 It is my pleasure to talk about extent of indigenization of psychology in India. Let me tell you in the very beginning that modern psychology in India did not originate as an indigenous science. It was a transplant from the west and it is still struggling to get indigenization. The process is slow and sluggish and it has to go miles before it can claim to be sufficiently indigenized. Let me address three issues in this talk. The nature and conditions for the growth of an indigenous psychology, which is a kind of conceptual framework. Extent of indigenization of psychology in India and finally, I shall discuss the factors for slow and sluggish rate of indigenization of psychology in India. When I talk about nature and conditions for the growth of an indigenous psychology anywhere in the world, we have three things in mind, three things we should consider. One is what is an indigenous psychology and the second is how did it originate in the west because that is the kind of psychology we are having right now. And thirdly, how was it imposed in India? Let me start with the first issue. What is an indigenous psychology? Well, indigenous psychology is the one that is not imported from outside. It is native. It grows within a cultural and ecological context out of people's reactions, interactions, responses in a particular context. indigenous psychology also aims to improve people's well-being. As people go through their daily routines, cope the surrounding environment, interact with others, worry about their future, they generate variety of ideas, notions, beliefs, feelings, emotions, preferences, practices and so on. Many of them are evoked by ecology or the culture, but many of them are innovative and new and creative coming out of people's own mind. They form clusters and patterns. Now these clusters and patterns could be consistent, inconsistent, contradictory. One can make sense, others do not make sense, they are strange, mysterious. Some are rational, others are irrational, they are numerous, variety of them. They all constitute the subject matter of psychology. Psychologists examine those patterns of people's thought and behavior systematically and they develop concepts, principles, laws, theories out of that. Once they develop theories, principles, laws, etc., people know about them and they make informed responses, take advantage of that and in that process they create new knowledge and allow psychologists to refine their theories and capture the reality more comprehensively. Now this is the process of indigenous knowledge creation. This process over a period of time results into the growth of an indigenous psychology. Now indigenous psychology is close to cross-cultural psychology, but it is closer to cultural psychology. Cross-cultural psychology grew out of reaction to the mainstream western psychology. In the minds of those psychologists who were sensitive to cultural differences, they realize that theories developed in the west were not appropriate to underdeveloped or developing countries and the theories need to have some modifications or some change and they started cross-cultural psychologists, but they still had the mind of the impact of mainstream psychologists. So they were looking for similarities. They still following the natural science model believing that psychologists should aim at universal science, being universal science and as a result they borrowed methods from mainstream psychology. So indigenous psychology has differences, closeness of cultural differences, but differences from the cross-cultural psychology. It is closer to cultural psychology because both indigenous and cultural psychology focus on culture specific patterns of behavior. Both recognize diversity across cultures and are not quite concerned about becoming universal psychology. But the difference is that cultural psychology draws most of its methods from anthropology where indigenous psychology is much more flexible. It can draw from both cultural as well as cross-cultural psychology. Now once we know how an indigenous science of psychology develops, it is very easy to understand that modern psychology developed as an indigenous science in the west. So it is an indigenous science of psychology, but only in the west. How did it develop as an indigenous science in the west? Well, there were at least five major factors. One was the vast land that the new immigrants wanted to own, unlimited natural resources that they wanted to emas. The people were achieving tough assertive hedonists and they had the support of the protestant ethic that was the spirit of capitalism. Thus they developed a world view where the culture was individualistic. They imagined individuals as egocentric atoms rather than collectives and they created democracy for ensuring success, freedom and justice. Now let us see how they defined success, freedom and justice. Success means achieving tangible goals, earning money and positions, riding on the rungs of organization. Freedom was to do what one wants without being imposed by others. And the justice was distributive that is what you do that is what you get. Your gain will depend on what you give and the procedural justice is the transparency in the practice. So these were the values that guided the growth of psychology in the west. Now these factors, socio-economic factors along with the values created a particular kind of psychology