09

Devesh Gupta works at the intersection of consciousness, education, and public systems. He is the Founder of Emerge, Director of Education & Youth Initiatives at The Dais, and Co-Founder of the Spirituality, Science and Public Policy Network. His work examines how fragmentation in human perception shapes institutions, leadership, and governance — and how action can emerge from awareness rather than identity.

He has collaborated with schools, universities, public institutions, and civic systems in India and internationally. Gupta is the author of Eternal Movement and Governance Without the Self. His forthcoming book, From Fragmentation to Wholeness: Spirituality, Awareness, and the Future Beyond the SDGs, is in press with Emerald Publishing. His recent paper, Perception Before Capacity, explores the limits of skill and capability in an era of ecological, social, and psychological crisis.

Q. Are today’s global crises really about lacking skills, or about how we perceive the world?

Most responses to global crises assume a lack of capacity. Climate breakdown is treated as a technological problem, social conflict as a governance failure, and economic instability as a policy flaw. The solution is assumed to lie in better tools, smarter experts, and more efficient systems.

Yet we already live in a world of extraordinary knowledge and capability. The fact that disorder continues to deepen suggests the crisis is not primarily technical — it is perceptual. How we see ourselves in relation to others, to nature, and to consequence determines how skills are used. When perception is fragmented, increasing capacity only magnifies harm. The real issue is not what we can do, but from where action arises.

Q.What is the key difference between being skilled and being intelligent, and why does it matter for education?

Skill operates through memory, practice, and repetition. It is oriented toward achievement and depends on what is already known. Intelligence is different. It is the capacity to perceive a situation freshly, without distortion from fear, ambition, or self-interest.

Skills amplify intention. If the intention behind action is fear or competition, skill only makes those forces more powerful. This is why highly skilled societies can still act destructively — and efficiently. Education shapes human beings, not just workers. Skill without intelligence divides and fragments. Intelligence places skill in its rightful place and prevents it from operating where it causes harm.

Q. Can more capability actually make problems worse? Where do we see this today?

Yes — and this is already happening. Technology itself is not destructive. It becomes destructive when driven by profit, speed, and separation. The same pattern appears in economics, governance, and education reform. Better systems, more data, and more metrics are introduced, yet problems persist or even accelerate.

When capacity grows without a change in perception, problems spread faster and become harder to reverse. Capability gives reach and power. Without intelligence, that power intensifies fragmentation rather than resolving it.

Q. Why does education rely so heavily on recognition and correct answers instead of fresh perception?

Recognition is measurable and controllable. Exams, grades, rankings, and certifications depend on identifying what is already known. Institutions are organised around predictability and standardisation, and recognition fits neatly into that structure.

Fresh perception, however, cannot be measured in the same way. It is open, unpredictable, and not loyal to the past, to identity, or to authority. For systems built on control and continuity, this is uncomfortable. Recognition sustains conformity; perception questions it. As a result, education trains students to reproduce answers rather than to observe, inquire, and understand themselves.

Q. What happens to curiosity and attention when learning is driven mainly by exams and outcomes?

When learning is driven by exams, it becomes repetition rather than discovery. Curiosity weakens because attention narrows toward results, rankings, and approval. Students begin asking what will be rewarded rather than what is true.

This structure creates comparison and fear. Where there is fear, there is no learning. Over time, attention erodes, inquiry loses depth, and intelligence is replaced by performance. This is not due to lack of interest, but because an exam-driven system sustains fear and desire rather than understanding.

Q. Can qualities like compassion and awareness truly be taught?

Compassion and awareness cannot be taught as techniques. When they are turned into practices or compe-tencies, they become mechanical. These qualities emerge naturally when the movement of the self is understood. When fear, comparison, and image-making lose their hold, compassion is simply present.

Education often tries to add compassion from the outside through programs or frameworks. But compassion is not an addition — it is what remains when self-centred movement ends. This requires both teacher and student to be engaged in understanding themselves, not merely transmitting knowledge or following methods.

Q. What do popular ideas like mindfulness and emotional intelligence often overlook?

Many such approaches aim to help individuals manage stress so they can function better within existing systems. They rarely ask why anxiety exists at all. Competition, fear of failure, comparison, and the pressure to become something are left untouched.

Awareness becomes a technique aimed at improvement. This creates a division between what is and what should be. True awareness is not the result of practice; it is present when the causes of fragmentation are seen directly, without effort or becoming.

Q. If skills increase power, what ensures that power is used responsibly?

Nothing external can guarantee the responsible use of power. Laws and ethical codes operate mainly through control, often after harm has occurred. Responsibility, in its deepest sense, means the ability to respond.

This ability arises only when the mind is not fragmented by fear, ambition, or gain. When action is driven by direct perception of consequence, restraint is natural. Knowledge and skill then serve life rather than dominate it. Responsibility comes from clarity of seeing, not from enforcement.

Q. What would it mean for education to support life, not just careers?

Education today is organised around becoming something. This future-oriented movement creates fear and insecurity. When education supports life, learning shifts from performance to perception. Careers and skills are not rejected, but they no longer form the psychological centre.

When fear reduces, intelligence has space to operate. Skills receive their direction from awareness rather than ambition. Knowledge then functions for the good of the whole. Education supports not only careers, but responsibility, care, and a way of living that does not fragment the world.

Q. What is the most important role universities should play today?

Universities often mirror the very forces shaping global crises. They reward output and speed while neglecting the psychological drives behind them. Their most important role is to question the movement of thought that seeks solutions without understanding itself.

Universities must be spaces where uncertainty is allowed and inquiry is not immediately converted into metrics. They must give knowledge its rightful place while revealing its limits. The deepest crisis today is not lack of information, but lack of perception. Without addressing this, universities risk becoming efficient engines of the very disorder they seek to solve.

At their best, universities are living spaces of inquiry and freedom — where learning remains connected to life as a whole.