Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00 19

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

R. Bhangaokar • S. Kapadia Department. of Human Development and Family Studies,Faculty of Family and Community Sciences,Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,Vadodara, Gujarat, INDIA

e-mail: kulrachana@gmail.com

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.

Cognitive Developmental Paradigm

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage theory is a major anchor to understand moral development. But like many other theories, it has some inherent limitations. The criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory focus on the limited role attributed

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

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

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0020

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.

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 21

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

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

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0022

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.

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 life span as well as high and low social class. The other 14 individuals represented different professions (for example, teachers, doctors and lawyers) and scholarly backgrounds (priests and manuscriptologists). The sample was selected purposively using the snowball technique. Respondents were selected based on the researcher’s contacts, their interest and willingness to participate in the study. In all, there were 18 men and 12 women who participated in the study. The participants were contacted personally, prior appointments were sought and in-depth interviews were conducted at their homes. The interview schedule included questions about what people understood by the terms karma and dharma and their ideal fulfillment. Wherever possible the participants were asked to support their answers with examples from their personal and professional lives. Interviews were conducted in Indian languages (Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi) and English. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and later translated in English.

The data was gender disaggregated and analyzed qualitatively. Conceptually clustered matrices were prepared to explain the concepts of karma and dharma. Wherever possible, data was represented using frequencies and percentages.

Profile of the Respondents

The respondents of the study were selected from various walks of life and represented different socio-economic classes in urban Vadodara, Gujarat. Across high and low social class, the sample included four individuals each who were adolescents, young adults, middle aged and elderly. With respect to education, six respondents from the lower socio economic group had minimum schooling (primary education) and two elderly respondents had no formal schooling. On the other hand, respondents from the higher socio economic class had educational qualifications ranging from high school to post graduation. All four women in the lower socio economic group were employed. As against this, three out of four women in the higher socio economic group were housewives and one was a student.

The professionals represented a wide range of occupations. The sample included men who worked as priests and astrologers (n=3), executives with the government and private companies (n=3), a social activist and a theatre personality (n=2), one professor and one graduate student. Four women from this group included a social activist, a lawyer, a school teacher and a graduate student.

Results

Interpretations of Karma and Dharma

This section depicts various interpretations of the concepts of karma and dharma by the respondents (N=30). The data is presented in a gender disaggregated form to highlight gender differences. Besides this, wherever prominent, class or caste differences are also referred to in the text.

Concept of Karma

Table 1 represents the concept of karma as understood by the respondents. Three major categories emerged which were based on the explanations and real life examples derived from the interviews.

Table 1 Concept of Karma (N=30)

Understanding of Karma Frequency TotalMen Women

Role-related Responsibilities(kartavya) - Personal - Life stage (ashramadharma, student, parent)- Familial- Professional (boss/subordinate)

15 12 31

Societal Duties- As a member of society / part of nature (samaj / prakriti ke ghatak)- To the best of abilities, without any expectation- By following religious prescriptions Nature of Deeds (saara karm)- “just dessert”- Ideas of rebirth

10 7 17

God given capacity to work 2 - 2No response 1 - 1(Figures represent multiple responses)

Two main components explaining the concept were karma as role-related duties / responsibilities and karma as good or bad deeds.

Karma and Social-Familial Roles

Majority of responses were clustered around the understanding of karma as role-related responsibilities in everyday life. The following response clearly denotes what role-related responsibilities are:

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0024

“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

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 25

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

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…

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0026

Table 2 Concept of Dharma (N=30)

Understanding of Karma Frequency TotalMen Women

Role-related responsibilities- Personal- Familial- Life stage- Professional - As part of nation/society/nature

28 14 42

Duties - Situational- Humanitarian, other oriented- Diligent execution of workReligion- Belief in God / supreme power (aastha, vishwaas)- Prayers/ rituals (puja-paath)- Hinduism (hindu dharma)- Non discrimination

7 10 17

Code of conduct- Cultural social order - Principles of discrimination

between right and wrong action

7 2 9

Same as Karma 2 - 2(Figures represent multiple responses)

helping them emotionally and in any other aspect. Then there are duties towards society, that I take correct actions..it might not be possible to correct each and everyone but make myself an example for the society. Then there are duties to the nation, that I pay my taxes regularly that I don’t cause any harm to public property. There is a wider concept of world citizenship which means we are closely related to the world and if need be, we must cross national borders and help others.” (Man, 23 years old, Management student)

Although both men and women primarily explained dharma as familial duties, women generally interpreted dharma exclusively within the familial sphere or as interpersonal duties towards others (helping others, taking care of others) whereas men explained dharma to cover many other spheres of their life. Only those women who had full time careers mentioned dharma as a social order and placed themselves as active agents within the social structure.

