SELF ESTEEM
Indians have a veru slow self-esteem as evident from our groups
aand the nations far and wide; Mr Sekar often quotes to make us rise and
awakened. But what aare the four perceptions of the self esteem ?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I Do you agree with the fact that Indians have relatively low
self-esteem?
I completely agree. I am an Indian who has lived in US for 15 years but
have come back to India. I studied and worked in Engineering there.
I see that Indians are all about pleasing, fitting in, hero worshipping,
aping the west. The simplest example is the obsession with American accent
in English while not caring about speaking Hindi fluently. In fact many are
ashamed of speaking in Hindi. Yes English is a stylish, attractive sounding
language but that is it. That way if you see, Hindi is a very scientific
language. They are just languages.
Now when I came back to India and started working somewhere (an Indian
company but MNC) I was asked by Indian colleagues -Why aren’t you using
American accent? They also associated it with my capability to do my job
right- as if speaking in American accent meant being able to do my job. I
was in a senior management position. But still I am in India! My job had
nothing to do with selling or interacting with foreign clients. So why will
I use an American accent? Also Americans dont care about your accent as far
as you speak clearly. I never had any issue with my accent in US. People
mostly said, I speak very well. And in engineerimg your job is quite
technical. Why is this a matter of shame and pride in India? Where is our
self esteem? We should be proud to speak in Hindi or have our own English
accent. Yes, clarity is important. But otherwise, China is doing it. France
is doing it. Germany is doing it. Korea is doing it. They all speak English
with their accents. And there is American English and British English.
More on this- my friends in US who have settled there have American accents
- they are extremely well educated people doing great in their lives and
careers. Now American accent for English in America makes sense since you
need good communication skills and you are living in a foreign country. But
over time their Hindi accents have changed to American accent as well.
Hindi is a separate language spoken differently. I understand this can
happen naturally if you are not paying attention to your speech. But when
it is important to speak English in American accent because that is a
“truer version” of English, why is it not important to speak Hindi in its
“true” accent? Especially because it's your native language that you spoke
in all your life!
It's simple. No self esteem. They think English is superior. I think this
is the exact reason why Britishers could rule in India. Indians simply
bowed to them and thought they were better. Why? Because they don't care to
know about their country and it's greatness. Just blind followers.
(ps: Another small example and observation. Buddha taught mindfulness to
the world in the form of Vipassana meditation. I have sat and served
Vipassana courses for more than two decades. The west, especially US,
noticed this and started selling it (like they always do, US is great at
selling anything). Now they have courses in mindfulness in their
universities especially Stanford etc, incorporated mindfulness in cognitive
therapy etc and have started re-teaching it to the world. Even UK top
universities have seen the value of it and are teaching it in universities.
Many world renowned names like Ekhart Tolle, Jon Kabat Jinn etc are
teaching mindfulness as if they have discovered it themselves , they never
give any credit to the Vipassana courses they have done and the teachers
from whom they have learnt, especially the Buddha. However now Indian
psychologists go and learn these new psychology courses from the west and
are in awe of it. In a few years, people in India will think mindfulness
came from the west. Same story for Ayurveda or Yoga. Why? Because Indians
have no self-esteem. They just want to praise and hero-worship “others”. No
self-knowledge or pride about their own nation.) {QUORA}
II Whenever someone is pulled up for jumping the queue at, say,
passport counters in international airports, we are embarrassed—as it is
almost always an Indian or an equally insensitive person from our immediate
neighbours. As soon as a plane lands or a train stops, everyone jumps up
and seems to be in a tearing hurry, jostling with co-passengers, to get
out. It may sound too sweeping to brand an entire people as too restlessly
self-centred, but we all know that it is quite true. We are not arguing
that others may not be self-obsessed; we are only trying to understand why
most of us appear to be so inconsiderately pushy.
In 1976, Richard Dawkins created quite a stir with his The Selfish Gene, where
he declared that winning genes are self-reinforcing and spread faster and
greater because they succeed in achieving their tasks. He also introduced
the theory of ‘memes’ describing them as elements of a culture or systems
of behaviour that are passed from one individual to another—by imitation.