that was segregated from religion and philosophy and was modeled after natural sciences. As we know in natural science, scientists take a positivistic view, reductionist to reduce everything into smallest atoms and frame them into a proposition and test them through empirical methods that is the kind of model that psychology accepted. Now because psychology accepted this model of science, it decomposed collectives and communities into autonomous individuals for psychological analysis. Individuals were the basic unit of study. They were expected to have agentic potentials that is self-propylene capacity to grow as self-actualized individuals, get self-reliant and independent from others, achieve and enjoy material positions and to control others. Now these were the basic characteristics of individuals as the center of psychological functioning. Once that was done, then theories were built around them, test and measures were constructed, models of economic growth were conceived and following the model of natural sciences, they were compelling belief to prove that the theories are universally valid. Now psychology was helped by, in fact other social sciences also, were helped by three major compelling forces. One was the economic prosperity of the USA, 6 percent of the world's population owned 46 percent of the wealth. Economic prosperity that makes them a kind of desirable people, an idealized people that gave them a sense of cultural superiority, they are pragmatic, they are practical, they can get things done and the world war 2 has given them supremacy in geopolitics. In fact after world war 2, they had the martial plan to reconstruct the Europe and they did. Now that mentality that it is my responsibility, it is the responsibility of the American people to develop less developed countries by imposing a science which will help them grow. That was the inner compulsion which led them to impose western psychology in India. In fact, western psychology was imposed much earlier than the American influence, was imposed by the British, we shall see that. But the kind of psychology we are talking about now are influenced much more by American model of psychology than by the British psychology. Now once western psychology is imposed in India, established in India, the process of indigenization started, that process has gone through three phases. The first is the blind replication of western psychology that led to a crisis, that is the second stage and finally we are coming out of the crisis and are initiating indigenization process which as I said earlier is still slow and sluggish. So let us take these three phases and see how the process of indigenization has progressed or failed to progress in the Indian condition. When the British came to India, their view was the Indians are half animal, half child, that was the famous statement. That means the Indians are immature, they cannot think, so they need child rearing, just as you rear horses or you grow crops, so you rear Indians. That was the mentality, they thought that one rack of books in Britain is superior than all literature that India and Arabia have. So their literature is nothing, worthless and their education makes them superstitious backward, so that needs to be replaced, it is not Sanskrit or Arabic or Farsi that should be encouraged, but it should be encouraged by western system of education. So the ground was clear for imposition of western science including psychology, first psychology department was established I think 1915 or 16 something like that. It was in some records it says 16, in some records it says 1915, it was in Calcutta University and has a focus on experimental psychoanalytic work. Psychoanalytic work after a while got discouraged and it remained experimental, but only for name, because the psychology syllabus and books were always there and the testing in experimental labs were very replicative, very primitive, almost useless, I have gone through that process. Teachers were not supposed to do research, they were supposed to teach from the books and there is absolutely no expectation, what to talk of demands for creative imagination or questioning, what is right or wrong, what is the reality or so forth, but that was part of a bigger problem. The whole colonial experience made Indians feel having a sense of national inferiority. Anything that was national was inferior or anything that comes from Britain or colonial masters is superior. There were some nationalists who believed that in India does have cultural superiority in terms of spirituality, but there were a few and far between, there were exceptions. The whole Milo was very subservient, suffering from inferiority, after independence that implanted psychology grew faster, grew in terms of journals, departments, number of students and there are accounts of that, the law has written extensively on that. I have also a review paper on that, but Indians had no concepts, theories or methods of their own. Now, if you do not have your own concepts, own methods and theories, then the only things that you have is to borrow methods, concepts and theories to explain their reality, particularly if you are fed on western literature, if you are fed on western books, fed on western theories. That is the only thing you have and the reality is that given the human nature, the perspective that these concepts, theories and method give you