“Dharma has been defined in our society mainly as the execution of duties (kartavya) for the smooth functioning of society…so that things are systematic. I believe each one has a place in the social structure and corresponding duties too. That is why dharma is a part of our life..it is a

way of life (jivan paddhati). For example, I am a wife so I have some dharma as a wife (gruhini dharma) but I am also part of the society (samaja che ghatak)..so if I know the deteriorating status of women in society, I have to do something about it in whatever capacity I have. For example, if I am traveling and I see a woman passenger being ‘eve teased’, I should support her and try to protect her against such anti social elements. Another example could be caring for my surroundings by not littering. But for this each one has to realize what his or her duty is and fulfill it well” (Woman, 55 years, social activist)

Dharma and the Role of Personal Interpretation

Some educated respondents, both men and women, referred to the role of personal interpretation, reiterating that the social order is made for the individual and the individual is not forever bound by societal rules.

“According to me, whatever rules are made to run a house and a society smoothly, I must follow them without 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 that me and my family are happy. When there is a need to follow the rules, you should follow them. But if there is a need, then break the rules. Your dharma is not destroyed or harmed if you break the rules. Walk according to the rules but at the same time, the rules are made for us, we are not made for the rules, this should be kept in mind.”(Woman, 61, lawyer)

Dharma as Religion

The understanding of dharma as religion wasn’t restricted to Hinduism or being a practicing Hindu. It included ideas of faith (aastha, shraddha) in God or an omnipresent power governing humans or an understanding of five life giving elements which sustain the natural world (panchamahabhoota). Other responses included praying or following rituals. Some respondents also referred to dharma as a principle of equality among human beings and non discrimination.

Dharma also meant a code of conduct for the self and social systems. Marriott (1990) interprets dharma as “coherence” in Hindu systems of thought. It is an individual’s way of living based on personal understanding of right and 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 show that there is enough scope for self interpretation of dharma, depending on the individual’s preferences and contextual demands.

“To be a Hindu or Muslim is not dharma. It cannot be said like that. Whatever you follow, that is your dharma. If you think that I don’t want to follow rituals or prayers but I will show the good path to people, or help them or if there is a poor person or a blind person, I will show him the way, to be of some use to them, that is also a dharma. But what I have to do that I have to decide, that is my dharma. If you say that I don’t want to do any prayers/ rituals (devdharma) but want to do only social service (lok seva) or help people, then I can do social work (lok seva), but no one will ask me that you are doing this social service, you have a temple in your house, why are you not worshipping God? Yes, kartavya (duty/responsibility) must be done and to be of use to people instead of just worshipping God is real kartavya, this is what I believe in.” (Male, 55 years, Hindu priest).

More women than men consider dharma as religion (or belief in God) and as duties towards others as we are born human (manushya dharma). According to Mahadevan (1967) Bhagvad Gita considers each man’s dharma as svadharma which is performance of duties pertaining to the station of one’s life. In contemporary times, dharma based on one’s varna (caste one is born into) may not have much significance but that based on the asrama (stage in the life span) definitely holds true. Thus, svadharma has been reinterpreted as that which is suitable to one’s capacities, inclinations and intelligence (Chennakesavan & Reddy, 1997).

To sum up, dharma was a moral guideline or a code of conduct used to determine an individual’s karma or 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 interpretation. More women than men considered dharma to be religion.

Ideal Fulfillment of Dharma

Additional probe questions in the interview brought forth concepts of what respondents considered to be an ideal fulfillment of dharma in their lives. Most of these responses were gathered from educated men who held important professional positions in various fields. Few responses from women centered on concerns with the family. Some spheres of life which respondents referred to are summed up in table 3 along with examples.

Table 3 Ideal fulfillment of Dharma (N=15)

Ideal fulfillment of Dharma Examples

Fulfillment of duties, without expectations

Familial (parents, • immediate family)Towards society, • community or nation

Diligently fulfilling • duties (Duty to care for parents, husband, children, teachers, family at large)Follow social conventions• Help the needy, do social • service, serve the nationDerive happiness by • making others happy

Goal Achievements Material Rewards / AppreciationTowards Self-Refinement

Earn money, be • independent and ‘settle down in life’Make superiors (at work • place) happyIncrease inner strength • to deal with everyday stressorsControl materialistic urges • and de-condition the mindMake self more deserving, • correct mistakes, use intellect and caution (vivek buddhi ani savadhanata)Contribute to society • through knowledge

Conscience Related Balance between • karma and dharmaContinue good • karma and ignore adharmaLive with a clear • conscience, according to moral principles, without guiltCoordination between • thoughts in mind and feelings in heart

Although voiced by a limited number of respondents, the responses reflected a need for psychological satisfaction, 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 had already fulfilled their dharma by going to pilgrimages and were at peace with themselves, most other (younger) respondents desired material as well as psychological homeostasis. In order to achieve ideal fulfillment of their dharma, respondents mentioned some conscience related challenges they face in everyday life. Most of these responses were gathered from men and were related to their professional lives (for example, corruption). There was an awareness of the presence of ‘adharma’ which led to an

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0028

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).

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.

Linkages between concepts of karmand dharma (N=30)

Good and Bad deeds28%

Fulfilling duties and role- related

responsiblities 60%

Fulfilling duties and role- related

responsiblities 67%

Others5%

Others3%

Religion24%

Code of conduct

13%

Fulfilling dutiesand role-relatedresponsiblities

Good and Baddeeds

Code of conductReligion

Others

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–00 29

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.

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.

Psychological Studies (June 2009) 54:00–0030

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.

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 31

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.

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.