As in the physical world, in society too ‘memes’ or imitational behaviour
spread more voluminously if they achieve their targeted gains. Applying
this trait to our society, we may put it rather simply and surmise that
everyone pushes around as those who pushed first profited in their
objective. They were not reprimanded despite violating normal decency and
patience, and they succeeded in moving forward, even at the cost of causing
discomfort to others. On the other hand, Dutch historian Rutger Bergman
argues in his recent book, Humankind, that humans are not as intrinsically
selfish as believed. He insists, after considerable mapping of humans and
their actions, that acts of kindness are also powerfully contagious.
What then triggers the ‘me-first’ attitude among Indians that really stands
out more in international comparisons? Honking cars unnecessarily is just
another aspect of this same inconsiderate social behaviour. The same person
would be driving perfectly quietly, without blowing his horn, if he were
abroad and there he would abide by the consensus or face heavy fines and
public scorn. The same unconcerned disposition is quite visible in the
practice of keeping our homes as clean as possible but bothering little
about littering public places and thoroughfares. Before we go deeper in
examining why our inclinations differ so sharply when it comes to ‘common
concerns’, let us also analyse the notable international sporting events
where Indians have won medals. We are talking of the Olympics (woefully few
medals), Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and such other prestigious
championships.
We discover that almost all of these medals were for individual
excellence—shooting, wrestling, boxing, athletics, badminton, tennis,
weightlifting, chess, swimming and so on. Yes, we have won medals in team
games like hockey, which is really an exception to this ‘rule’. Our
post-colonial obsession with cricket is thanks to the incredible amount of
investment made in the game and in its seductive and addictive televising.
The point is that we seem to excel where we have to fight it alone, whereas
where we need to work as a team, say, in football, a nation of 1.3 billion
has not yet produced its ‘eleven’ for top class international football.
The whole idea of this little exercise is not to denigrate but to try to
understand the phenomenon. One possible reason is evident in the most
populous religion on this subcontinent, on which base ‘grew’ other later
religions. The mad rush at many temples and other sacred sites during
festivals and pilgrimages is certainly not for the faint-hearted. And
frankly, while everyone jostles, elbows and tramples over everyone else, we
pray only for our welfare and prosperity and, of course, for our family.
This, again, needs to be appreciated as an act of seeking ‘individual
salvation’ ,not necessarily (or rarely) for the community. Abrahamic
religions, on the other hand, emphasise communitarian brotherhood, while we
are genetically programmed to obtain our own good, come what may. The
lavish gifts or daana at the temples are often quite transactional in
nature, and piety is quite purchasable—as in some churches.
How else would a completely unorganised religion that has no Vatican, no
one Bible, no agreed cadre of preachers survive through so many
millennia—had it not been for the mandate to pay for the services of the
priest and the ritual practitioner? The latter belonged to one varna or
caste group and were often quite captive within a society that demanded
that they do not seek better vocations. We are, of course, referring to the
prescribed norm. The short point is that this priesthood needed its clients
and benefactors. They served them by connecting them directly to the
Almighty, even if it warranted shoving others out of the way. What we need
to note is that this class succeeded in uniting an incredibly diverse
country by injecting common beliefs and rituals.
It is quite possible that we inherited this socially accepted behaviour
that shaped our cultural genes and stamped our ‘memes’, which, in turn,
left its indelible mark on our general attitude to life. The ‘community’
emerged much later—during the Bhakti movement, with bhajans and other
institutions. But the core attitude continued to be self-oriented even when
we became more inclusive and egalitarian.
Jawhar Sircar
Retired civil servant.
III The assertion that the majority of the population in India is
"self-centred" is a generalization that needs careful examination. While it
is true that many individuals across the world exhibit self-interest in
various degrees, this statement about India specifically requires a deeper,
more nuanced analysis of socio-cultural, economic, and psychological
factors. In this essay, we will explore the concept of self-centeredness,
analyse its roots in Indian society, and consider whether this trait is
widespread or whether it is merely a perception. The analytical focus will
examine the role of truth, societal expectations, and the influence of the
environment in shaping individual behaviour.
2 Understanding Self-Centeredness and Truth: Self-centeredness is
often described as excessive preoccupation with oneself, disregarding the
needs, feelings, or rights of others. This trait can manifest as egoism,
narcissism, or individualism. It can also be seen as a natural survival
instinct, where one focuses primarily on personal gains, well-being, and
success, sometimes at the expense of others. Truth, in this context, can be
seen as the objective reality about human nature and societal behaviour.
