See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225176478

At the interface of ‘Dharma’ and ‘Karma’: Interpreting moral discourse in India

Article  in  Psychological Studies · June 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s12646-009-0018-1

CITATIONS READS
15 4,271

2 authors:

Rachana Bhangaokar Shagufa Kapadia

The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
11 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adolescent-parent relationships: Indian cultural perspectives View project

PhD thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shagufa Kapadia on 08 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

©
National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India
Psychological
Psychological Studies
Studies (June
(June 2009)
2009) 54:00–00
54:00–00 19
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

At The Interface of ‘Dharma’ and ‘Karma’: Interpreting Moral

Discourse in India
Rachana Bhangaokar, Shagufa Kapadia

Received: 15 December 2008 / Accepted: 18 April 2009

The paper examines the Hindu, Indian concepts of karma and dharma as interpreted in the contemporary,
urban Indian context. Using in depth interviews, the study was conducted with 30 respondents from
Vadodara city belonging to different socio economic and professional statuses. Results indicate that both
the concepts were influenced by an individual’s life stage, gender and socio economic status. Like , the
concept of dharma also mainly comprised fulfilling role-related responsibilities and duties. Integrating
both the concepts, it can be said that dharma is the larger framework within the peripheries of which
individual karma operates. The concepts of karma and dharma seem to provide a background template
for deciphering right and wrong human behavior / conduct in the Indian context.

Keywords: Morality, Social-moral development, Karma, Dharma, India

February 2005, USA: In one of the buzzing cafés on the
University of Chicago campus, a little paper cup placed
next to the cash counter announces “Tips: Buy Karma”!!
The ‘popular’ notion of karma as propagated in the western
world is in sharp contrast with the ideas of karma that an
average Indian holds. “Dharma” - increasingly (and often
incorrectly) interpreted as religion is another concept that
rules popular discourse in a world sharply divided by ideas of
“jihad” (religious war) and fundamentalist ideologies. The
socio-psychological meaning of dharma as righteousness
or duty propagated by the Hindu way of life seems distant
in today’s world. This paper is an attempt to unravel the
understanding of karma and dharma in the contemporary
Indian context. The twin concepts are central to a Hindu,
Indian world view, which harmoniously binds ideas of
personhood, situating them in a moral universe. The paper
attempts to discuss unique features of a moral discourse in
India, highlighting self-other conceptualizations and the
nature of interpersonal morality. Gender is examined as
a significant intervening variable that defines both
personhood and morality in Indian society.
The development of social and moral reasoning in
individuals is deeply influenced by their culture. Social
practices and moral ideologies guide behaviors in subtle
as well as direct ways. Misra and Gergen (1993) indicate
the significance of the psychological composition of culture
and urge psychologists to place culture at the center of
any psychological inquiry. Thus culture not only becomes
a context for development but also distinctly shapes
development. Most research on moral development stems
from the cognitive-developmental paradigm in psychology.
Alternative explanations from cultural psychological and
anthropological perspectives broaden our understanding of
the development of morality.

