thing should be done in India, a small thinking of great minds, who can come together for reflection, and it could be under your guidance, really for a reflection on the course of the country for a very deep reflection. So I said to Sraddhalu, I asked him who could we invite to this? Because we don't want the pop, the commercial spiritual movements, there’s so much commercial spiritualism now and that may have its place but that’s not what we're looking for. That’s like the coffee table stuff. So who would come? I’ve been searching in the US for four or five months now to find the deep contemplative people of spiritual depths, and we have a wonderful response who can come together, The visionaries, the people of vision, so I’m, hoping that we can duplicate that here in India, maybe next spring, and I think we'll need your help in this to find the people. I told Sraddhalu I come here and go meet with people. The same thing that I’m people us to find the people so that something new can be stirred. We need to stir something new. We're going tomorrow, Sraddhalu and I have nothing to receive this sage to ask for his help with us. We need the sages.
While I don't say no to what you are saying, my attention or focus on this that what is needed is a gathering of statemen of America, which you can. Basically, to discuss one problem: why should India be friendly, why should America be friendly in a very special manner so that things of world peace can truly be promoted. This is a world-problem if America cannot win India properly, the prospect of the world is very weak, and the people who will be really useful will be statesmen and spiritual leaders of America who will have a dialogue with present petty politicians of India. If you can arrange this dialogue, it will be a real useful thing, of American statesmen and spiritual readers with politicians of India. Don't bring spiritual people of India, they are already there, let them do what they like. Our politicians of India do not see why America should be friendly with India and vice versa. Our India requires message from America, they will listen to America, but they will not listen to Indian sages here. They won't listen, Indian stages would not be heard by Indian politicians. We have plenty of sages all over in India and they have no sway upon politicians at all. Our politicians have bought all of them. They are all in their pockets. You call any inter-religious conference, all of them come and the politicians are moving about. It doesn't mean anything because in India spiritual people say: politics is not our concern.
So that is why, in India, bringing spiritual together doesn't mean much. It is statesman and spiritual leaders of America coming together and talking to Indian politicians, that is likely to be more fulfilling, to make a little more dent.
When we finish our gathering in the US, I’d have to contact you and find out who sort of the leaders here would be worth talking to.
That’s right, that we shall discuss no doubt which is very important. India needs America very much, India does not know this. American needs India very very much and it does not know this. If she can create a real bonding, your entire peace movement will have run on the right lines. The world peace can be attained only if India and America become friendly. This is an issue.
That’s the most important objective.
Yes, it’s not to bring Chinese and Muslims and Sufis together, If we can make India and America truly friendly with each other for the promotion of the universal friendship, not for neutrality, not for non-alignment, non-alignment was a wrong movement because it prevented friendship from developing, friendship among everybody. I am aligned to myself, according to my self-interest I’ll be friendly with others, it’s a hopeless proposition. You know dead corpses are more dangerous here.
You see your movement of peace, if you really want peace, it can be narrowed down to focus on this, like the laser beam on this block the India and America together forwards, because without it there will be no world peace. There is no doubt about it. This is the root point. Can you collect statesmen of America who understands this in the peaceful manner, not for winning, who are truly dedicated to world peace. Even if you can organize even a conference with them, it is much more fruitful than hundred other conferences. It is statesmen of America who understand the necessity of friendship with India, who can come to India to talk to the present politicians and have a dialogue. This will have a strong and effective action.
Do you have young leaders who are promising?
I met him one day before yesterday.
Does he have potential to rise higher?
Make him the Prime Minister of India? If you look at present situation at what it is and you look at all the politicians of India, he’s a young man among all the others. Karunanidhi wants to be PM, Jyoti Basu wants to be PM. LK Advani also, how many years I mean, if you look only from the present moment, he is certainly one of those people who can be already in BJP they are thinking of him as the next prime minister after Advani.
How can we support him?
You must meet him, yes, not me, but you can meet him and discuss with them because he is very popular with American Indians, it’s a fact.
He completely believes in our ancient Indian tradition of the Vedas and the Upanishads and all that is his beliefs, but not as a fanatic.
You read that letter, I wrote yesterday. It so happened that he invited me to meet him. I didn't ask for because I don't have connection, it just so happened that he said I have heard about you, I want to meet you and I had a long one hour meeting with him.
And you were impressed and you thought he was good?
I was already impressed because of my understanding of him, but after meeting him, it was confirmed that he is a potentially one of the people to whom American statesmen must understand, is this man, apart from many others, there are many others but at least this man.
There is today a good climate for this kind of work to be done, for the last 25 years the climate is being built, but it’s not come at a critical point and leaders like you in America should notice that in India, people like you and me exist, they understand the value of America, they understand the importance of America, they also understand that there are many Americans like you who understand India’s value. It is this that has to be increased in both the countries and although it may seem to be a small nucleus today, it can grow into a tree. It can, it has. One must concentrate on that, because that is what the world needs—peace.
