Role of human psychological development in building Character

There are three major issues in the education of young people today. The first is the development of a vision for one's life that includes the discovery and/or defining of one's life mission and desired lifestyle. The second is the development of one's character, dealing with concerns of direction and quality of life. The third deals with the development of competence that deals with concerns of how well one is able to do something. Similarly, education as the process that prepares young people for their social inheritance and advocates three dimensions of education--development of knowledge, training of mental abilities, and development of character. The issue of vision and competence permeates other sections of these materials (e.g., information processing, abstract thinking, critical thinking, and conation/volition.) The focus of this section will be the issue of character. The following two definitions provide examples of a normative view of character:

"Engaging in morally relevant conduct or words, or refraining from certain conduct or words"

"A complex set of relatively persistent qualities of the individual person, and generally has a positive connotation when used in discussions of moral education"

In general, character, good or bad, is considered to be observable in one's. Thus, character is different from values in that values are orientations or dispositions whereas character involves action or activation of knowledge and values. From this perspective, values are seen as one of the foundations for character.In  context of the of human behavior values includes both cognitive and affective components, but not necessarily  behavioral components. Character includes all three components. Most people hold beliefs about personality characteristics typical of members of their own and others' cultures. These perceptions of national character may be generalizations from personal experience, stereotypes with a “kernel of truth,” or inaccurate stereotypes.  Perceptions of national character thus appear to be unfounded stereotypes that may serve the function of maintaining a national identity. Beliefs about distinctive personality characteristics common to members of a culture are referred to as national character or national stereotypes.

National stereotypes include beliefs about social, physical, and mental characteristics, but the present article focuses on personality traits. Several factors are thought to influence these beliefs. They may be generalizations based on observations of the personality traits of individual culture members. They may be inferences based on the national ethos, as revealed in socio-economic conditions, history, customs, myths, legends, and values. They may be shaped by comparisons or contrasts with geographically close or competing cultures. Stereotypes are oversimplified judgments, but if they have some “kernel of truth”, national character should reflect the average emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles of members of the culture. There have been surprisingly few attempts to examine the accuracy of national stereotype perhaps because researchers lacked appropriate criteria. However, recent advances in personality psychology and cross-cultural research make it possible to compare perceived national character to aggregate personality data (that is, the means of a sample of assessments of individuals) across a wide range of cultures.

As previously discussed, good character is defined in terms of one's actions. Character development traditionally has focused on those traits or values appropriate for the industrial age such as obedience to authority, work ethic, working in group under supervision, etc. However, modern education must promote character based on values appropriate for the information age: truthfulness, honesty, integrity, individual responsibility, humility, wisdom, justice, steadfastness, dependability, etc.In terms of what influences character development, I propose the following as major factors in the moral development and behavior of youth in contemporary India: Heredity, early childhood experience, modeling by important adults and older youth, peer influence, the general physical and social environment, the communications media, what is taught in the schools and other institutions, Specific situations and roles that elicit corresponding behavior.

The Liberalized Indians : Post 1991

Economic liberalization policy was taken up by Government of India in 1991. The pace with which the reforms multiplied has not taken a break and it has been an era of reforms. It has affected almost every sector, giving a firm boost to the Industrial Sector to contribute to the GDP. The structure of the different sectors has changed where pre-liberalized India has limited contributors, but now post 1991, a major restructuring has taken place with the emergence of more technologically advanced segments among industrial companies. Nowadays, more small and medium scale enterprises contribute significantly to the economy.

The management system had shifted from “Ghar ka karobar” (family based system) to a system of professional managers ranging from Harvard to IIMs. One of the reproductions is the birth of a hybrid class of Indian middle class with higher purchasing power and competitive attitude. When I was kid my Dad use to kid around and say” If there is a product say, comprising A,B,C,D,E stages what we do is let the product complete all these stages, and then inscribe boldly “Made in India” without really adding any value to the product. Well gone are those days!! Post liberalization the Brand India is world known ranging from agricultural products to automobile, manufacturing and steel. There is this brand of Liberalized Indian entering every sector in the era of globalization and giving it a tough run for the money conquering Silicon Valley to the BPO in the Indian Metros. With the millions of talented graduates every year there is a huge talent pool of qualified professionals now available, waiting to conquer the world with their domain knowledge.