R. Bhangaokar • S. Kapadia
Department. of Human Development and Family Studies, Cognitive Developmental Paradigm
Faculty of Family and Community Sciences,
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara, Gujarat,
Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage theory is a major anchor
INDIA to understand moral development. But like many other
theories, it has some inherent limitations. The criticisms
e-mail: kulrachana@gmail.com of Kohlberg’s theory focus on the limited role attributed
20
to culture and gender (Eckensberger & Zimba, 1994).
Although Kohlberg’s methodology allows for verifying
how moral stages are applied, cross cultural research has
often focused only on finding the presence or absence
of the stages (Huebner & Garrod, 1991). With respect to
gender, Kohlberg’s view of morality concentrates only
on the justice perspective which seems inadequate to
represent women’s dominant moral orientation of care
and responsibility (Gilligan, 1982). Research testing out
Kohlberg and Gilligan’s view with Indian samples shows
use of both justice and care orientations by men as well as
women (Vasudev & Hummel, 1987; Sengupta, Saraswathi,
& Konantambigi, 1995).
Building on Kohlberg’s legacy, Turiel and colleagues
(1983) conceptualize social reasoning into distinct domains
(moral, conventional and personal). They advocate that even
very young children distinguish between moral and non-
moral events. With focus on women and other vulnerable
sections across cultures, they believe that social judgments
are multidimensional and heterogeneous in nature. The
cognitive developmental view has primarily advocated
universals in moral development, devoting little importance
to the mediation of culture.
Cultural Psychological and Anthropological
Paradigms
Often times, researches emphasizing moral universals
ignore knowledge of indigenous meaning systems and local
cultural ideas. Research by anthropologists and cultural
psychologists about local, cultural practices and underlying
mentalities expands the boundaries of understanding
morality across cultures. Shweder, Mahapatra and Miller,
(1987) argue that Kohlberg’s conception of morality is
limited to the person and the justice paradigm as his work
stems from an individualistic, western philosophy. There is
a need to view morality from a broader, culture-inclusive
lens, so that it accounts for more than one rationally
defensible moral code. Alternative ideologies at the levels
of normative and meta-ethical assumptions, not just about
the nature of morality but about the nature of human
existence itself should be taken into consideration (Huebner
& Garrod, 1991).
Analyzing an interview transcript in detail, Shweder and
Much (1991) emphasize the importance of “second-order”
cultural meanings and state that much of the interview (in
the form of stories and narratives) was unscorable using the
Kohlberg manual. This shows the importance of placing
the moral judgment interview within a cultural context.
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
Edwards’ (1987) comparative work with Kenyan and
American children emphasizes the role of culture in creating
and distinguishing moral from non-moral domains.
Researches with Indian and American subjects by Joan
Miller and her colleagues (Miller& Luthar ,1989; Miller
& Bersoff ,1992) have made substantial contributions in
unraveling moral development cross culturally. Based
on their research, Indian subjects prioritized beneficence
prescriptions ahead of justice prescriptions compared to
Americans. Along with justice concerns, Indians used
role oriented obligations and contextual information as
important factors to judge social issues. These studies
indicate that cultural orientations of people (interpersonal
obligations and contextual reasoning in Indian samples not
found in American samples) affect social judgments (Miller
& Bersoff, 1992).
Both research paradigms have contributed significantly
in enriching understanding about moral development. In
an attempt to bridge the dichotomies between cognitive-
developmental and anthropological paradigms, Edwards
(1987) describes development as a process inclusive of both
self-construction and social transmission. She also urges
social scientists to appreciate both aspects of development
instead of focusing on one and viewing the other as
diametrically opposite. An inadequate understanding
of people’s cultural worlds and the meanings they
attribute to behaviors and events may lead to research
findings that hardly explain culturally mediated
developmental processes.
Indian Perspectives on Morality: Karma and
Dharma as Frames of Reference
Not many researches on moral development in India have
directly focused on the frameworks of dharma and karma.
The Hindu worldview rests on the notion of dharma (duty)
and a belief in an inherent order of the universe. The
principle of karma also emerges as an important moral
category for different groups of people (Misra & Gergen,
1993). An understanding of the religious-philosophical view
underlying these concepts thus becomes imperative.
Karma and Dharma: A religious-philosophical
view
In simple terms, ‘karma’ means action and ‘dharma’ means
righteousness. According to Sharma (2000) the words
‘karma’ and ‘dharma’ possess both rhyme and reason.
These words represent meanings which cannot be viewed
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
in isolation because ‘dharma’ without ‘karma’ is lame and
‘karma’ without ‘dharma’ is blind. This statement shows
the importance of both these concepts in Hindu life. They
are integral parts of Hindu religious philosophy. Ethical
problems cannot be disassociated from philosophy as most
Indian philosophy is reflected in religion with a tremendous
significance attributed to practical life (Dasgupta, 1967).
Even if the ultimate goal of Hindu life is to achieve
spiritual self-enlightenment, Hindu thinkers have charted
out a practical scheme of social life and its obligations to
achieve this final end. To understand the meaning of life, one
has to move from a life of attachment (pravratti) to a life of
detachment (nivritti). The ashrama theory of moving from
Brahmacharya (student and celibate life) to Vanaprastha
(detached old life in a forest) very well embodies this
pathway of life in the materialistic world to one lived by an
ascetic (Ramamurthy, 2000).
The doctrine of ‘karma’ constitutes a system of natural
consequences to educate man morally. Lord Krishna in the
Bhagavad Gita urges Arjuna to be aware of his dharma as
a warrior and do his karma of fighting in the battle (against
his kin), leaving the results to God. Karma is then not just a
mere description of facts about human action but an attempt
to make actions look morally intelligible. Human actions
are characterized as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to
understand the natural causality (Krishna, 1991; Sharma,
2000). According to Walker (1995) the concept of karma
is basic to Hindu philosophical systems. It rests on the
principle of universal causality of actions (laws of cause and
effect) and is rooted in the idea of rita or universal order,
that is the foundation of dharma. As causality underlies
all events, action is an unavoidable concomitant of one’s
birth and being. Irrespective of whether a person is active
in the social roles or has renounced them, his mental
processes and desires are active and thus man is forever
bound by his karma.
The consequences of karma are partially worked out in
this life, continuously forging links that make the chain of
‘samsara’ or the cycle of birth-death-rebirth. Karma is thus
seen as the law of moral retribution or a cosmic law of debit
and credit for good and bad deeds. There are three kinds of
karma: sanchita karma (past, already accumulated karma),
prarabdha karma (present karma being executed based on
past karma) and agami karma (karma of the future depending
on the present) (Sharma, 2000). The idea of renunciation
and continuation of karma across births acts as an ethical
check on people’s conduct and offers endless opportunities