So I see what you're saying now, instead of focusing on spiritual leaders, we need to focus on people of public affairs?
Yes, yes, and bring such spiritual people who will be able to deal with them, affect them, not spiritual people who say they have nothing to do with politics. Spiritual people are not interested in dealing with instincts, and that is the problem. Instinctive people do not want to look at spirituality in psychological terms. Your function is to make these two to meet, that is peace. People who are guided by instincts today have to be guided by spiritual people, so that instincts are satisfied, fulfilled, not killed, transformed. If you can do this I’ll be very very happy.
You read this letter which I wrote to him [Narendra Modi] yesterday.
You should meet him and give greetings on behalf of American soul.
Dalai Lama is a very important instrument for the world peace. One living person in the world who is extremely useful for world peace. This is extremely important.
If you do not want only coffee table conference, nor competetive conference, but a comprehensive conference then bring about a concordance of statesmen of America and spiritual leaders like you, not the officials, but the other spiritual leaders, because they will spoil the broth yeah for sure, but spiritual people like you coming to India and having a dialogue with the political leaders of the India, that has a potential for bringing world peace.
When is your election?
What is the outcome?
The election outcome is a very delicate point, because we must realise that Nepal has become communist. The way in which it can influence the next election, people do not know how much it can affect tremendously. The present calculations will all be topsy turvy because of that fact. You see, Moist movement is right from Nepal up to Karnataka and Maharashtra, Naxalites are all spread out. It’s a big belt. It’s almost a corridor produced by them. This is one force which has been created. Bengal is communist, Tripura is communist, Kerala is communist. And China is helping communists. You might say that China has ruled India for the last four years.
Good American statesmen can help India. They can tell Indian leaders, be friendly with America, we don't want lordship, we want friendship. And we have to work together so that world peace can be established. It’s a partnership for world peace.
I don't think India can come under Maoist control.
Why not, it is on the cards today. They have already ruled for four years India. Petty politicians are those who do not see beyond their nose and India today is full of petty politicians. I have dealt with the politicians for the last 30 years. I have not come across one good statesman in my life for 30 years, I have met all petty politicians, they do not see the world at large. This is the difficulty, they are so non-alignment, which is petty politics.
He was not a politician at all. He is a scholar and a very nice man. He’s one of the good factors of India, but that is all, he has no control over politics.
The governance of India does not give any power in the hand of the president.
Why India chose Pratibha Patil against this man who was available on the spot, petty politics. Can an elephant be compared to a dog? It is that much comparison. Why is it that he was available? He was already a president, a Muslim, therefore, no question of communality at all and such a brilliant man, such a man of great wisdom and sanity. He was available on the spot. He had only to be told, you continue. The matter would have been fine, but petty politics. Even BJP said that it wants Shekhawat, another petty politician to come into power as president, why? All petty politicians are ruling this country, so our country has a big problem of petty politicians. If it’s a good statement, I don't mind. Like Nehru was to a great extent a statesman, Rajagopalachari was a statesman, Rajendra Prasad was a statesman.
Not at all. At least three four people were statesman in India. They’re all gone. India is now like 18th century small petty officials fighting against each other, Tipu Sultan against peshwa, nawab against Mughals and Mughals against Hindus. Today, how easy it is for China to prey and how much our capitalists want to go to China today, markets so much they want to go to China, so easy.
We have to have a force which will be like peace force, which is connected with good statesman. So we have to work on that. If you can increase the number of statesmen who are prepared to be Indian friends, that is one basic task to be done. It will increase the world peace problem and solution of the problem of peace can be enhanced. You can gather among American statesman a great understanding of India and the need of India and similarly, if they can help Indian politicians to understand how India can be friendly with America for the sake of world peace. This is the message actually not for partisanship when we become friendly with America, it is not friendship against others.
If you can put your effort into organizing this kind of means, even not a big conference, even 25 statesmen of America and 25 good politicians of India and 25 spiritual leaders of India and America. If this can come together, and only on this, India, American friendship for world peace, that would be extremely useful, more useful than Muslims and Chinese coming together. We don't want coffee table. Somebody else can do it. You can do this. You need to be more focused. You agree with this. Yes, you are a potential leader of the world, so you must take into account all this. That is happening all right.
So first we have to get our house in order in the US, find statesman.
And you need to meet Narendra Modi to prepare for this conference. Already you tell him, we want to do it in Ahmedabad in your capital, for your conference, and we shall bring American statesmen here in Gujarat and he will host a meeting of politicians beyond all political parties and he will do it.
That’s very good support.
Yes, you can support him in this way. You should talk to him, you can talk to him only these three propositions, that according to you, India and America should have most friendly relationship. Secondly this conference should have only specific aim of world peace and thirdly, to realize that this world peace cannot come if India and America do not become tight friends. For this task politicians in India should participate irrespective of party affiliations. If this can be done even on a small scale—50 people— it will get good thrust, action, action conference.