India, after all these years of reforms and steady economic growth is now at the “Two way highway”. While one road leads India to economic prosperity and glory, the other road leads it to social inequality. Presently, as India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, the social aspects have been ridden roughshod by the economic benefits. What has been conveniently forgotten or suppressed till date have been the disparities, mainly the socio-economical issues. This has led to growing discontent among the population and it has gathered momentum since the reforms began 15 years ago. It will very soon reach a critical point wherein the very purpose for which the reforms were started, will start to lose their significance rapidly and throw the country back into the ‘unionist’ era.

I Believe understanding Liberalized Indians is very crucial. With the growth of mass media and the internet puts Liberalized India in a very interesting position. It is in some sense, ‘pre-western’. The combination of comfort with English, combined with the relatively liberal political and media environment of India, is resulting in a huge American influence on this middle class. Also contributing are the increasingly strong people to people links between America and India. The middle class is thus developing aspirations that are in line with this pseudo-western mindset. It seems that for now these aspirations are mostly consumerist and professional, not political.

But why not? So much is wrong with India’s politics. What explains this most unforgivable disengagement? Many different reasons have been proposed but I think it really starts in school. Although the syllabus is now much better, now a days. But it is mainly focused on Science, Humanities or Commerce .It is silent on the Contemporary India and its Issues ranging from Criminalization of Politics to Corruption. Well I believe History is important to understand the roots of an individual and a nation but it’s more important that a nurturing Indian is aware of the problems he is going to face in the Society, so he doesn’t end up giving it up. Making him run away for a better life thousand miles away from his motherland.

So in India today, we have a generation of young men and women who ‘dream’ of a American Education life, and New York. And another generation waiting in some corner of the Country in some village who ‘dream’ of a DU, JNU or say Pune Education life. Life although easier than that of a tribal or a farmer is no cakewalk for most of us. But, the Liberalized Indians has to realize one thing, that migration is an okay goal for an individual, but not for an entire society. Until this fundamental realization occurs and we learn that it has a huge stake in the well being of the rest of India around it, India will be on a path that leads nowhere. What are essential for India are economic reforms with a social face. The economic policies and their subsequent reforms must be accompanied by suitable clauses to benefit the economically weaker sections. Then India will not only be economically prosperous, but will also forge ahead towards its goal of world dominance.

A piece of my Calligraphy !

Civil Society, Civil Society … Lokpal, Lokpal….Do we really need a “Lokpal bill”??

The term “Civil Society” has come to enjoy much political, administrative and intellectual currency in the recent years. However it has a fairly long history. Various political philosophers differentiated and separated civil society from the State. In words of S.K.Das “Civil society is the organized society over which the state rules” where as Jeffrey Alexender defined it as “an inclusive umbrella like concept referring to a plethora of institution outside the state. But in the context of the recent political chaos in India, the so called the civil society representatives under Anna Hazare is beyond the concept the above mentioned kind of civil society. The very basic reason is the that they are self proclaimed representatives of 1.21 billion people, who had democratically elected a government by spending around 1,120 crores of tax payers money, as budgeted by the parliament as election expenses in Feb,2009. Well I agree to the fact, that the civil society plays an important role in the welfare and development administration, as it forms a public opinion. To my understanding, Civil Society is nothing but “Us”. In a democracy- in particular, a healthy liberal democracy like India I think we require a public which is organized for democracy, socialized to its norms and values and committed not just to its myriad narrow interests but to larger, common, civic ends. Such a public is only possible with a vibrant civil society. So the question is “Are we a vibrant society”? Or only few among us like Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi etc. are enough to represent the largest democracy in the world. India’s effective literacy rate according to the provisional census of 2011 is 74.04 % with an increase of 9.2%, where Literacy, as defined in Census operations, is the ability to read and write with understanding in any language. Whereas I think Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society. Hardly, any percent of the society is aware of their rights and duties as citizens. And even if they are aware of it, there is so much in everyone’s life like kids, inflation, job-shifts, un-employment, crime etc they delegate their part of responsibility to others, or say to the voluntary organizations in the society to act as the watch-dog of the public interest.