However, the interpretation of truth is subjective and can differ based on
culture, history, and personal experiences. In Indian society, like in any
other, the concept of self-interest exists but is intricately intertwined
with collective values and a complex social fabric. To understand the claim
of widespread self-centeredness in India, we must explore factors such as
family structures, cultural norms, religious teachings, and socio-economic
conditions.
3 Cultural and Religious Influence on Self-Interest: India’s
social structure has historically been defined by *strong communal ties.* In
traditional Indian society, the family unit has been a cornerstone of life.
In many parts of India, extended families live together, where individuals
are taught to prioritize family honour over personal desires. However, in
the past few decades, societal changes, particularly the shift towards
urbanization and globalization, have introduced a more individualistic
culture. This shift, often associated with Western influence, has led
to a growing
sense of personal autonomy. Religious teachings also play a significant
role in shaping attitudes toward self-interest. Hinduism, India’s
predominant religion, often advocates for a balance between self-care and
altruism. The idea of dharma (duty) suggests that individuals should act
selflessly for the greater good. Similarly, Buddhism and Jainism, which
have roots in India, emphasize compassion and non-violence, promoting
selflessness and consideration for others. However, in practice, the
pressures of modern life, including competition, economic disparity, and
societal expectations, can lead individuals to focus more on personal gain
rather than communal or familial well-being. The pursuit of material
success often overshadows these spiritual teachings, creating a tension
between self-centred behaviour and traditional values of interconnectedness.
4 Economic Factors and Individualism: India’s rapid
economic growth over the past few decades has transformed the country in
numerous ways. The liberalization of the economy, an increase in
entrepreneurial opportunities, and a growing consumer market have
encouraged people to pursue personal success. In cities, this has led to
the rise of individualistic values, with a stronger emphasis on
self-reliance and personal achievement. The competitive nature of the job
market also fosters an environment where individuals may adopt a
self-centred mindset to survive or thrive. On the other hand, India is
still a country with extreme economic disparities. In rural areas and among
lower-income populations, survival often becomes the primary concern,
leading people to focus more on their own immediate needs rather than the
larger social or collective good. *Here, self-centeredness could be
understood not as a moral flaw, but as a survival mechanism. *In such
circumstances, truth about human nature and self-interest could be seen
through the lens of economic necessity, where personal well-being takes
precedence.
5 The Role of social media and Modern Influence: The rise of digital
media and the proliferation of social media platforms has drastically
changed the way people interact, especially in urban India. Social media
often promotes a culture of self-presentation, where individuals are
encouraged to focus on their image, personal achievements, and lifestyle.
In this environment, it is easy to see how individuals might become more
self-centred, as they compete for attention, validation, and approval from
their peers. Moreover, the curated reality presented on platforms like
Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter may lead to unrealistic expectations and a
heightened focus on personal success. People may be driven by the need for
external validation, often at the expense of authentic connection with
others. In this context, self-centeredness is not only a product of
personal desire but is also a consequence of a media-driven culture that
prizes individual achievements over collective progress.
6 Social Expectations and the Pressure to Conform: Despite these
individualistic influences, Indian society also places a strong emphasis on
social obligations, duty, and respect for elders. However, the pressure to
conform to societal norms can create a paradox where individuals must
balance personal desires with collective expectations. For instance, many
Indians experience intense pressure to succeed academically,
professionally, and financially, often for the benefit of the family or
community. This can lead to self-centred behaviour in the pursuit of these
external goals. On the flip side, the desire to maintain social status can
foster selflessness when it comes to certain communal or familial
responsibilities. In many Indian communities, contributing to the welfare
of the family and larger society is seen as a source of pride.
Nevertheless, the balance between fulfilling personal ambitions and social
responsibilities can be difficult, especially when personal success becomes
equated with self-worth.
7 The Truth About Self-Centeredness in India: The question of
whether the majority of the population in India is self-centred is complex.
It is essential to recognize that self-centeredness, as a trait, is not
inherently good or bad; it is shaped by societal norms, economic
conditions, and cultural influences. The truth about self-centeredness in
India lies in the nuanced interplay of traditional values and modern
pressures. In some contexts, self-interest may be a reflection of survival
instincts or the pursuit of individual achievement in a rapidly changing
world. In other cases, it may be a manifestation of the struggle to meet
societal expectations or compete in an increasingly globalized economy.
