By Samar Verma*
Sabhya Behaviour: A GDP Booster in Disguise
When I wrote “Incivility in Public Life: India’s Silent Development Leak”, published in Global Bihari on New Year’s Day, my central claim was simple: everyday rudeness is not a minor cultural irritant- it is a systems problem that quietly corrodes service delivery, productivity, trust, and, ultimately, development outcomes. This sequel is prompted by what followed the publication: an overwhelming volume of feedback, mostly from readers who narrated near-identical daily experiences- at counters, in queues, on roads, in housing societies- as if the piece had merely held up a mirror and offered vindication. Alongside this came a second, equally important strand: readers who argued that citizen-centricity- how institutions design, communicate, and honour service commitments- can meaningfully improve civility because it reduces friction and the “zero-sum” feeling that often triggers bad behaviour.
And then there was a third genre of response, which insisted that “everything already exists”: laws, regulations, and citizen charters in public offices that specify services and timelines; therefore, no further role remains for government or regulation beyond what is already on paper. That objection is worth taking seriously, because it forces the real question: if norms and charters exist, why does lived experience still feel like a daily negotiation for dignity?
Everyday Courtesy: An Untapped Economic Asset
Let us be clear at the outset. Civil behaviour is not expected only of public servants. It is expected of all citizens- those who provide services and those who seek them. In the earlier piece, I had underlined precisely this mutuality: the public counter becomes humane only when both sides resist the temptation to weaponise power- whether it is the power of office or the power of entitlement.
This matters because the Indian public sphere has a habit of outsourcing moral responsibility. Citizens often speak as if civility is something the “system” owes them; institutions often behave as if courtesy is optional when workload is high. Both instincts are mistaken. A society does not become sabhya by declaring that one side is always the problem. It becomes sabhya when the baseline standard of conduct is socially non-negotiable- regardless of who is “right.”
From Rights to Duties: India’s Civility Challenge
One way to anchor this conversation is to return to the Constitution- not to fundamental rights, which we invoke frequently, but to Fundamental Duties, which we cite far less. Article 51A reminds citizens to respect constitutional ideals and institutions; promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood; renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; safeguard public property; and strive towards excellence, among other duties.
Read as a civic ethic, these duties are not abstract. They translate directly into everyday conduct. Promoting harmony and common brotherhood is not only about peace; it is also about refusing humiliation as a social style, especially toward those with less power (the junior clerk, the guard, the cleaner, the patient in the public hospital). Safeguarding public property is not merely about vandalism; it is about the micro-decisions that determine whether shared spaces remain usable- queues, public toilets, corridors, waiting rooms, buses, parks. Striving toward excellence is not limited to professional achievement; it includes excellence in civic temperament- self-restraint, patience, fairness, and respect for process, especially when no one is watching.
If rights are the citizen’s shield, duties are the citizen’s compass. A society that speaks only the language of rights often becomes transactional and impatient; a society that takes duties seriously begins to internalise restraint as self-respect.
Nudging Civility, Driving Efficiency and Trust
Here lies the hard pivot. Even if civility is a universal expectation, the practical question is: how do we shift behaviour at scale? This is where regulation must assume a disproportionate share of responsibility- not because citizens are less accountable, but because institutions shape the choice architecture of daily life. Rules, workflows, signage, queue design, feedback loops, grievance redress, transparency on timelines, and the predictability of consequence- these are not moral sermons; they are environment-building tools. And more often than not, the exercise of creating/ executing exceptions to rules and norms is displayed by those in positions of power.
Citizen charters are a start, but they are the first step, not the last. A charter displayed on a wall does not automatically become a norm in the room. For behaviour change to last, it must be induced- made easier, visible, socially reinforced- rather than merely enforced through episodic punishment. Enforcement can deter; induction transforms. As the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman forcefully argued, nudging- defined as a subtle method of shaping human behaviour without removing personal freedom or using financial penalties- is a more powerful, credible policy tool to effect change than a mandate. By adjusting the choice architecture, authorities can guide individuals toward better decisions, such as placing healthy food at eye level rather than banning alternatives.
Regulation, at its best, is not the heavy hand of the state. It is the patient craft of building norms- through education, nudges, and only then calibrated penalties for the small minority who refuse to cooperate even after the norm becomes clear.
Social Norms as Infrastructure for Development
Consider a personal observation from Oxford, where, at least in many primary classrooms, children are explicitly trained in patience and courtesy. “Wait your turn.” “Use the magic words: please and thank you.” When a child forgets, the teacher reminds them- consistently, gently, and every time. Over months, the real shift happens: peers begin to model the behaviour, and classmates correct one another in a friendly tone. Civility becomes “what we do here,” not “what adults demand.” Even toilet use- something most societies assume people simply know- is taught with care, because shared facilities are where public hygiene and mutual respect meet. The point is not instruction per se; it is internalisation. Once internalised, the norm no longer needs law or someone watching.
A second example, shared by a friend in Singapore in response to the earlier piece, illustrates the lifecycle approach more explicitly in public spaces. Singapore’s tray-return and table-littering framework did not emerge overnight. It evolved through infrastructure provision and sustained public messaging, and later moved towards mandatory compliance and stepped-up enforcement. The arc is instructive: start by making the desired behaviour easy and visible (designated return points, clear cues), invest in social expectation, and only then introduce penalties for repeat non-compliance. The aim is not to maximise fines, but to make non-compliance socially rare. Behavioural economics also warns against over-reliance on fines. In the well-known children’s day-care field study in the UK, “A Fine Is a Price” (Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000), introducing a monetary penalty for late pick-ups increased late pick-ups, because the fine reframed a moral obligation as a purchasable service. Forced compliance is brittle; norms endure when people internalise them.
Gentle Nudges for a More Civil Society
India has its own powerful precedents. National cleanliness campaigns have shown how public messaging, political signalling, and citizen participation can shift norms- especially when decentralised, locally owned, and repeated. Nudging is like placing a clear, well-lit path through a park; it doesn’t force you to walk in a specific direction, but most people will naturally follow the easiest and most obvious route. The same logic can be applied far beyond cleanliness: queue discipline, respectful grievance handling, protection of public property, basic courtesy at counters, and everyday road behaviour.
One workable model is a three-stage cycle: awareness through volunteers and civic groups, incentives and recognition for good conduct, and credible penalties for the stubborn minority once the norm is well established. Civil society organisations and youth can play a critical role in the first two stages, because peers persuade in ways that authorities often cannot. Active citizenship and effective states must work in tandem for long-term change in social behaviour and individual conduct.
Sabhya Bharat Starts When No One Is Watching
The deeper lesson is this: A sabhya conduct is not a function of roles. It is not limited to the uniform, the office desk, or the public counter. It is about who we are- how we speak, how we wait, how we disagree, how we treat the vulnerable, how we use shared spaces, and how we behave when we could get away with doing otherwise.
Yes, citizens must be civil. And yes, public servants must be civil. But the bridge between moral expectation and mass behaviour is built through design, induction, and the steady conversion of “good advice” into social norm. A charter is a statement. A norm is a culture. India does not need more cynicism about what cannot change; it needs more disciplined imagination, creative ideas and gentle nudges about how change is normalised- patiently, locally, and persistently. Only then will Sabhyata come about, which- alongside Vikas- will lead to Shreshtha Bharat.
*Samar Verma, PhD, is senior economist, public policy professional and an institution-builder, with 28 years of experience in economic policy research, international development, grant-management and philanthropic leadership. Views are personal.
