Explain the factors responsible for the disintegration of joint family system in India

The institution of joint family is very old. The fact now is that there is a disintegration of this system of familial organization. No single factor can be pointed out as the sole cause of this disintegration. The breakdown of the joint family in India has often been forecast on the grounds that joint families were suited to the old agricultural societies but are dysfunctional under present conditions. Hence a sharp break between the ‘traditional’ joint family and the ‘modern’ nuclear family is supposed to occur. However this view has been challenged by some studies in this area. It is asserted on the basis of these studies that ‘the form of the family is not so closely linked to the type of economic organization.

It is recognized by the most students of the family, in certain terms that there is a general tendency in modern societies toward placing greater importance on the conjugal bond between husband and wife and toward decreasing the demands of the consanguine ties, especially those among siblings, but this is a long term trend rather than a cause for abrupt revision of family relations. Besides the studies conducted by Kapadia (1966) and Singer (1968), A.M.Shah is one of the scholars who has sharply questioned the approach to family studies that assumes ‘an inevitable trend from large and complex to small and simple households. He points out that the normal, cyclical development of an Indian family must be distinguished from basic changes in family organization.

Disintegration of Joint Family

Major factors that have acted as agents of disintegration of joint family system are briefly discussed below:

The following factors are responsible for its disintegration

1. Industrialization: The joint family is most suited to agricultural families as the members did not look for jobs. But in wake of industrialization and the establishment of new factories have motivated the workers from the villages move to the cities and it breaks up the joint family. Industrialization affected the cottage and village industries and workers started searching for jobs in industrial towns.
2. Extension of Communications and Transport: Now the villagers are no more isolated from other areas. Earlier, difficulties of communication and travel in ancient times compelled all the members of the family to live together and carry on the family occupation in agriculture and trade jointly. Today when the means of communication and transportation have been extended, it is no longer necessary for men to stay with the family and carry on the family occupation. Now they go to the city and take up any other occupation or even living in the village adopt some other trade and when they adopt a trade different from the family’s trade, they establish a new home.
3. Decline of Agricultural and Village Industries: The joint family system in India flourished when agriculture and trade in the villages were in a sound position. Today with the establishment of factories the commodities produced by the village craftsmen cannot compete in quality or price with those produced in factories with the result that the village industries suffer a loss and after some time close down. With the closing down of the village industry the workers in villages also are compelled to go to the city to find a job there.
4. Lack of Entertainment and Urban Luster: Besides the decline of agriculture and trade there are other causes as well which induce people to move to the city. These are due to lack of facilities for entertainment and recreation, less opportunities for employment for the educated and inadequate opportunities for the education of children.
5. Impact of the West: Westernization, to some extent, is also responsible for the disintegration. India today has been greatly influenced in the social outlook by Western thought and ideology. Out modern laws relating to marriage and divorce has been enacted on Western patter. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1995 have influence the solidarity of the joint family. As a consequence of the Hindu Marriage Act, the number of divorces is increasing. The Hindu Succession Act has given to the girls the right to share equally in the property of their father. The result is that joint family is disintegrating at a rapid rate. Our education is entirely foreign in outlook and approach. We have begun to look at the family as a partnership and not as a sacrament. Our view especially of the young men and women and family relations have undergone a change. The influence of individualism has made deep in roads in the Indian outlook. The Civil Marriage Act gave a blow to the authority of the family head over its members. The educated young men and women prefer to live a married life separate from the family. All this has contributed to the disintegration of joint family.
6. Changing Role of Women: There has been a change in the role of women in the society. More worked change is becoming apparent in the family roles of women. The women of the household are not so firmly dependent on the men and so segregated from them as they used to be. A wife’s fate is not quite so totally dependent on her husband in that windows are now being allowed to remarry in some of the higher castes to in which widow remarriage used to be absolutely prohibited. It has found that the wives of the educated men usually have some education also and they gain in personal confidence because of their education. Such women do not accept the complete sub-ordination of the young wife as readily as did then uneducated mother and grandmothers. Now women resist oppression and with the growing enlightenment, they are becoming more and more independent. This has contributed towards the emergence of nuclear families.
7. Family Quarrels: In the joint family there is bound to be clashes between the members because of their diverse interests, different incomes. In such a household, the feminine quarrels become a matter of routine affair. Those who are married face several hardships. It becomes difficult in these circumstances to live peacefully in a joint family and the consequence is the disintegration of the joint family system.
8. Over-population, scarcity and Problems of Accommodation: Increase in population has brought an additional pressure upon the agricultural land, leading to unemployment, reduced per capital income, food problem and thus disintegration in the joint family system.