for improvement and hope for salvation (Raju, 1967).
According to Walker (1995), dharma in the broadest sense
21
means the universal laws of nature that uphold the cosmos.
Dharma is the third human end to be achieved in the four-
fold schema of ‘purushartha’. It implies right conduct,
justice, the ideal way of life and morality. The Bhagavad
Gita defines dharma or svadharma as each man’s duty
pertaining to his station in life (life stage). Dharma can
be divided into sadharana dharma and vishesh dharma.
Sadharana dharma is common to all humans and universal
in nature, constituting values of non violence, truthfulness,
honestly, restraint of senses, and others. Vishesha dharma
includes concepts of situational and professional ethics like
duties specific to women, kings or ascetics.
Dharma also includes the concepts of rights and entitlements
of an individual. But, rights always carry obligations
with them. No individual is considered perfect if he is
concerned only with his right. The rights of an individual
are the minimum one must have and not be deprived of.
But one should not restrict his or her satisfaction only to
the minimum and strive to rise above his rights to fulfill his
duties and move to perfection (Saksena, 1967).
This brief overview indicates clearly that both the concepts
include duties, obligations to others as well as ideas of rights
and personal responsibility.
Social and Psychological Interpretations of
Karma and Dharma
More often than not, lay people’s interpretations of karma
and dharma are far removed from scriptural explanations.
Caste differences in interpretations might also emerge
as the higher castes have more access and opportunities
to interpret the concepts than others. Kolenda’s (1964)
review of Indian village studies conducted in 1950s draws
attention to the virtual absence of the mention of these
philosophical concepts. She also brings forth the concept of
“parochialization” (Marriott, 1955) wherein the traditional
concepts of an indigenous civilization are reinterpreted and
simplified to suit local peasant life. In her work with the
sweeper castes of Khalapur village, concerns with leading
and improving the status of present life surpassed aims of
salvation or attaining a better next life.
Ramanujan’s informal essay on an Indian way of
thinking (1990), emphasizes contextual importance for the
description of dharma as asramadharma (dharma to do with
the stage of life), svadharma (conduct right with the jati or
class or svabhava), and apaddharma (conduct necessary in
times of distress or emergency). A person should resort to
the common or absolute sadharana dharma only if he does
not fit into any context, which is highly unlikely. Thus, even
22
if the concept of dharma seems broad and is understood as
a universal order, its application is very context and
situation specific.
Due to such complications, there are some seemingly
contradictory ideas about values and application of these
concepts in the Indian context. Tripathi (2001) discusses
these apparent contradictions in values while describing
the model of man in the Indian context. On one hand, it
is his duty to protect and uphold the honor of his family
but on the other hand, he is also urged to fight his kin, if
they are involved in wrong doings. He has to do his karma
but not seek the fruits of his actions. Nevertheless, when
one scratches the surface, it becomes evident that these
mutual contradictions are held together by some higher,
contextualized moral principle and thus there is no shock or
surprise at the coexistence of contradictions.
Shweder and Miller (1985) indicate from their research
on moral behavior in Bhubaneshwar, Orissa how a duty
based ethical code merges with a role based conception of
society to rationalize the moral order in terms of natural
duties. The performance of duties in diverse conditions
stimulates feelings of righteousness and dharma. They go
on to differentiate cultures which are person-centered and
those that are socio-centered. Person centered cultures
fundamentally emphasize individuals and rights whereas
socio-centric cultures emphasize roles, statuses and
congruent duties. Hence the moral order is also different
where person centered cultures have a rights-based moral
order while socio-centered ones are more duty-based.
In an ethnography about Indian men’s self-conceptions,
Derne (1992) emphasizes the long-term effects of joint
family living in Hindu households which shapes a socially
conforming self-image. Ideas of right and wrong conduct
for these Hindu men (who live in family contexts where
awareness about social pressures is tremendous) stem from
a “socially anchored self” which is concerned more with
the reaction of others than the distant notions of dharma as
mentioned in scriptures.
Parish (1994) mentions the concept of karma in his
ethnography about equality and hierarchy among Hindu
Newars of Bhaktapur, Nepal. For the Newars, karma is a
central, political concept when it comes to distributive justice
in a caste-based, hierarchical Hindu society. A “gratuitous”
distribution of misery and privilege becomes intelligible
when viewed within a framework of the theory of karma,
transmigration and moral consequence for individual
actions. He also refers to the idea of just dessert among the
high and low caste groups where sins (pap) are punished
and acts of dharma are rewarded, justifying the status quo
with in the society.
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
Karma has also been understood as a fatalistic idea governing
passive individuals. However, Shweder, Much, Mahapatra
and Park (1997) negate the fatalistic ideas associated with
karma. Rather, they see it as one which emphasizes personal
responsibility in regulating behavior and as a wise, long-term
investment in actions to get benefits for self. The position of
dharma is also central to the concept of karma as a person
can improve his present position by doing his dharma
(whatever is morally obligatory in a particular situation) to
the best of his potential. Thus, it is the individual’s personal
responsibility to cultivate values of personal judgment and
discrimination to further knowledge about morality, beyond
mere adherence to rules.
Miller (2001) points out the need to conduct
researches in non-western countries on a wide range
of issues concerning central cultural concepts like
filial piety or dharma. The challenge is to understand
the enculturating influences of non-rational aspects
of cultural meanings and practices, for example,
karma and afterlife, and the impact they have on
moral reasoning. The review suggests that most work
on moral development in India does not directly ask
questions about these concepts. Consequently, most
assumptions about the use of these concepts are
theoretical and not empirical in nature. There is a need
to ask people how they define and interpret the ideas of
karma and dharma in their everyday life. The primary
focus of this research is on the concepts of karma and
dharma and how these are understood by respondents
of different ages from the urban middle and lower
middle classes of Indian society. Most learning about
these concepts in an Indian cultural framework is tacit
in nature and this research is an attempt to bring the
habitual and automatic into a conscious, reflective
mode of thinking. In addition to direct questions
about the content of the concepts, attempts were made
to gather information about how respondents use
these concepts in their everyday life. Thus this study
aimed at understanding the Hindu moral concepts of
karma and dharma, their relevance and application
in various spheres of life. It also commented on the
nature of moral reasoning processes based on the
understanding of core concepts of karma and dharma
in the contemporary, urban Indian context.
Method
The study was descriptive and qualitative in nature,
employing in depth interviews as a means of data gathering.
The sample group consisted of 30 individuals, out of which
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00 23