may not explain the reality adequately, but it does, they do explain it a little bit. Therefore, it seems like relevant and with the given background of inferiority complex, Indians succumbed to that kind of reality. Now, they followed and replicated very well known western theories, hordes of scholars came from America mostly at IIMs, IITs and they brought their very well defined theories, methods, models and Indians were vying with each other to get close to these foreign scholars and to prove that their theories are valid and to flourish in that deflected glory of the western scholars. I remember those days where some of my seniors were how in thrill to see that they have an American professor visiting them or asking them to collect data for them, but as soon as these theories were replicated, the methods were used, the tests were applied, some results for some they found the theory valid, the method applicable, the tests culture free, but quite often results findings did not confirm the theory, methods did not seem to work. Now, in that case the theory builders Americans mostly blamed Indians, they blamed that you lack skill to conduct experiment properly, your sampling is wrong or you applied methods wrongly or the items that you constructed were not were not the right ones, your translations were not right. So, the blame was put on Indians, why their theories were not working because the belief was that their theories are universally valid, at times evidence kept accumulating to show that the theory is not working, evidence was clear that it is not working. For example, in my studies I found that the participative leaders were perceived to weak, whenever a leader wanted to wanted the subordinate to participate and give ideas, the subordinate said that what kind of leader is he does not have his own mind he or he is not a leader he does not have any idea. So, the participative leaders were supposed to be weak, I remember that in the famous project international project on becoming modern by Smith and Inkelis, there were items that if you are influenced by your parents you are not modern. Now, in our case we do get influenced by parents, there were reports by Ramanujam, B.K. Ramanujam that even adult Indians seek parents approval, feel good if their teachers their parents approve them, appreciate them. So, obviously there was something wrong business theory that getting influenced by parents is bad or personal relationship, whatever is not part of contractualized relationship contractual relationship is bad that did not seem to be right. So, whenever evidence accumulated to prove that the theory was wrong, the theory builder said that people should change their mind, people should change, you people are authoritarian, you people are traditional, you people are primitive, you should change. Very recently I am reminded in the famous Groves study by Bob House, Bob House argued that how could people appreciate participative management if they have not tested it, so that was the kind of patronizing attitude that Indians have to face with and that was the kind of middle in which Indian psychology had to grow in a in a in a in a distorted way till 70's. By 70 it was clear that Indian psychology has run into a crisis, Uday Parikh was the first to say that Indian psychology has run into a crisis. Why? Too many inconsistent unexplained findings, Prof. Zoran Jansson has said that we are getting too many inconsistent and unexplained findings. I said that test and measures are not sensitive to Indian culture. Parikh said that they are studying irrelevant issues, they are not focusing on the societal issues that we have in the country and if they are not focusing on irrelevant issues, how can they have appropriate psychology, how can they have indigenous psychology, how they can have authentic psychology. So, these we have the sense of disappointments, disillusionment, dissatisfaction, frustration, but again we needed a political push to move towards indigenization. It came in the 70's as a new sentiment in the country, self-reliance in the nation your three indications of that. In the economy the self-reliance was manifested in restricting multinationals and promoting public sector organizations, though inefficient, but the sentiment was that we can do on our own. In politics we defied international pressure broke Pakistan into two and exploded nuclear bomb irrespective of sanctions from the west. There was a corresponding impact on psychologists, search for cultural heritage. Look for what is in our culture which can explain the reality. If western psychology has models, methods, tests which are not working, what will work? Find out from our own reality. Some of the Indian psychologists were trained in the west and they had seen the linkage in their own socio-cultural milieu and their psychology and they see the disconnect of this psychology from our culture. So, they were the ones who pushed this idea of developing psychology indigenously. There was an international movement forming an international association of cross-cultural psychology. That created a forum where psychologists can talk about cultural differences not similarities across cultures, but differences across culture and that had a positive impact on the growth of indigenous psychology that led to an era of the dawn of indigenous phase. They have searched for ancient Indian wisdom for