HVK Archives: Theory of relativity
Theory of relativity - The Hindustan Times
Andre Beteille
()
14 June 1997
Title: Theory of relativity
Author: Andre Beteille
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: June 14, 1997
It is a mistake to believe the traditional Indian family is on the decline.
'The joint family is not declining in frequency in India nor will it die
out in the near future. The proportion of joint households is as large
today, in both rural and urban areas, as it was 150 years ago.'
What is it that Indians value most, something that they regard as an end in
itself and for whose well being they are prepared to sacrifice their
personal needs and interests? This is a difficult question to answer at a
time when old social arrangements such as those based on caste are breaking
down, and new ones based on individual ability and achievement have at best
a precarious foothold.
At such a time of transition cynicism becomes widespread. Many if not most
middle class Indians say the only thing about which people care today is
making money and getting ahead in the world without any regard for
principles or values.
Such a cynical view does not appear wholly convincing even to those, who
put it forward. The pursuit of individual self-interest has its limits.
The individual cares not only for himself but also for others, if not their
well being, then at least their praise, their esteem and their loyalty
Especially in India, the individual is emotionally dependent to an unusual
degree on others, on their assurance, goodwill and support.
This dependence is a social fact to the extent that it has an institutional
focus, and, all things considered, it is in the family that it has today
its clearest institutional focus.
In the past, a significant focus of attachment was provided by caste which
was in a sense the pre-eminent social institution, especially for Hindus.
The order of varna was for centuries the moral order of' society, but this
is no longer the case, and it is significant that Bengalis no longer speak
or write of caste as varna but as jati, signalling a shift in its meaning
and significance.
To be sure, caste maintains a strong grip over politics in many parts of'
the country but caste today is largely a matter of' politics and hardly a
matter of morality The very people who make use of it in domestic politics
rarely feel that they owe very much to it. This is quite different from
how their ancestors felt towards their caste or how they themselves feel
towards their family
There is, of course, religion whose pervasive hold over Indians in every
walk of life is beyond dispute. But religion acts on the individual in many
institutional spheres, ranging from the domestic to the political. The
increasingly aggressive intrusion of religion into the political sphere has
become a source of anxiety to many. But there are other spheres of society
in which religion has an important and a legitimate place.
Pre-eminent among these is the family, for among Hindus and indeed most
Indians, the most significant religious observances are those centering
around the crucial events of birth, marriage and death.
To say that the family continues to be an institution of great importance
in contemporary India is not to suggest that it is not undergoing changes.
These changes are most conspicuous among the urban middle classes, but they
extend to other sectors of society as well.
At the same time, there are wide misconceptions about what the Indian
family was like in the past and what it is likely to become in the future.
Many educated persons believe that Indians in the past generally lived in
large extended households which are now being rapidly replaced, at least in
the cities, by nuclear families of the Western type.
Both of these conceptions are largely mistaken.
First, it is important to distinguish between the family which is a kin
group of variable scope and the household which is a residential unit.
Careful demographic analysis, notably by the sociologist, A.M. Shah, has
revealed that the average size of the household has undergone hardly any
change in the last 150 years.
Such data as we have for the 19th century show that the average size
generally remained within five persons per household. There were no doubt
spectacular examples of four or even five generations of persons living
under a single roof, but they could not have been very common if the
average size was under five.
The legal conception of the joint family is quite misleading here, because
even two brothers living together without any other persons might be
considered legally a joint family so long as their property remained
undivided.
One must not misread the implications of the facts noted above. Even where
most households are of the simple rather than the extended type, most
individuals may have experienced living in a joint household at some stage
in their lives.
This is because the Indian household goes typically through a developmental
cycle in which small and simple units' expand into large and complex ones
which in turn divide themselves into small and simple ones.
It cannot be argued that the joint family is declining in frequency in
India and is likely to die out in the foreseeable future. The evidence
shows that the proportion of joint households is as large today, in both
rural and urban areas, as it was 150 years ago.
There are of course variations between regions, between communities and
between classes. It is perhaps in the service class - comprising
administrators, managers and professionals - that the nuclear household
shows its highest frequency But even here, unlike in the West. the domestic
unit rarely starts as a simple conjugal unit at marriage, but hives off
after a period of incubation as part of a larger domestic unit.
There are changes, if not in size and outward form, at least in the texture
of relations based on age and sex, particularly in the urban middle class
household.
The most notable change in the last 100 years is the secular increase in
the age at marriage for women in all communities and all social classes.
Even in a joint family, it makes all the difference whether a new bride
comes in at the age of 22, or even 18, or at the age of 12. Fewer children
are being born, and more persons live to be old or very old, seeing their
children or grandchildren mature and marry.
Thus, even where the proportion between extended and nuclear households
remains roughly what it was 100 years ago, the family is no longer the same
social unit that it was in the past.
At the same time, it is different and likely to remain different from the
modern Western family In India, "yuppies" (young, urban professionals) and
radicals alike are much more conservative in regard to family values than
their Western counterparts. The kin group is more actively involved in the
marriage of an Indian person, even when it is not an arranged marriage,
than in the case of his or her Western counter part.
Here the family is not a discrete or self. contained unit to nearly the
same extent as in Europe or the United States. This is seen in our kinship
terminology where we do not make the same kind of distinction between
cousins and brothers (or sisters) that is made in the West.
It is this anchorage in the wider kinship unit that gives to the Indian
family many of its distinctive features as well as its continuing vitality.
Back
Top
|