Scarcity of materials required for living has created fissures in the joint living. Problem of accommodation especially in urban areas has been one of the leading causes of the disintegration of joint family system.

In addition to these factors, there have been other causes responsible for the disintegration of the joint family system. Legal provisions giving sweeping powers to the Karta of the joint family caused rapid division in the family property between brothers immediately after the death of their father. Laws providing better deal to the women in the society have also promoted the cause of the nuclear families.

Types of Hindu Marriage Prevalent During the Ancient Times

 The Hindu scriptures mention following eight forms of marriage

1. Brahma Marriage.
2. Prajapatya Marriage.
3. Arsha Marriage.
4. Daiva Marriage.
5. Asura Marriage.
6. Gandharva Marriage.
7. Rakshas Marriage.
8. Pishacha Marriage.

These are being briefly discussed below:

1. Brahma Marriage: This form of marriage was considered as the best. Under it the girl is decorated with clothes and ornaments, and she is offered to a learned and gentle bridegroom. Even now, this form of marriage is most prevalent.
2. Prajapatya Marriage: In this form of marriage, the father offers his daughter to the bridegroom and the couple is blessed with the enjoyment of married bliss and fulfillment of Dharma.
3. Arsha Marriage: This was the most typical form of marriage prevalent earlier. In this form of marriage the girl was offered to a Rishi in exchange of cow or bull and some clothes. These articles did not signify any price but they symbolized the promise of the Rishi to lead a domestic life.
4. Daiva Marriage: In this form of marriage the girl was well adored and decorated. ‘The bride was then offered to the priest (Pandit or Purohit) who conducted a yajna function. The man not conducting the function of a Purohit or Pandit, was not offered the bride. Thus the performance of certain functions was necessary in this form of marriage.
5. Asura Marriage: In this form of marriage the parents of the bride used to accept money in exchange of their daughter. According to this form of marriage Pandu was married to Madri. They money was regarded as the value of sacrifice by the girl’s parents.
6. Gandharva Marriage: The basis of this form of marriage was mutual affection and love of the intending bride and bridegroom and not money or gift. First example of this form of marriage is the marriage of King Dushyanta with Shakuntala. In this form of marriage religious ceremony can be performed after the sexual relationship between the two lovers. In Kama Sutra this form of marriage has been categorized to be of ideal type of marriage. According to Taittariya Samhita, the nomenclature of this form of marriage is after the Gandharvas among whom this type of marriage was prevalent.
7. Rakshasa Marriage: This form of marriage was named because of its degenerated type and it was prevalent in the age when women were considered as the prize of man. The brides were taken forcibly by the invading bridegrooms after killing or wounding her relatives. In other words it was force able abduction of females.
8. Pishacha Marriage: This was the most degenerate type of marriage in which a man entered into sexual relationship when the woman was sleeping, drunk or even unconscious.

None of these forms of widespread today in the same old spirit and form Commenting upon the forms of marriage that exist today.  D.N. Majumdar said, “Hindu society now recognizes only two forms, the Brahma and the Asura, the higher castes preferring the former the backward castes the latter, though here and there among the higher castes the Asura practice has not died out”.

Merits of Joint Family

Joint family system enjoys following merits:

1. Division of Labor: In the joint family the division of labor is maintained. Every member in the family is given work according to his abilities.  Family’s work is managed by all members including the women and children and it creates a good performance on work. 
2. Economy: Joint living enjoys economy of expenditure because as the things are consumed in large quantities and low prices. In this way a large family can be maintained work to participate all.
3. Leisure: The joint family provides a lot of time for all. The female members of the family divide their household work within the female members. They finish their work within little time spending and rest of time is leisure. It promotes the feeling of comfort among the members.
4. Social Insurance: In the joint family, the orphans and incapable find a comfortable asylum. Similarly widows are assured of their proper living in joint family. The old, the sick and the incapacitated can depend on the joint family. This is one of the happiest sides of a joint family system.
5. Promotion of Social Virtues: It raises great social virtues like sacrifices, love, co-operation, selfless service, broad mind among the members of the family. Elders want to check the Younger's behavior. They are prevented the younger to get lost from their path and they help to use self-control. These checks help in building a social moral character.
6. Check on Fragmentation of Holdings: Joint family system ‘puts a check on the fragmentation of holdings and evils inherent therein. Besides this it helps to increase production for family. Because their use a vast land. 
7. Socialistic Organization: According to Henry Maine, “the joint family is like a corporation, the trustee of which is the farther. Everyone in the joint family earns according to his capacity but gets according to his needs”.