Modern democratic states are characterized by welfare orientation .Hence; the government has to play an important role in the socio-economic development of the nation. This has resulted in the expansion of the bureaucracy and the multiplication of the administrative process, which in turn increased the administrative power and discretion enjoyed by the government officials at different levels of the government. The earliest democratic institution created in the world for unfair administrative practices is the Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman. It was first created in Sweden in 1809, ‘Ombud’ is a Swedish term and refers to a person who acts as representative or spokesman of another person. The Ombudsman in India is called as Lokpal / Lokayukta. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Moraji Desai submitted a special interim Report on” Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances’ in 1966. In this Report, the ARC recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ for redressal of citizens grievances. The government of India accepted the recommendations of ARC in this regard.So far, 8 official attempts have been made to bring about legislation on this subject. In May, 1968 by the congress government headed by Indira Gandhi for the first time introduced the Bill in the Parliament. However, none of the bills afterwards were passed by the parliament due to one or the other reasons. No doubt, the Lokpal has not yet come into existence in our country, though its need was felt long ago that is 42 years back. With so much of the Political Chaos in the country recently by the Anna’s and the Baba’s, my question is do we really need a “LokPal Bill”?

I think the recent exposure of scams starting from CWG, 2-G, Adarsh society to the recent irregularities noticed by the CAG in the allocation of KG basin to the Reliance. The Government was under pressure to act, was it because of the agitation by the Civil Society? Or by the fear of impending Lokpal Bill? Well if we think away from the “Shor in the country”, It’s because of the democracy and the powers conferred to the institution like CAG, CVC and the Supreme Court of India that the State had to act. It is because of the existing Checks & Balances, the Political and Administrative reforms we had since Independence that we have the Ex-telecom minister in jail, the Daughter of the head of the Coalition party to the government in the Jail, along with the Babus. The hearing in the Courts are public, the Media is more than active to flash anything spicy as ever. So how can “Lokpal” make it look better? Is it the fact that we would feel proud of the fact, that we being the largest democracy in the World would have an establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire even the head of the State of the Country, who is elected by 1.21 billion people. I must say” What kind of a Lokpal we are talking about”? Who will be the Lok pal ? The 2001 Lokpal bill by the NDA government features, a Lokpal to consist of a Chairperson who is or has been a Chief Justice or Judge of Supreme Court and two members who are or have been the judges of the Supreme Court or the Chief justices of High Court. I wonder how exclusive it would be!

After all, Lokpal would be just another institution like CBI, CVC, Lokayukta and various tribunals. On a funny note, I am sure “Lokpal would surely be a Human Being” or ‘an Individual’? I hope so. It will be an authority just like the existing ones. But the question, Are the existing one functioning to their capacity? If so, then do we need another one? After all, the question of inclusion of Prime Minister is not going to curb the moral and ethical conduct of all of us. Who will define the so called” Corruption”? The words corruption and corrupt have many meanings starting from Political, Police, Corporate, Corruption(The philosophical concept) often refers to spiritual or moral impurity, Bribery, Systemic and the Rule of Law. And if the above definition is true, “Will Lokpal really curb the above mentioned forms of Corruption”? Or by including the Head of the State, i.e the Prime Minister will make a Statement in the International World Order. I think it’ll be a mockery of the status of the Head of the government of the Republic of India. In today’s modern democratic states, the existing Ombudsman is nothing more or less than a constitutional authority to supervise the compliance of laws and regulations, by the public officials and see that they discharge their duties properly. So I think, to include Prime Minister who is the de-jure executive and the head of the government under Lokpal, will be undermining the status of the Office of the Prime Minister. Today, PM is defined as ‘Primus inter pares’ (first among equals) and’ key stone of the cabinet arch’ and all the roads in the constitution lead to the Prime minister only. So, he cannot sit and answer the issues raised by an institution like Lokpal because of the nature of the duties which the Prime Minister has to deliver. In a parliamentary democracy, where the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined we don’t need a “Lokpal” at all. What we need is people’s participation in the electoral, administrative and the accountability of the various authorities.