16 individuals represented different age groups covering the Results

life span as well as high and low social class. The other 14
individuals represented different professions (for example, Interpretations of Karma and Dharma
teachers, doctors and lawyers) and scholarly backgrounds
(priests and manuscriptologists). The sample was selected This section depicts various interpretations of the concepts
purposively using the snowball technique. Respondents were of karma and dharma by the respondents (N=30). The data
selected based on the researcher’s contacts, their interest is presented in a gender disaggregated form to highlight
and willingness to participate in the study. In all, there were gender differences. Besides this, wherever prominent, class
18 men and 12 women who participated in the study. The or caste differences are also referred to in the text.
participants were contacted personally, prior appointments
were sought and in-depth interviews were conducted at their Concept of Karma
homes. The interview schedule included questions about
Table 1 represents the concept of karma as understood by the
what people understood by the terms karma and dharma and
respondents. Three major categories emerged which were
their ideal fulfillment. Wherever possible the participants
based on the explanations and real life examples derived
were asked to support their answers with examples from
from the interviews.
their personal and professional lives. Interviews were
conducted in Indian languages (Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi)
Table 1 Concept of Karma (N=30)
and English. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed
verbatim and later translated in English. Understanding of Karma Frequency Total

The data was gender disaggregated and analyzed Men Women

qualitatively. Conceptually clustered matrices were Role-related Responsibilities 15 12 31
(kartavya)
prepared to explain the concepts of karma and dharma.
- Personal
Wherever possible, data was represented using frequencies - Life stage (ashramadharma,
and percentages. student, parent)
- Familial
- Professional (boss/subordinate)
Profile of the Respondents Societal Duties
- As a member of society / part of
The respondents of the study were selected from various nature (samaj / prakriti ke ghatak)
walks of life and represented different socio-economic - To the best of abilities, without
any expectation
classes in urban Vadodara, Gujarat. Across high and low
- By following religious
social class, the sample included four individuals each who prescriptions
were adolescents, young adults, middle aged and elderly. Nature of Deeds (saara karm) 10 7 17
With respect to education, six respondents from the lower - “just dessert”
socio economic group had minimum schooling (primary - Ideas of rebirth
education) and two elderly respondents had no formal God given capacity to work 2 - 2
schooling. On the other hand, respondents from the higher No response 1 - 1
socio economic class had educational qualifications ranging (Figures represent multiple responses)
from high school to post graduation. All four women in the
lower socio economic group were employed. As against Two main components explaining the concept were
this, three out of four women in the higher socio economic karma as role-related duties / responsibilities and karma as
group were housewives and one was a student. good or bad deeds.
The professionals represented a wide range of
occupations. The sample included men who worked as priests Karma and Social-Familial Roles
and astrologers (n=3), executives with the government and
private companies (n=3), a social activist and a theatre Majority of responses were clustered around the
personality (n=2), one professor and one graduate student. understanding of karma as role-related responsibilities in
Four women from this group included a social activist, a everyday life. The following response clearly denotes what
lawyer, a school teacher and a graduate student. role-related responsibilities are:
24
“One of the thoughts is, as stated in the Gita (The song
of God-Holy book of Hindus) that….it is not possible for
a man to live without doing karma (karma kelya shivaay
mansala jagana_ shakya nahi). When you are born human
it means that you must do your karma. Whatever karma we
have-means whatever roles I will keep getting in my life-
like sometimes I will be a student, sometimes a householder
(gruhastha), sometimes a friend (mitr) or sometimes a
subordinate in the office. I am a boss in the office then those
different types of karma could be there, but generally there
are those kinds of dharma. I have a dharma as a husband, as
a friend... So I should always have my karma in accordance
with dharma (dharma, tyala susangat ashe karma, maaze
kayam asaayla payje). It is impossible (to live) if I don’t
fulfill these. (tyacha kadhi tyag karun chaalnaar nahi).”
(Man, 37 years, corporate executive and social activist)
While men mentioned fulfilling responsibilities from the
personal, familial and professional areas of their life, women’s
responses were mostly concerned with responsibilities
within the familial sphere. This perception of a woman’s
karma being limited to social and familial relationships is
clearly evident from the following response:
“For me, karma is taking care of my family, bringing up
my children well, and also having good social relations with
my neighbors...do whatever I can for them. Today if my
neighbor needs help to go to the hospital and I accompany
her, it is good karma. She may or may not do this for me or
my family in future…but I have to do it for her now…without
any expectation from her…that is karma,..doing whatever is
within your capacity without expectations. Beyond this, I
don’t have a bigger circle / boundary (dayraa).”
(Woman, 40 years, Housewife)
Across men and women, karma was explained as “doing
what is expected of you to the best of one’s abilities, without
any expectation of results”. Optimizing personal abilities
was at the crux of these responses.
Respondents also understood karma as duties which
they fulfilled as members of the larger society, religious
groups or as human beings in the natural world. In this
understanding of karma, specific individual roles were not
elaborated. Thus this category refers to the fulfillment of
societal duties expected from individuals because they are
constituent members of some larger social structure. This
response from a 70 year old retired school teacher depicts
her understanding of karma with respect to her place in the
social structure.
“It is not possible to survive without doing karma.
One cannot move further without doing karma. This is
our kartavya and our own karma. Based on this, if we do
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
good karma, we get good results. Yes, we also have duties
(kartavya) towards others, in the society (samaj) that we live
in.... Someone does a favor for us or shows good behavior to
us, then we cannot behave wrongly / badly with that person
(vait vartan karu shakat nahi). Even if he does, then it is our
kartavya to behave in the same good manner with him (sama
bhav), accordingly. Like they say, “bhalai no badlo bhalai”
(good should be returned with good), then it is our duty
to behave like that because without this the society won’t
survive (samaj tiknaar nahi). If one behaves well and one
behaves badly, the pillar of society (samaja cha stambha)
will not stand, it will fall down. And if everyone behaves
like this, one after the other, then the culture (sanskriti) in a
society will not last in anyone and there will be disturbance
/ chaos in the society (samaj asta-vyastha hoil).”
These duties reflect certain ‘universal’ virtues which
might be applicable in any situation, for example, being
compassionate, considerate to the needs of others (including
the environment), and not to tolerate injustice. The following
response elucidates this particular understanding of karma:
“Karma for me is not just restricted to doing our duties
and fulfilling obligations to family, friends, society, nation
etc….it is something that you need to incorporate in your
deeds. Your good deeds should affect the lowest level of
the pyramid, which is the individual, to the highest level of
humanity.”
Can you explain this pyramid with the help of some
examples?
Sometimes we do some bad karma and feel, so what, me
or my immediate family is not getting affected…so what if
the city gets affected….like in case of creating pollution or
littering. But if you puncture one loop, it will lead to a chain
reaction and the entire structure will be affected from the
grass root to the highest level of humanity. Thus, one should
do simple, good things even in day to day life, like being
good to the newspaper boy in the morning or the beggar off
the street or being considerate to that little puppy crossing
the road when you drive. Karma for me is about sharing the
human experience….not just your good or bad qualities”
(Man, 40 years, Bank employee & Theatre personality)
Karma and Nature of Actions
Another prominent understanding of karma was a judgment
about the nature (good or bad) of actions or deeds.
Respondents qualitatively differentiated between good
and bad karma. A causal connection was evident when
respondents said good karma ‘sara karam’ (helping the
needy, not harming anyone) was always rewarded with
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
favorable results for self and significant others. The doer of
bad deeds (‘kharab / khota karm’), in turn was punished in
one way or another. Within the causal framework of karma
emerge ideas of ‘just dessert’, which means to each one
what he/she deserves in all fairness. This was clear when
many respondents mentioned influences of past karma on
their present life experiences. A 35 year old woman from the
lower socio-economic class elaborates on her understanding
of karma as follows:
“I don’t know…. but this karma means they say that
whatever karma you have done in your previous birth, for
that you have to pay in this birth. This is what everyone says.
This means if anyone has committed any sins in previous
birth, then we have to suffer (Bhogav vu pade) for it in this
birth. I don’t know whether in my previous birth I have done
good things or committed sins, that God only knows….
(pauses) but seeing (my life situation) today I feel that
I must have done good deeds in the previous birth because
of which my life today is better. This is what I think. Karma
is such that whenever I have difficulty or something then I
feel that this is due to bad karma or bad luck and whatever
is happening is due to that.”
As against this, there were very few explicit responses
from members of the high caste and class about the causal
ideas of karma influencing lives over many birth cycles.
Similar responses, which did not support the karmic theory
of transmigration, were documented among the Jats in a
study by Lewis (as cited in Marriott, 1990) who insisted that
the results of one’s actions have to be borne in the present
birth. In the present study, many respondents from the high
socio economic classes, with substantial educational levels
mentioned the effect of karma for the present birth only.
Two highly educated respondents emphasized their belief in
experiencing the results of all good and bad actions within
this life. One of those responses is given below.
“Whatever karma you do, you have to face the results
(consequences) of them in this birth only. If you have done
good deeds (punya) then you will lead an entire life of peace
and satisfaction (shanti ani samadhanani aayushya purna
kadhu shakal). But if you have committed sins (paap kela
asel), then you will not get peaceful and happy sleep, you
will get different diseases, then this is also a result of your
sins. But it is not belonging to another previous or future
birth; it is from this birth only. I believe this. Whatever it
is…, you have to experience it in this birth only (je kahi
aahe te tumala hyaj janmaat bhogay cha).” (Woman, 61
years, lawyer)
Summing up the responses, the concept of karma is
influenced strongly by an individual’s life stage, gender
25
and social class. The jigsaw seems complete when beliefs
about transmigration and rebirth subtly make inroads to an
interpretive psyche in which the nature of actions becomes
morally meaningful. Karma seems to be a wider cultural
template which influences all the spheres of a person’s life
- familial, social, professional and spiritual. Agents and
their actions become morally intelligible when equated with
context-dependent, role-related responsibilities. Actions
mirror virtues like compassion, kindness, courtesy and they
need to be executed without any expectations.
Concept of Dharma
Like karma, the concept of dharma also mainly comprised
fulfilling role-related responsibilities and duties. But most
respondents derived their understanding of karma from the
broader, more inclusive framework of dharma. A majority
of them commented that a person’s karma must be in
accordance to one’s dharma. Dharma became an ideal frame
of reference for appropriate human conduct, a discriminator
between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ action and inclusive of religion.
Reflecting the hierarchical and interdependent nature
of Hindu society, some respondents mentioned being
important constituents of the social structure (samaja che
ghatak) and also specified their role as inseparable parts
of nature (prakriti ke bhaag). Depending on the roles,
their responsibilities ranged from taking care of personal
issues to those of societal or national concern. The different
spheres can also be interpreted as expanding concentric
circles of a person’s social world, in which an individual is
positioned and experiences a sense of responsibility for its
smooth functioning.
Table 2 summarizes the understanding of the concept
of dharma.
Dharma as Role-related Responsibilities
The convergence in the understanding of the concepts of
karma and dharma can be seen here mainly as the execution
of duty through appropriate actions. Karma is best
understood as acting to the best of one’s abilities to execute
the duties prescribed by dharma.
“My dharma is my karma…it is as simple as that…As
an individual I perform duties.. like I have a duty towards
myself. I have to take care of my health, I have to be good
at academics. Apart from academics, I am good at certain
extra curricular activities that help me make a good career.
These are duties I have to do for myself. Then there are
duties towards my family, taking care of family members…
26 Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00