creating authentic Indian psychology. Some efforts were made earlier. For example, Jadunath Sinha for example, famous for his two volumes on perception and emotion. Akhilananda has a has worked on how psycho-spiritual thought can help having mental health or when those spirituality and nationalism and Radha Krishnan wrote philosophical work on synthetic Indian minds. So, they were the forerunners, but they were individuals. They were making a sporadic efforts. Now, why 70s? Many joined in the search for ancient wisdom on the assumption that ancient wisdom is all time valid and verifiable. If it is all time valid and verifiable, it has to continue. Continue being relevant in the present. Indian culture has unparalleled continuity of cultural traditions and here is a quote from Basam. In respect of the length of continuous tradition China comes second to India and Greece makes a poor third. Three reasons for continuity of traditions. The arguments were that we have continuity of traditions because religious, philosophical and spiritual ideas are turned into social code of conduct. So, people practice them and as they practice, so through socialization process they are transmitted from generation to generation. They are also transmitted from generation to generation because of very strong oral tradition in the Indian culture. People talk about our ancient culture, about ancient practices and that happens because of rich mythology that we have. The stories from Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puran, they are told by older people orally to the younger people and so even the illiterates know most of them, their stories of Puran's for example and that is why there is a continuity of tradition. Now, there was a counter argument of that. The first argument was that we have ancient Indian wisdom, Vedic wisdom. Now, we talk about Vedic science. So, we had Vedic wisdom and that has a continuity to the present and that is valueless, that is timeless, is valuable timeless. Now, there is a counter argument. Counter argument is that Indians have a pluralistic worldview to welcome new ideas. Indians welcome different ideas and they encompass, they enfold them into the broad Indian mind frame. Some of them are integrated, but others are allowed to remain as discrete, but they are not inconsistent contradictory ideas. There are statements in our texts that if two propositions are made and they are exclusion of each other, opposite of each other, both still may be true. Given this kind of pluralistic worldview, the argument was that Indians have been long exposed to west and they have acquired western values, beliefs, norms. Indians are not just traditional ancient Indians. They are also modern Indians. They have acquired modern values, beliefs and norms and there are studies after studies showing that Indians value achievement, Indians value competition, Indians value material things, Indian values to have an individualistic lifestyle and so on and so forth. There were also arguments that Indians inherit some common human traits. There are certain traits, human traits which are common to all human beings including Indians and to that extent western psychology is relevant. So, the result was that Indians are both traditional Indian and western characteristics. If that is so, then indigenization process have two roots western perspective and ancient Indian perspective. If you go by the western perspective, you are having exogenous indigenization as professor Durga Nansen has said or if you follow the Indian perspective, you have indogenous indigenization. So, there are two ways of indigenization. Exogenous indigenization according to Durga Nansen was the integration of modern psychology with Indian thought. How do you integrate them? Well, Adair says that start with modern tests and measures and see if they suit Indian conditions. Now, see there is a difference. Durga Nansen being an Indian says that the both should be integrated. Adair being a Canadian says that start with modern tests and measures and hopefully theories and then see if they suit Indian conditions and make necessary modifications so that they are applicable to Indian situation. Bairi another Canadian says that of course western psychology is amic in its origin. It is indigenous in origin, but they have components which can be derived as derived etic and can be tried out in other cultures including Indian culture. So, that the Indian amics in light of derived etics could lead to universal psychology. Indigenous as well as universal psychology. Now, interestingly western psychologists are still talking about universality. That is important for them and they start with western system. There is a hidden agenda that if there is a theory, the theory leads to certain propositions and the propositions are amenable to certain methods. Therefore, the results, the findings are likely to prove the theory. So, there is a kind of self perpetuating process between theories and methods. Theory self to perpetuate itself by opting for methods which can generate data which can support the theory. Now, that is the kind of indigenization that we were talking about. Now, indigenous indigenization has two variants. The ancient Indian sources and I have been fighting for folk ways. Start with the reality folk ways. Let us talk about the Indian perspectives. Those who prescribed to Indian perspectives, ancient