India needs a firm and stable government for the next 5 to 10 years: Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev India needs a firm and stable government — not one that dawdles around in search of stability — for the next ten years for reforms to show results, spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev tells Vasudha Venugopal in an interview that touches up on subjects from GST to women’s reservation. Edited excerpts:This is a basic problem with the people here. We think the government is running the country but it is just a policymaker. Unknowingly, people are inviting the government to run their lives. The only business of the government is to come up with the right policies. In that regard, I think the government has come up with daring policies. They have done very well in making policies that are aimed at replacing our foundational structures. Even when the foundation of a house is changed, a certain part of ceiling might fall on the head. It inevitably does. When it falls on our heads, we don't like it, but when the foundations are rotting, we complain. I think fundamental structural changes are being done, and despite all the disruptions, still, I think, a lot of serious policymaking has happened. My only disappointment is not enough has been done in the education sector. I expected dramatic changes, but only small changes have happened. I have approached them and they are open to ideas … there is openness to change.The GST is not a small step. People are still complaining because it is inconvenient. But if you don't go through this, you will have to go through 13 different taxes every day. What you need to understand is one of the greatest problems in the country is corruption. Corruption exists because there are multiple agencies collecting money. Reducing so many taxes into one or two is a complicated affair and also educating the diverse population on this. I think the GST has fallen in place well. This looks like we are hitting the small businesses but what we have to understand is that if we don't fix it now, we shall always remain a small business. If the nation has to become a big business, some fundamental laws have to be strongly put in place.There are many aspects to it which cannot be spoken as it doesn't put the nation in a good perspective. I think, at that moment, it was the smartest thing to do. It brought inconvenience to everybody. Inconvenience is fine but it was needed for the security of the country.As far as I see around myself, in terms of communal and other kinds of friction, I feel, we are way better than what we were in the last 70 years. Go to any village or any community, distinctions of caste, community have come down significantly though still there is a lot to be done. Only thing is, every person today with a phone is a journalist. Lynchings have been common in this country. I will tell you my experience. I was then living in a farm near Mysore and one day while I was going around in my bike, I saw a man being beaten badly. I tried to intervene but I was pushed away. The man died and they buried them right outside the village.When I told the sub inspector who was my friend as to what happened, he asked me to stay out of this. Somewhere a dam was being built and someone spread this rumour that some people are sacrificing children for it. Some strange looking guy came into the village and they went paranoid. Lynching means there is absence of law. When the crowd decides to deal with something, this is how it is dealt with. I am not trying to justify this. This is unfortunate reality of our nation, especially in villages. Fearmongering has always happened, which through technology is being spread faster. Lynching, some people thought, was against one community but they (crowd) can beat up anyone. It is just fear-based and ignorance-based.You can make more laws but who will enforce them. Today the police stations have 12-13 people each, with four of them on night shift and two on leave. Do you think it is possible for a few unarmed policemen to handle the frenzy of a mob?Why 33% is my question? Women are nearly 50% of the population, so why restrict them to just 33%. If you go like this — placing someone in a position just because of her gender — I feel it is gender discrimination. A leader is selected because he has earned the trust of the people or because he is competent. Now if you start choosing them based on their gender, women will always remain confined to 33%. We need to educate our girl children well, and tomorrow who knows, they could well be 80% in Parliament. Policymaking should be gender-free . Discrimination will impair democracy.If a man aspires for a political career. He can start at 18 and go on and on. This is not true about women who fall back when marriage and children happen, which are equally important. That is not gender bias. It is the nature of our life that when children come, women step back because the responsibility of preparing the next generation is with her. In my own life, as a child, when I look back at the way my life evolved, with all due respect to my father, I could very easily have lived without him, but I cannot imagine my life without my mother. The woman has a much bigger role in nurturing the next generation than the man. Probably for most women, the period between 25 to 40 goes in child bearing, bringing children up. When they finally get in, they are always behind men, but that is only in this generation. As a generation passes, a certain continuum will come, more women will get educated. In case it is felt that currently there is a gender stranglehold in our legislative platforms, reservation for women may be introduced as a break-in measure for a maximum of two legislative terms but at no point of time should caste, creed, religion or gender be made the basis for representing leadership in our country.When people's perceptions evolve, you may rise or fall. If you don't know how to deal with that rise and fall, then you start making desperate statements. Even if they damage the nation, it wouldn't matter to you because you are not able to handle your own rise and fall.I did not even know it was Vedanta. Only recently I came to know. I only said there are laws in the country. If somebody is breaking it, there should be government agencies to fix that. You cannot fix problems of an industry on the street. If you support lawlessness, simply because you think you are right, it cannot work. It doesn't matter even if you are right. Just go through the process.Serious depletion of water is a problem, more than pollution. Pollution you can fix if you have the will, but it will take decades to fix depletion. As far as Ganga is concerned, several unplanned cities and towns have come up in the last few decades. Lot of effluent is coming into the Ganga, 70% of which is industrial effluents. We are asking the polluting industry to treat the waste, that needs to be changed. Treatment industry should be different. When your pollutants are my business, I will make sure it does not go into the river. We have already made these recommendations to the government and they seem to be working in the right direction. It is with regard to this that Shri (Nitin) Gadkari (minister in charge of Ganga Rejuvenation) said 70% of pollution in the Ganga will be resolved. It is a smart statement. He excused himself from the 30% because domestic effluents come from a thousand outlets. Handling that is far more complicated. Ganga doesn't need to be cleaned. If you stop the flow of filth, in one flood season it will clean itself.Kashmir is a regional problem. Treating it like a local law and order problem will be silly …we Indians need to decide if we want to maintain the sovereignty of the nation or not. I have decided that sovereignty of the nation cannot be meddled with. We need to settle all our issues and learn to live together within the framework of the Constitution.See, there are several Indias within this India. We need to talk about the most disadvantaged India, almost 40% of the population that still lives in abysmal conditions. For that India, we need a firm, stable government for the next five to ten years. If we lack debate or drama, coalition governments are the answer but the question is will the work get done? People who enjoy their own hot gases, whose survival has been taken care of, they will like coalition governments. If there is a stable government, work will happen. Let us first get out of the pit and then talk about fancy things. The government should be on a firm footing to deliver, not dawdling around every day in search of stability. The country won't go far if there is no stable government at the helm.