Pattern and Characteristics of Rural Family

Rural Family

The family is the most important Institution Constituting rural society. It has been its very foundation. It plays a decisive role in the material and cultural life of the rural aggregate and in molding the psychological characteristics of the rural individual as well as the rural collectivity. There are some thinkers, who believe that family and family impress their stamp on the entire rural structure. Family permeates it from top to bottom. A systematic study of rural family, on its structure, functions, evolution, and interrelations with other institutions of the rural society is vitally necessary for the study of the institution of rural family. Within it is found many types and patterns of family organization which humanity has hitherto evolved.’

Pattern of Rural Family 

Prof. Riverse has brought out four types of institutions which have been designated by the term family, viz., 

1. The clan, 
2. The matrilocal joint family, 
3. The patrilocal joint family and 
4. The individual family. 

The each of these is composed of parents and minor children only.

There is a group of sociologists according to which ‘these four types reveal four main stages of the evolution of the family form corresponding to four stages in the evolution of society. The first type corresponds to the hunting and food gathering stage of social evolution; the second to the phase of hoe agriculture and the beginnings of domestication of animals, the third-a classic type-to the phase of agricultural economy based on the plugh and domestication of anumals, and finally, the fourth type to the modern industrial capitalist phase of human existence. As a result of the growth of market economy in the agrarian area and of the impact of urban socio-economic forces on the rural society, the last type is increasingly becoming predominant today. The Indian rural society facilitates a great laboratory to test this view, since it includes within its fold the relics of the clan as well as matrilocal and patrilocal family types and the recent individual family group also. A systematic study of the structure and functions of these various family types and their correlation with the stages of civilization to which they correspond throws a flood light on the history of Indian humanity.

Family Pattern in the Villages- The Patriarchial Joint Family. In fully developed agrarian societies depending on plough agriculture, including India, patriarchial joint family has been found to be the predominant family form in rural areas. Sociologists studying rural problems have made a close study of the characteristics of this type of family. ‘They have observed the basic structural, psychosocial, and functional features of this type of the rural family which distinguish it sharply from the urban family.’

Characteristics of Rural Family

1. Homogeneity: The rural family enjoys greater degree of homogeneity, stability. These are more integrated and organically functioning than the urban family. The ties binding the members of the former, for instance the husband and the wife, parents and children, are stronger and last longer in comparison to their counterparts in the urban families. This is apparent from the situation prevailing in the villages.
2. Peasant Household: The rural family is generally based on the peasant household. ‘All its members are engaged in the agricultural occupation.’ Work is divided among them on lines of age and sex distinctions. ‘The community house, common land and common economic functions along with the common kinship bond create the peasant household’.
3. Discipline and Interdependence: The rural family enforces greater discipline among its members than the urban family. The role of family becomes wider because ‘there is considerably less state or public provision for meeting the educational, cultural, or social needs of the people in the rural area than in the urban, the rural family attempts also to satisfy these needs of its members.’ Thus a family serves as a school, a recreation center, a maternity or a non-maternity home. It looks after the problems of its member in every aspect of life.
4. Dominance of Family Ego: In contrast to the urban family ‘the interdependence of the member of the rural family and the dependence of its individual member of it are, far greater. This joints its members into a homogeneous, compact, egoistic unit, and further strengthens emotions of solidarity and cooperation among them and inculcates in them the family pride”.
5. Authority of the Father: The rural family is far more integrated and disciplined unit than the urban family because the head of the rural family exercises almost absolute power over its members. It is he who distributes the work of the peasant household among the family members on lines of sex and age differences; arranges marriages of sons, daughters, nephews and nieces; administers the joint family property according to his wisdom; and trains the youngsters for future agricultural work and social life. He is the source of all the initiatives and authority. In fact ‘the head of the family has had the rights and authority to be the ruler, the priest, the teacher, the educator and the manager of the family.
6. Closer Participation in Various Activities: The members of a rural family being engaged in work connected with the peasant household spend practically the whole day together. Whereas the members of the urban family engaged in different occupations or being educated outside home, spend only a small portion of the day together. Even their recreational centers such as clubs and others lie outside the home. Hence the home becomes only a temporary nightshade for the members of the urban family. This is one of the reasons of disorganization.