Indian perspectives, they too believe that psychology can be universal, because unlike western psychology which is positivistic, Indian psychology explores human possibilities, growth of human being and because the problem of growth of human being is universal. Therefore, ancient Indian perspective is not only valid for the Indian people, but for the whole world. In order to do that, they showed parallels between western and Indian psychology. They say that wherever human beings are there, there are certain things which are common to both cultures. For example, karta, bhokta and rasta, the cognitive, the effective and the quenitive aspects are common to both. They also emphasize normative, what should be done. That is the reality, but you have to rise against that. You are selfish, but you have to be selfless. You tend to indulge in sexuality, but you have to rise above that. The third feature was that you test the validity of a psychological theory by experiencing it. That is, first you have to practice. First you have to be a spiritual person. Then you will know what spirituality is. So, knowing is through practicing and the purpose is to let individuals transform themselves. It is not the system which needs to be changed, but the individuals who need to be changed. Now, I am talking about folk ways perspective of indigenization. I say that, well, let us start with what people believe, value, practice, what their aspirations are, what they fear, how do they plan their future and what kind of naive theories, what kind of common sense, what kind of naive theories that they have. Pick them up as the raw materials for psychologists and let psychologists refine them by using eclectic approach and flexible choice in methods picking up from western as well as Indian sources. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot refer to an American theory if that seems to explain or why can't you go to the ancient Indian concept if it explains better. So, you have to be flexible. Now, given this kind of three perspectives, let me talk a bit about the state of indigenization of Indian psychology. John Adair is correct when he says that Indian psychology is indigenizing slowly, surely, but slowly. And in all three perspectives, western, ancient Indian and folk ways, indigenization process is going on, but the majority in all three are doing very mediocre work that does not help the indigenization process. And in each perspective there are only a few front runners, I call them front runners who are pushing the process of indigenization and there is a general shift from exogenous to endogenous approach for indigenization. The front runners therefore, navigate between all three perspectives and some of them are purists, they stick to their perspective, others are little accommodative or accommodative in varying degrees, accepting methods and concepts from others. Now, let me start giving you a few samples. Now, Adair Singh comes at the top as a purest power excellence in western tradition. He is still subscribed for last 30 or 40 years, attraction paradigm and information integration model and whenever he has to examine cross cultural differences in reward allocation, intergroup attraction, attribution regarding performance or leaders perception of situational favorableness. He finds differences in how Indians average or add or multiply, but he is still concerned about developing the contributing to the mainstream psychology. Other purist Ramesh Mishra, he is focused on cognitive process in perception and memory, but he does examine them under diverse socioeconomic settings and his studies on tribals have made some very significant contributions. We have in management Pradeep Khandwala, another purist who advocates pioneering innovative motive, strongly influenced by western norms of personal growth, personal efficacy for professional management. Ravi Kanungo and his associates, now he is Indian, authentic Indian, but he worked in Canada for whole of his life and naturally he combines both. He believes that psychologists have to have cultural sensitivity, but when it comes to picking up a theory, he picks up goal theory and he emphasizes that the structures of the goal theory are relevant universally, but the way they should be implemented could be Indian. So, the structure is Indian, but the process, a structure is western, but the process has to be Indian. Sudeer Khakhar, Sudeer Khakhar is a very keen observer and digs deep in Indian culture society and psyche with very profound ideas, but once he have done that, he bends all them to fit the Friday and framework. Now, that is his limitation, that is the limitation of the indigestion process he has. Now, we have some Indians who have western concepts and western methods, but show cross cultural differences. For example, Janak Pandey has shown that ingratiation, which is a western concept was examined through measures, which were western, but in India it is rampant and risk free, because Indians have a hierarchical worldview and asymmetrical power distribution. So, ingratiating superiors is culturally comfortable strategy. Similarly, Jan examined crowding. Crowding is unpleasant experience in the west because of the value of privacy. Crowding is not unpleasant experience in India, because privacy is not a value, affiliation is a value, particularly if persons have control over their own life events. Lila