Understanding Behavior Disorders in India

Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2008). Understanding behavior disorders: Their perception, acceptance, and treatment-a cross-cultural comparison between India and the United States. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 136-146.

• “In 1947 the Government of India began an initiative in the education and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities.  However progress was slow until the entire disability sector received a boost in 1981 with the declaration of the International Year of the Disabled Persons by the United Nations” (Singh, 2004).
• “Unlike the United States, the category behavior disorder is not considered a disability in Indian culture.  The implications are: (a) there are no behavior problems among children in India, (b) Indian society does not recognize behavior problems as disabilities or it defines behavior problems differently, (c) behavior is perceived as the responsibility of someone other than the school’s or (d) behavior problems which do exist are so well accommodated that they do not merit additional attention” (p. 138).
• “All teachers in India and in the United States defined behavior problems or disorders based on their own lives and experiences.  In India, Problems are defined as common to all human beings and are not considered disabilities” (p. 142).
• “In India, poor socio-economics, extreme poverty, family problems, and social expectations are considered responsible for causing behavior problems” (p. 142).
• Chakraborti-Ghosh (2008) found that “…the Indian people have been accustomed to dealing with disabilities in a natural psychotherapeutic way rather than depending on western medicine; disabilities were traditionally accepted as misfortune” (p. 137).  This is another example of disabilities being perceived negatively in India.  Researchers also found that behavior problems as a result of disabilities are perceived by teachers in India as being “based on their own lives and experiences” and that problems are experienced by all human beings and are “not considered disabilities” (Chakraborti-Ghosh, 2008, p. 142).