Table 2 Concept of Dharma (N=30) way of life (jivan paddhati). For example, I am a wife so
Understanding of Karma Frequency Total I have some dharma as a wife (gruhini dharma) but I am
Men Women also part of the society (samaja che ghatak)..so if I know
the deteriorating status of women in society, I have to do
Role-related responsibilities 28 14 42
- Personal something about it in whatever capacity I have. For example,
- Familial if I am traveling and I see a woman passenger being ‘eve
- Life stage teased’, I should support her and try to protect her against
- Professional such anti social elements. Another example could be caring
- As part of nation/society/nature
for my surroundings by not littering. But for this each one
Duties
has to realize what his or her duty is and fulfill it well”
- Situational
- Humanitarian, other oriented (Woman, 55 years, social activist)
- Diligent execution of work
Religion 7 10 17
- Belief in God / supreme power Dharma and the Role of Personal
(aastha, vishwaas) Interpretation
- Prayers/ rituals (puja-paath)
- Hinduism (hindu dharma) Some educated respondents, both men and women, referred
- Non discrimination
to the role of personal interpretation, reiterating that the
Code of conduct 7 2 9 social order is made for the individual and the individual is
- Cultural social order
- Principles of discrimination not forever bound by societal rules.
between right and wrong action “According to me, whatever rules are made to run a
Same as Karma 2 - 2 house and a society smoothly, I must follow them without
(Figures represent multiple responses) overdoing it (atishayokti na karta). Everything has its own
place and it will remain so, thus if I follow the rules then I
am doing my dharma. Ultimately this dharma is made so
helping them emotionally and in any other aspect. Then that me and my family are happy. When there is a need to
there are duties towards society, that I take correct actions..it follow the rules, you should follow them. But if there is a
might not be possible to correct each and everyone but make need, then break the rules. Your dharma is not destroyed or
myself an example for the society. Then there are duties to harmed if you break the rules. Walk according to the rules
the nation, that I pay my taxes regularly that I don’t cause but at the same time, the rules are made for us, we are not
any harm to public property. There is a wider concept of made for the rules, this should be kept in mind.”
world citizenship which means we are closely related to the (Woman, 61, lawyer)
world and if need be, we must cross national borders and
help others.”
Dharma as Religion
(Man, 23 years old, Management student)
Although both men and women primarily explained The understanding of dharma as religion wasn’t restricted
dharma as familial duties, women generally interpreted to Hinduism or being a practicing Hindu. It included ideas
dharma exclusively within the familial sphere or as of faith (aastha, shraddha) in God or an omnipresent
interpersonal duties towards others (helping others, power governing humans or an understanding of five
taking care of others) whereas men explained dharma to life giving elements which sustain the natural world
cover many other spheres of their life. Only those women (panchamahabhoota). Other responses included praying or
who had full time careers mentioned dharma as a social following rituals. Some respondents also referred to dharma
order and placed themselves as active agents within the as a principle of equality among human beings and non
social structure. discrimination.
“Dharma has been defined in our society mainly as the Dharma also meant a code of conduct for the self
execution of duties (kartavya) for the smooth functioning and social systems. Marriott (1990) interprets dharma as
of society…so that things are systematic. I believe each “coherence” in Hindu systems of thought. It is an individual’s
one has a place in the social structure and corresponding way of living based on personal understanding of right and
duties too. That is why dharma is a part of our life..it is a wrong. These are the particularistic aspects of dharma,
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00 27