People’s participation means citizens control over the administration or the public influence on administration. It is essential for the smooth and efficient performance of the administrative machinery. And for that matter, we need people‘s participation even if we have a Lokpal tomorrow. It makes the administration responsive to the needs of the people. I believe that a democratic government is based on the “Doctrine of popular Sovereignty” which means people are supreme in a democracy, or the final authority in the democracy is vested in the people. It transfers the representative democracy into participatory democracy. It facilitates what is known as “Bottom –up rule”. In real, people being ignorant and unorganized, cannot generally have a definite and regular influence on administration. Hence the public influence on political and administrative process is mainly indirect and informal. It exists in the Constitutional space which was very efficiently used by Mahatma Gandhi for the freedom of the India from the colonial rule. It is through prolonged popular struggle on moral, political and ideological level, where reserves of counter-hegemony builds up over the years through progressive stages. We can really use the constitutional space offered by the government without getting co-opted by it. People’s participation was and is the biggest need for a democracy to survive its dynamic phases of change and development. And in a democracy, we already have the power to express our opinions in relation to government policies via televisions, cinema, educational institutions, radio, press and public platform. What we need is a change in the attitude of the people this country, a change in the mindset which really does not come with the Lokpal bill. It took us 15O years during the colonial era, to build up a change in mindset to have what we wanted then. And today, we still need a change in mind-set to build the India of tomorrow.

The One and Only Kashmir

India even after 63yrs of Independence is facing major issues tied to past unresolved agendas of boundaries, areas, rivers etc. Let it be the situation with the Pakistan or China the question is “will there be any Outcome ever”? Or it is transforming into a diplomatic glitch! The people of Kashmir are not doubt citizens of the Republic of India, according to the Constitution as well from the psychological concept of Nationality. No matter what different pressure groups, political sides may have to say, the question is about the lives of 4millions Indians. Today Kashmir denotes a larger area that includes Indian administered part of Kashmir (Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh), the Pakistani administered Gilgit-Baltistan and the Azad Kashmir provinces, and the Chinese-administered regions of Askai-Chin. People living in Kashmir are characterized by a distinctive “mix”of attitudes, values, emotions, and abilities which is culturally reinforced by the family, schooling, the state and the media. Kashmir has a vast history of different kinds of rulers from Brahmins, Bhuddists, Mughals,Afghans, and Sikhs. But Kashmir has grown ever since with all the blunders, militancy and the political turmoil.

There are many aspects which divides Kashmir but the only thing that unites it is its “Culture” or say the ‘kashmiriyat. It’s the beauty, the Wazwan, Nishat-shalimar Bagh, gulmarg,the Chinar and above all the people. One thing which the Media never focuses on is “what does a father, a mother, a Child” really wants in Kashmir? Even when the protests where going on people where migrating to jammu for normalcy in their lives. Everyone wants their children to go to schools, prepare for the entrances, look for jobs etc. I don’t think anyone wakes up in the morning with the question of so called “Azadi” in his mind. It’s not about Kashmir only; it’s about all of us. People have suffered for so many years, the kashmiri pundits had suffered a lott, many lost their lives and homes. I believe that democracy is not what we understand by its political science, its what we see in our day to day lives. It’s not about being the Biggest Democracy in the world, its about the being the ‘Best Democracy in the world’.