Krishnan at IIT Kanpur talks about distributive justice, but justice has to be tempered with duty bound social obligations. Or, they have to have to have to have post-convincial morality in Kohlberg's model. Instead of having individual rights responsibilities and autonomy, have to have care and duty for others in Indian condition. There is another concept, need for achievement. Now, need for achievement was recommended by Macleland for faster economic growth of India. And Macleland organized training program for that, but I found it is unsuitable for Indian condition, because need for achievement effective only when the resources are plenty, just as in America. In Indian condition, need for achievement creates problems from group harmony for distribution of resources for interpersonal relationship and so on. Uday Parik said that need for achievement works only if it is combined with need for affiliation. And Prayag Mehta said that it is not need for achievement for individuals, but the social need for achievement that is good for India. Greshwam Nishra along with Agarwal in fact, redefined the concept of achievement. Achievement has the goals of being good person, thinking well being of others, fulfilling others duties, helping others, getting affection from elders. And the achievement has means of helping others, seeking elders blessing and observing social codes of conduct. So, achievement in western culture is different than achievement in the Indian culture. Now, let us briefly approach indigenization from ancient Indian perspective. Earlier efforts were sporadic as I told you, but now much more vigorous and wide spread efforts are being made. In fact, they claim to occupy the whole space of Indian psychology. They claim to have and I strongly object that what you are doing is not the only Indian psychology that we have. There are others who are also doing Indian psychology. We have pioneers Ramakrishna comes at the top of the list, Anand Paranjpe, S.K. Chakrabarty, Dharam Krishna Kumar, Ajit Dalar and others. Now, they are theorizing a whole range of psychological process, consciousness, self, person, cognition, action, emotion, art and literature, suffering, pathology, mental health and technologies for self transformation and self realization. Drawing from Upanishads, Vedantic philosophy, Buddhist and Jain thought, Bhagavad Gita, Manusmriti, but there are others who are also drawing from Kalam Shrutra and other texts. Of them, I find that Dharam Bhavuk is much more eclectic. He draws heavily from Bhagavad Gita for a comprehensive framework for Indian psychology, but also accepts that models can be built by sourcing directly from scriptures through critical examination of texts and scriptures or one can start with what works in real life. That is what my approach is or by questioning the western models as many other Indian psychologists have done, but he does believe that experiencing his spirituality is important. Now, there are others like Pandya Nairu who has taken Nishkaam-kaam and studied it with western methods or Parvinder Kaur and Arvind Sinha who has factorized gunas and found that three factors are confirmed except Rajas has a positive and negative factors and positive along with sattva is good for personal and organizational effectiveness. There are two pioneers in indigenous psychology, Durga Narasimha and later I will talk about Uday Parik. Durga Narasimha has adopted all three perspectives. He wrote extensively on indigenization. He borrowed western methods to study tribals for example, a cultural model of very or the field dependence independence model. He also studied Indian problems like poverty deprivation and how they affect human and national development. He also explored ancient Indian concepts of sorrows, harmony, non-violent strategy for conflict resolution. So, he had a very comprehensive approach in which he covered all three perspectives. Uday Parik worked with McLean, but later changed his track and gravitated to study societal problems and organizational effectiveness. He argued for combining Indian and western values. Indian values he recognized as concerned for others, tendency to harmonize and synthesize differences, positive regard for knowledge and western values such as openness, collaboration, trust, authenticity, autonomy and confrontation. So, he was for blending both. Let me share my efforts towards indigenization. I was indoctrinated in American perspective and trained in experimental methods and quantitative analysis of data. I did my Ph.D. in ethical risk taking, but my personal commitment was that I should do socially relevant research. So, when I came back to India, I thought about it and I selected dependence proneness, but my perspective, methods, analysis all remained western. Because I was committed to relevant research, so I let my findings lead my research further or my research in dependence proneness led me to research leadership, where I identified natural task leader as most relevant for Indian conditions. Then, I found that natural task leader is ineffective if he or she does not have power or the organizational culture are not supportive. So, I started doing research on power and organizational culture and that led me to societal culture. So, as I moved from dependence proneness to national task leadership to power to organizational culture to societal culture, I got rid of my