varying from person to person. The views of a Hindu priest Table 3 Ideal fulfillment of Dharma (N=15)
show that there is enough scope for self interpretation of
dharma, depending on the individual’s preferences and Ideal fulfillment of Dharma Examples
contextual demands. Fulfillment of duties, • Diligently fulfilling
without expectations duties (Duty to care for
“To be a Hindu or Muslim is not dharma. It cannot be
• Familial (parents, parents, husband, children,
said like that. Whatever you follow, that is your dharma. If immediate family) teachers, family at large)
you think that I don’t want to follow rituals or prayers but I • Towards society, • Follow social conventions
will show the good path to people, or help them or if there community or nation • Help the needy, do social
is a poor person or a blind person, I will show him the way, service, serve the nation
• Derive happiness by
to be of some use to them, that is also a dharma. But what
making others happy
I have to do that I have to decide, that is my dharma. If you
Goal Achievements • Earn money, be
say that I don’t want to do any prayers/ rituals (devdharma) Material Rewards / independent and ‘settle
but want to do only social service (lok seva) or help people, Appreciation down in life’
then I can do social work (lok seva), but no one will ask me Towards Self-Refinement • Make superiors (at work
that you are doing this social service, you have a temple place) happy
in your house, why are you not worshipping God? Yes, • Increase inner strength
to deal with everyday
kartavya (duty/responsibility) must be done and to be of use
stressors
to people instead of just worshipping God is real kartavya, • Control materialistic urges
this is what I believe in.” (Male, 55 years, Hindu priest). and de-condition the mind
More women than men consider dharma as religion • Make self more deserving,
correct mistakes, use
(or belief in God) and as duties towards others as we are intellect and caution (vivek
born human (manushya dharma). According to Mahadevan buddhi ani savadhanata)
(1967) Bhagvad Gita considers each man’s dharma as • Contribute to society
svadharma which is performance of duties pertaining to through knowledge
the station of one’s life. In contemporary times, dharma Conscience Related • Balance between karma
based on one’s varna (caste one is born into) may not have and dharma
much significance but that based on the asrama (stage • Continue good karma and
ignore adharma
in the life span) definitely holds true. Thus, svadharma • Live with a clear
has been reinterpreted as that which is suitable to one’s conscience, according to
capacities, inclinations and intelligence (Chennakesavan & moral principles, without
Reddy, 1997). guilt
• Coordination between
To sum up, dharma was a moral guideline or a code thoughts in mind and
of conduct used to determine an individual’s karma or feelings in heart
actions. Encompassing the concept of karma, dharma was
largely understood as role-related duties or responsibilities
held by individuals. Dharma was conceptualized to be
beyond societal rules and with enough scope for individual Although voiced by a limited number of respondents, the
interpretation. More women than men considered dharma responses reflected a need for psychological satisfaction,
to be religion. contentment in life and a state of well being that respondents
seemed to desire in familial and professional spheres.
Except for two elderly respondents who mentioned that they
Ideal Fulfillment of Dharma
had already fulfilled their dharma by going to pilgrimages
Additional probe questions in the interview brought forth and were at peace with themselves, most other (younger)
concepts of what respondents considered to be an ideal respondents desired material as well as psychological
fulfillment of dharma in their lives. Most of these responses homeostasis. In order to achieve ideal fulfillment of their
were gathered from educated men who held important dharma, respondents mentioned some conscience related
professional positions in various fields. Few responses from challenges they face in everyday life. Most of these
women centered on concerns with the family. Some spheres responses were gathered from men and were related to their
of life which respondents referred to are summed up in table professional lives (for example, corruption). There was an
3 along with examples. awareness of the presence of ‘adharma’ which led to an
28
immoral environment which they had to overcome or adapt
to. Respondents were aware of adharma as a part of reality
which they could neither ignore nor completely detach
themselves from. This is exemplified by this response from
a doctor.
“I know what dharma is, but I cannot fulfill it completely.
I also know what adharma is, but I cannot completely retire
from it (Dharma shu che ae hu janu chu, pan ema hun puri
reete pravrutta thai shakto nathi, adharma shu che ae pan
hun janu chu, pan ema thi hun puri reete nivrutta thia shakto
nathi).” (Man, Doctor, 40)
Along with this, respondents mentioned the constant
need for self-refinement which would enable them to meet
the challenges of everyday life efficiently. Some of these
responses for self-refinement like “deconditioning the
mind” or “controlling materialistic urges” echoed spiritual
concerns professed in the Hindu way of life.
In conclusion, the concepts of karma and dharma seem
to provide a background template for deciphering right and
wrong human behavior / conduct in the Indian context.
The concepts, tacitly communicated through socialization
practices, strongly impinge on the Indian psyche, etching out
unique ways of conceptualizing the self and interpersonal
morality. A limited set of data indicates respondents’ concerns
for psychological well being measured against their ability
to fulfill their respective dharma in an atmosphere increasing
characterized by ‘adharma’ (non-righteousness).
Linkages between concepts of karmand dharma (N=30)
Others
3%
Religion Others
24% 5%
Good and Bad
deeds
28%
Fulfilling duties
and role-
related
Code of responsiblities 67%
conduct
13%
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
Discussion and Conclusions
The results highlight distinct characteristics of the moral
discourse in contemporary Indian society. Social change
was evident in certain aspects when traditional concepts
were reinterpreted to suit contemporary demands of an
urban lifestyle. The discussion focuses on two main ideas
emerging from the results: a) Interpretations of karma and
dharma, and b) Concept of self and interpersonal morality
Interpretations of Karma and Dharma
Traditional and religious-historical literatures explain
the basic components of the two concepts. From a social
science perspective, it was important to understand how lay
people make meaning out of these concepts. Respondents
understood dharma as a moral framework inclusive
of religious prescriptions, personal-social duties and
discrimination between good and bad conduct (dharma or
adharma). Understanding responsibilities in accordance
with social roles was an important component of both karma
and dharma. Based on the understanding of the dharmic
code of conduct, actions were qualitatively differentiated
as good or bad karma. Integrating both the concepts it can
be said that dharma is the larger framework within the
peripheries of which individual karma operates. The figure
below depicts interlinkages between both concepts.
Fulfilling duties
and role-related
responsiblities
Good and Bad
deeds
Code of conduct
Religion
Others
Fulfilling duties
and role-
related
responsiblities 60%
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
The figure depicts role-related responsibilities to occupy