Ultimately, the extent to which self-centeredness dominates the behaviour
of individuals in India depends on their socio-economic background,
exposure to external influences, and the evolving cultural landscape. The
path to understanding this issue requires acknowledging the complexity of
human nature and recognizing that self-interest is often balanced with the
drive to contribute to the larger community.
In the broader sense, the truth about self-centeredness is not absolute,
but rather subjective, shaped by the ever-changing realities of Indian
society.
IV 'I think Indian men are terribly selfish and egoistic about
childbearing'
Talking of compulsory sterilization, Bulbul said, "It should have happened
ten years ago. I am all for it even now. After all, the population
explosion is the most basic of all our problems." She thinks that a small
family calls for a much healthier atmosphere. "I think children need more
attention than affection, and the only way a mother can give them enough
attention is to have fewer children. I personally wanted to have only one
child but some of my friends who are only children themselves convinced me
that that was hard on the child."
Bulbul Sharma, a young mother with a two-year old daughter is expecting her
second child. Her husband and she have decided that she undergo
sterilization after the baby is born this September "It's easiest for a
woman to have herself sterilized at the time of childbirth, and since that
is the case, I don't see why my husband should go through it unnecessarily "
Talking of compulsory sterilization, Bulbul said, "It should have happened
ten years ago. I am all for it even now. After all, the population
explosion is the most basic of all our problems." She thinks that a small
family calls for a much healthier atmosphere. "I think children need more
attention than affection, and the only way a mother can give them enough
attention is to have fewer children. I personally wanted to have only one
child but some of my friends who are only children themselves convinced me
that that was hard on the child."
In the case of the economically deprived classes, she feels that
inhibitions in facing the facts of life are gradually dying. "The younger
generation is becoming quite aware. But the other day I came across an
educated army officer's wife with four daughters who yet wanted a son. I
was quite shocked."
Bulbul thinks that the attitude of the Indian male towards sterilization is
a major obstacle. "I think Indian men - particularly from the working class
- are terribly selfish and egoistic about childbearing. Sterilization
strikes them, even when applied to their wives, as an insult to their
capacity to produce children or an offense to their virility "
Mr K.K. Handa, secretary in a government enterprise, was completely in
favour of compulsory sterilization. He felt that though sterilization is a
"stern and strict" measure it nevertheless seems to be becoming a
necessity, "if there is to be a major control of the country's population
growth."
A father of two sons, Mr Handa said, "Even if I had daughters, I wouldn't
have tried for a third child with the hope of producing a son." Children,
he feels, are expensive and he cannot afford to have more than two. He
feels that if a parent takes the responsibility of bringing a child into
this world, they owe the child a comfortable upbringing at least and should
try to offer the child the best opportunities possible.
However, Mr Handa said he could quite understand why people insist on
having a son. "How many openings are there for women in India? He felt that
though there have been tremendous changes in the old concept of women being
the men's shadows, there is still a great deal left to be one "before the
position of a daughter becomes equal to that of a son."
Unlike many, Mr Handa is aware that sterilization can be reversed. When he
went to a doctor to get sterilized the doctor advised him to wait till the
elder son was at least six years old because of the high infant mortality
rate.
Mr Handa felt that the reason why so few people believed in sterilization
was because nobody had bothered to convince the men or women concerned that
sterilization does not cause impotency and makes no difference in the
sexual relationship of a couple.
Dhanno is a middle-aged housewife of Masijad Moth village her husband is a
mali and between them they have produced eleven children, eight of whom are
living today They are conscious that they have too many children, and like
couples in their position, are honest enough to believe that realization
came too late.
As a result Dhanno has to work in the nearby colony of South Extension to
support her family "What could I do?" she said, "the babies came one after
the other It is only now I realize how much simpler life would have been
with fewer children. But now that they are in this world, I naturally wish
the best for them."