western hang up and kept following the folk-waste digging deep into the roots of the present into the ancient thought. So, I was shifting from American perspective to ancient Indian perspectives. And, I found that culture allowed Indian to hold diverse and discrepant ideas in their mindset. They retrieve and organize them to suit in a particular situation and Indians are highly sensitive to Desh, Karl and Patra plus time and person. And they have the cultural competence to keep shifting their thoughts and behavior according to Desh, Karl and Patra. Now, as my research interest evolved, my methods changed too. In the beginning, I was using simulations, manipulations in experimental situations, but later on I realized that real life issues cannot be simulated in laboratory conditions and therefore, I shifted to conduct surveys and interviews. Interestingly, I found that respondents give you wrong answer in surveys. At times I remember that respondents completed the question I gave it to me and said that this is for your record. Now, I will tell you the reality and then they gave totally different story of what happens in the organization. Now, that led me to lead to observations that gave me much more realistic picture than the verbal responses. I did not give up question I. So, what I did was I reversed the process. First I, I or my assistants spent time in the organization, observed them, talked to them, collected critical events, collected in gossips and created a reality as they observed, as they found and then we dished out question I. Asking them that, oh, you have told us many details. Now, we want to record them. So, could you fill out this question I. And when they did not agree with the with their responses, they said you said that you did this earlier what you are saying this. Sometimes they changed it, other other other times they said that no, that is what I want to do, that is what I value, but that is not what I do. I was doing one study very interesting punctuality and the bank employees who were perceived to be leading least punctual reported to be most punctual. Similarly, in another story, in another study the government officers who were most corrupt professed to be most honest. Now, we confronted them very politely that what is the reality you said something else you do something else, they said that is what the Indians are. What we say to your question I or in your interview or what we value, what we should say, what is desirable, but circumstances force us to behave differently. So, we are honest, but we are behaving in a dishonest way, in a corrupt way. Now, that was revolution for us, that led to focused interviews, but again it was very interesting, whenever we wanted to interview individuals, other chipped in, others came and joined and they all started participating. They kept refuting, elaborating, giving new evidence and what we were getting were real true, very real picture of reality, but so complex that none of the statistics that I had learned about in America were applicable in that. So, individual interviews turn into group interviews. I learnt a lot in that process, that how Indians are, how they behave. Some have empirical basis, others are speculation, but I think that that is the kind of indigenous psychology that we need. Does this psychology lead to universal psychology, frankly I do not care, may be someone will identify some deep structure or some neurological basis, that could be indigenous as well as universal, but I am more concerned about the slow and sluggish rate of indigenization in India. Why indigenization is so slow and sluggish, which I think psychology in India is trapped in a visa circle. It is not indigenized enough, so it is incapable of competing with other social sciences in nation building. It does not have a policy agenda, it does, it cannot recommend what country should do, what society should do. It is still grooved in individuals and because it cannot play a role in nation building, it cannot claim adequate resources from the system. And if they do not have resources, if psychologists do not have resources, the indigenization process suffers. How does it suffer? It is very poor intellectual climate, hardly you have people with whom you can, hardly you have enough number of people I should say, with whom you can discuss issues in depth. Majority are doing mediocre work for publications in journals, which are not of good quality. Very interesting, in Indian situation no one gives you frank feedback on what you are doing. Either you have persons who are ingratiating you, who I appreciate you, who make you feel that you are so great or they tell you that your work is just garbage, nothing, no worth of it. But no one is willing to read others Indian's research and give critical feedback, so that the person can improve. As a result Indians do not have Indian psychologists, do not have orientation or pressure to get immersed in social issues, brainstorm, think and think and think and come up with innovative ideas and research on them. They are distracted by daily hassles, electricity, water problem, traffic jam, you name them. Most of our energy are sapped by daily hassles, therefore the process of indigenization is slow. Let us hope that Indian psychologists, particularly young ones, will break this research circle and indigenize psychology rapidly and effectively. Thank you for listening.