an important place in the framework for both concepts.
The individual’s place within the social context determines
his/her svadharma which emanates from this web of
karma-dharma dynamics (Bilimoria, 1993). This is also
indicative of the normative social structure of Indian society
where interdependence and hierarchy form the crux. The
individual is always embedded in the social structure of
relationships, the harmonious maintenance of which is
of utmost importance. Respondents have also referred to
a broader, more inclusive category of “fulfilling duties”
which refers to being sensitive to interpersonal needs and
contextual demands. This category within the concepts
refers to the mention of duty in general. Some examples
of dharma given by respondents in this category were
helping the needy, something which ought to be done,
wishing good for everyone, not harming others and caring
for others. The duty based moral reasoning found in Indian
samples (Shweder, Mahapatra &Miller, 1987) reflects
interdependence as both natural and desirable. Thus there
is a need to recognize different forms of interpersonal
morality across cultures (Miller & Bersoff, 1995). Within
the personal sphere, some educated respondents have
referred to karma as not just performing actions but also
reflecting on the kind and manner of executing karma. This
personal discrimination depends on one’s understanding
of dharma. Karma is not just following rules and duties,
but also discriminating between good and bad (Shweder,
Much, Mahapatra & Park, 1997).
Most Hindu philosophical writings presuppose the
theory of transmigration and rebirth to explain the concept
of karma. This does not find support in empirical data
because people’s emphasis is on immediacy of sin and
taking personal responsibility of one’s actions (Wadley
& Derr, 1990). The present study also found very limited
support to ideas of rebirth and transmigration. Although
responses about rebirth were not completely absent from
the data, virtually no subjects who had formal and higher
education supported it. Even those, from the lower classes
with less or no education, who mentioned rebirth or afterlife,
understood it as a distant and abstract happening which
cannot be known or ascertained. Thus they concentrated
more on distinguishing actions as good or bad in their
immediate, everyday life with corresponding outcomes.
Even though cause and effect relationship between
action and outcomes was mentioned as a characteristic of
karma, it was not always juxtaposed in a rebirth and
transmigration framework.
29
Concept of self and interpersonal morality
The concept of self is colored to a great extent by one’s
gender. An individual’s position in the hierarchy is another
influential factor, especially so in the Indian cultural context.
The results indicate that most respondents, men and women,
understood the self primarily through their positions in the
hierarchy and in relation to the roles they played in family
and society. Corresponding duties and obligations were
mentioned as “oughts” of behavior within this framework,
also inclusive of contextual demands on individuals. These
criteria were applied somewhat more stringently for women
than men, at times prioritizing family obligations over
other opportunities or concerns. Gender differences were
observed in the understanding of the concepts of karma
and dharma. Although women also understood karma and
dharma as interpersonal duties and responsibilities, they
emphasized household responsibilities and duties towards
family more than other aspects. Women who had full time
careers referred to different spheres of life where they
held responsibilities but even amidst that they highlighted
their primary roles as homemakers. To some extent, their
ideas of happiness were also linked to good interpersonal
relations in the family and not just personal achievements
in terms of a career. The socialization process in the Indian
context is deeply entrenched in the cultural ideology of
gender inequality where traditional roles are valued and
responsibility of care and nurturance within the family rests
on women’s shoulders (Kapadia, 1999).
Some insights about self-other relationships and
interpersonal morality in Indian society can be drawn from
the data. Past researches have documented that Indians
predominantly have a familial self (Roland, 1988) and that
there is a coexistence of individualism and collectivism
(Sinha & Tripathi, 1994) across various social situations.
When most respondents understand karma and especially
dharma as duties or responsibilities towards others or
society in general, it indicates how an individual posits
oneself within the social web. However, it is important to
acknowledge that in spite of characteristic interdependence
and hierarchy, both parties in a relationship are active
agents who understand and appreciate the duties of the
other. Thus Indian selves primarily adhere to relational and
encompassing models (Mascolo, Misra & Rapisardi, 2004).
An interesting feature of some responses is the streak of
independent aspects of the self within this structure that
refers to personal duties towards the self, especially towards
self-refinement.
30
There is a need to document the nature and components
of indigenous concepts like sanskaar (values) swabhaav
(nature) which are often cited with reference to self and
moral behavior. Socialization practices and processes across
life stages that support the development of appropriate moral
concepts can be documented in future researches.
In conclusion, the study serves as a starting point to
know folk or lay ideas about karma and dharma. Linkages
between the construction of these concepts and the use of
these concepts in everyday life can be studied in greater
detail to understand the application of these concepts in
various situations. This would add to the existing knowledge
about indigenous frameworks of social moral reasoning in
the Indian context. Cross-cultural comparisons could also
lead to interesting findings about similarities and differences
in moral understanding. Further research could focus on real
life moral dilemmas when people try to justify or reconcile
with certain life events. Contextualized ideas of fate,
deservingness and justice can add to this basic framework
of karma and dharma.
References
Bersoff, D.M. (1999a). Explaining unethical behavior among
people motivated to act prosocially. Journal of Moral
Education, 28, 4, 413–428.
Bersoff, D.M. (1999b). Why good people sometimes do bad things:
Pro social motivation, self-deception, and unethical behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 28–39.
Bhatia, S. (2000). Language socialization and the construction
of social-moral meanings. Journal of Moral Education, 29,
2, 149–166.
Bilimoria, P. (1993). Is adhikara good enough for ‘rights’? Asian
Philosophy, 3,1, 3–11.
Chennakesavan, S. & Reddy, K.V. (1997). Morals and society
in Indian society: In B. Karr & I. Mahalingam (Eds.).
Companion encyclopedia of Asian philosophy. (pp. 266–280).
New York: Routledge.
Chinmayananda, S. (2002). The Holy Geeta. Mumbai: Swami
Chinmayananda Mission.
Dasgupta, S. (1967). The individual in Indian ethics. In C.A.
Moore (Ed.). The Indian mind: Essentials of Indian philosophy
and culture. (pp. 341–358). Honolulu: East-West center Press.
University of Hawaii Press.
Derne, S. (1992). Beyond institutional and impulsive conceptions
of self: Family structure and the socially anchored self. Ethos,
20, 3, 259–288.
Eckensberger, L. & Zimba, R.F. (1999). The development of moral
judgment. In J. Berry, P. Dasen & T.S. Saraswathi (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes
and human development (2nd edition) (pp. 303–343).Vol. 2.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