Dhanno had herself sterilized three years ago, after her youngest son, who
is now three years old, was born in a taxi on the way to the hospital. "I
was sick and tired of the old routine," she said, talking of child bearing
and rearing. When she had herself sterilized it was in the face of severe
opposition from her husband, who knew nothing about it till she had
actually enrolled herself in the hospital. "He grumbled like mad when he
had to sign the papers but the doctors finally persuaded him. He kept
thinking that the operation would kill me, he created a terrible scene in
the hospital saying, who will look after the children after you are gone,"
said Dhanno laughingly
After her operation was over and she came back to the village, several
other women, assured by her safety, went along and had themselves
sterilized.
"But," says Dhanno with pride shining through her eyes, "I was the first. I
was the one who introduced it in the village."
"Lack of resources and overpopulation is a fatal combination which leads to
sterilization becoming a necessary evil," said Mrs. R. Bedi, a mother of
two daughters, a golfing enthusiast, and wife of a Director in Dunlops,
living in Calcutta.rs. Bedi felt that the initial reaction regarding
compulsory sterilization was not a very pleasant one. "One tends to
consider it an encroachment on one's personal rights." But because of the
explosive problem India is facing, she thought this would be the "quickest
means to control population growth."
She was of the opinion that it was unnecessary to overpublicize
sterilization. There are already so many problems in imposing such a
measure like religious prejudices, superstition and ignorance. Too much
publicity will only succeed in accentuating them rather than solving them."
According to her sterilization should be made routine. "Immediately after a
woman has her third child she should be sterilized." If a couple already
has more than three children then the operation should be performed on
whichever partner for whom it is medically simpler "
Commenting on the problems of those who continue to produce children in the
hope of producing a boy Mrs. Bedi said, "It's one thing to bring in
children into the world and another to bring up children." She too would
have liked to have had a son "but there is no guarantee that the next child
is going to be a boy There has to be a stop somewhere. Besides there are
more important issues at stake rather than what sex your children belong
to."
The husband Inderjit is a Sikh and the wife, Nasreen, a Muslim. They have
three daughters, all under six. Nasreen said she felt compulsory
sterilization should be enforced, but only in the case of a certain class
of people. "Those who cannot afford to have more than two to three children
should not be allowed to produce more." The husband, though of the same
opinion, felt that unless the couple could be guaranteed a free operation
to reverse sterilization if their child happened to die or anything like
that, the operation as a compulsory measure was too harsh.
Who should undergo the operation, the husband or the wife? "The husband
definitely," said Nasreen. She felt that women had their share of physical
pain during childbirth and it was about time the husband shared some
responsibility Nasreen also said that in India, if at all, either one of
the couple was unfaithful it was usually the husband. Sterilization, she
thought, could act as a safety measure making it impossible for a man to
get other women pregnant. Inderjeet also felt that it was better for the
man to undergo sterilization, though not for the same reason. "There are
fewer complications and the operation is simpler if performed on a man," he
said.
With their eldest child already at boarding school, Inderjeet Singh said,
"I want to be able to give my daughters the best of education, and not just
in the academic sense. So that they can pursue whatever career they want
without having to face any difficulties. Frankly, these days it does not
matter at all-women are doing greater things than men."
Dorcie Roche 24, a Roman Catholic married Michael in February 1975. Since
she had been working as a help for the past six years, she was keen to
retain her job. She said, "I enjoy working and I enjoy being married. I did
not want to have a child immediately My husband did not want a child either
We thought if I went on what they call 'the pill' I would easily be able to
prevent having a child." In keeping with her desire she went to the nearest
Family Planning Centre to get herself a reliable contraceptive.
The doctor on duty dissuaded her from going on the pill explaining, "Before
having the first child you should not use any contraceptive. It is
important for you to bear a child. Your age is just right. If you go on the
pill now it might hamper your being able to conceive when you want to. Have
your first child and at the most one more, then have yourself sterilized."
After her visit to the Family Planning Centre, Dorcie was frightened at the
prospect of not being able to bear any children. In a slight panic she let
circumstances take their own course, as a result of which she was pregnant
a month after her marriage. Now she has a beautiful four month-old baby boy
For the future, Dorcie and Michael both plan to wait a couple of years. In
fact, they are even considering not having any more children so that they
can concentrate all their resources and care on Perkins Roche-their son.
"That," said Michael, with considerable pride , "is what matters the
most-how you bring up your children."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
K Rajaram IRS 22225
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoq359StbMv-D58JH5FnsJXq-rw841DZHJnsienm3qYtmA%40mail.gmail.com.