Edwards, C.P. (1987). Culture and the construction of moral
values: A comparative ethnography of moral encounters in two
cultural settings. In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.). The emergence
of morality in young children. (pp.123–151). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard university
press.
Huebner, A., & Garrod, A. (1991). Moral reasoning in a
Karmic world. Human Development, 34, 341–352.
Kanekar, & Merchant, S. (2001). Helping norms in relation to
religious affiliation. Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 5,
617–626.
Kapadia, S. (1999). Self, women and empowerment: A conceptual
inquiry. In T.S. Saraswathi (Ed.), Culture, socialization and
human development: Theory, research and applications in
India. (pp. 255–277). New Delhi: Sage
Kolenda, P.M. (1964). Religious anxiety and Hindu fate.
The Journal of Asian Studies, 23, 71–81.
Krishna, D. (1991). Indian philosophy: A counter perspective.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Krishnan, L. (1999). Socialization and cognitive-moral influences
on justice rule preferences: The case of Indian culture. In
T.S. Saraswathi (Ed.), Culture, socialization and human
development: Theory, research and applications in India. (pp.
188–212). New Delhi: Sage.
Madden, T. (1992). Sources of variation in social reasoning
in India: Morality, social cognition, individualism, and
informational assumptions. Unpublished manuscript, School
of education, University of California, Berkeley.
Mahadevan (1967). Social, ethical and spiritual values in Indian
philosophy. In C.A. Moore (Ed.), The Indian mind: Essentials
of Indian philosophy and culture. (pp. 152–170). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Marriott, M. (1990). (Ed.) India through Hindu categories. New
Delhi: Sage.
Mascolo, M.F., Misra, G., & Rapisardi, C. (2004). Individual and
relational conceptions of self in India and the United States.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 104,
9–26.
Mennon, U. (2002). Making sakti: Controlling (natural) impurity
for female (cultural) power. Ethos, 20, ½, 140–157.
Miller, J.G., & Bersoff, D.M. (1995). Development in the context
of everyday family relationships: Culture, interpersonal
morality and adaptation. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.),
Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives.
(pp. 259–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, J.G. (1995). Taking culture into account in social cognitive
development. In G. Misra (Ed.), Socialization and social
development in India. (pp.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, J.G. (2001). Culture and Moral Development.
In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and
psychology. (pp. 151–170). Oxford University press.
Miller, J.G. & Bersoff, D.M. (1993). Culture, context and the
 Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00
development of moral accountability judgments. Developmental
Psychology, 29, 4, 664–676.
Miller, J.G. & Luthar, S. (1989). Issues of interpersonal
responsibility and accountability: A comparison of Indians’
and Americans’ moral judgments. Social Cognition, 7, 3,
237–261.
Misra, G., & Gergen, K. (1993). On the place of culture in
psychological science. International Journal of Psychology,
28, 2, 235–243.
Neff, K., & Helwig, C. (2002). Cognitive Development, 17, 1429–
1450.
Parish, S. (1994). Moral knowing in a sacred Hindu town: An
exploration of mind, emotion and self. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Raju, P.T. (1967). Religious and spiritual values in Indian thought.
In C.A. Moore (Ed.), The Indian mind: Essentials of Indian
philosophy and culture. (pp. 183–215). Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press.
Ramanujan, A.K. (1990). Is there an Indian way of thinking? An
informal essay. In. M. Marriott (Ed.), India through Hindu
categories. (pp. 1–40).New Delhi: Sage.
Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saksena, S.K. (1967). The individual in social thought and practice
in India. In C.A. Moore (Ed.), The Indian mind: Essentials
of Indian philosophy and culture. (pp. 359–373). Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Sengupta, J., Saraswathi, T. S., & Konantambigi, R. (1995).**
Sharma, A. (2000). Classical Indian thought. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Shweder, R.A., & Miller, J.G. (1985). The social construction
of the person: How is it possible? In K.J. Gergen &
K.E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person.
(pp. 41–69). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.
Shweder, R.A. & Much, N. (1991). Determinations of meaning:
Discourse and moral socialization. In R.A. Shweder (Ed.),
Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology.
(pp. 186–240). Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.
Shweder, R.A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R.A., Markus, H.,
& Miller, P. (1998). The cultural psychology of development:
One mind, many mentalities. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) &
R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp.867–
937). New York: John Wiley & sons.
View publication stats
31
Shweder, R.A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. (1987). Culture and
moral development in India and the United States. In J. Kagan
& S. Lamb (Eds), The emergence of morality in young children
(pp.1–89). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shweder, R.A., Much, N.C., Mahapatra, M., Park, L., (1997). The
“Big Three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and
the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. In A.M. Brandt
& P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health: Interdisciplinary
perspectives. (pp. 119–169). New York: Routledge.
Shweder, R.A. (1992). Cultural Psychology: What is it? In
J.W. Stigler, R.A. Shweder & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural
psychology: Essays on comparative human development.
(pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinha J.B.P., Sinha T.N., Verma J., and Sinha, R.B.N. (2001).
Collectivism coexisting with individualism: an Indian scenario.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 133–145.
Sinha, D. (1998). Changing perspectives in social psychology
in India: A journey towards indigenization. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 1, 17–31.
Smetana, J.G. (1995). Morality in context: Abstractions,
ambiguities and applications. Annals of Child Development,
10, 83–130.
Tripathi, R.C. (2001). Aligning development to values in India.
In A.K. Dalal & G. Misra (Eds.), New directions in Indian
psychology. (pp. 307–325). New Delhi: Sage.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge:
Morality and convention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. (1987). Morality: Its structure,
functions and vagaries. In J. Kagan and S. Lamb (Eds.), The
emergence of morality in young children. (pp. 155–244).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vasudev, J., & Hummel, R.C. (1987). Moral stage sequence and
principled reasoning in an Indian sample. Human Development,
30, 105–118.
Wadley, S. & Derr, B. (1990). Eating sins in Karimpur. In
M. Marriott (Ed.), India through Hindu categories. (pp.
131–148). New Delhi: Sage.
Wainryb, C., & Turiel, E. (1995). Diversity in social development:
Between or within cultures? In M. Killen and D. Hart (Eds.),
Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives.
(pp.283–313). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, B. (1995). Hindu world: An encyclopedic survey of
Hinduism. (Vol.1). (pp. 529–530). New Delhi: Harper Collins.