Difference between the Indian Rural community and the Western rural Community

The villages of the East and the west are the reflections of their respective cultural richness and depth. Besides the fact that the rural communities of the East and West agrarian, there are marked difference between them.

Considerable differences in the life of Indian villages and the Western village are found. The geographic factor, is the most important factor in determining the nature and structure of the villages, the nature and structure of villages. A comparative study of the village life in Indian and the West, will bring the elements of differences between the two. This type of study will also reveal the elements, conditions or factors affecting the Rural Dynamics.

The study of Oscar Lewis In his famous book, Village Life in Northern India, he produced a comparative study of an Indian village Ramkhera, near Delhi, with a Mexican village of Tepoztlan.

Lewis found that the differences are more vital than similarities between the two villages. A review of Lewis’s findings makes abundantly clear the differences that exist between Indian and Western villages.

1. Village of Tepoztlan: Tepoztlan is situated 60 miles south of Mexico city, the capital of Maxico inhibited by a population of 3500. This village was established about 2000 years ago. People of Tepoztlan are catholic Christians.
2. Village of Ramkhera: Village Ramkhera is 15 miles from Delhi and has a population of 1100. The people of this village are mostly Hindus.
3. The comparative study: The villagers of Ramkhera speak Hindi, but Tepoztlan speak two languages. A Jat King had conquered Ramkhera, about 750 years ago and since then it is a Jat dominated village.

A. Similarities 

1. Both Ramkhera and Tepoztlan are present societies as majority of the people of both villages are agriculturists.
2. Both villages are connected with the state through the district and are governed by the laws of the land.
3. Both villages have civilized societies.
4. Both the villages are connected and influences by the neighboring villages.
5. In both the villages, traditional agricultural implement are used.
6. Since, both villages are agriculturists so they live off farm produce and dairy products.
7. Both villages have high rates of illiteracy and infant mortality and low standard of living.
8. In both the villages the goods are frequently exchanged and medium of exchanged in the currency.
9. In both villages, there exists a mixed feeling of well and all disposition towards the government. Because both villages have suffered a long spell of foreign domination and rule. 

B. Differences 

1. Structural Differences: Ramkhera is not built according to a plan. Tepoztlan, on the other hand is built to a plan. It has orderly layout and its streets cross each other at right angles and are broad and well laid. The village has one central church, its own market, official building and a public park. While Ramkhera housing is disorderly. The streets are narrow and many of them are blind alleys. The houses in the Indian village are ‘hurdled together’ and have poor ventilation. The houses in Ramkhera are not spacious so there is not enough space to live in. But, the houses in Tepoztlan are well ventilated spacious. In Ramkhera, man and animals usually sleep under the same roof, but in Tepoztlan, there is a small garden in front of each house where cattle are kept. There is no housing problem in Tepoztlan, as it is in Ramkhera. Like all villages in West, the quarters for male and female are not separate in Tepoztlan but mixed, whereas in Ramkhera these are separate. 
2. Difference in the Methods of Agriculture: As stated befor, agriculture is the main profession in the two villages. However, agriculture is more intensive in Ramkhera than in Tepoztlan, where about 90% of area is used for agriculture. On the other hand, only 15% of the area of Tepoztlan is employed for agriculture. In Ramkhera more than one crop is taken per year, in Tepoztlan only one crop is sown in a year, due to poor irrigation facilities. It is difficult to generalize the difference in the irrigation facilities. However, in general the irrigation facilities in West are, on the whole, far better than in India; Tepoztlan is an exception to this general characteristic.
3. Land Differentials: the topographical variations between Tepoztlan and Ramkhera are good representative to the difference between Western and Eastern villages pertaining to land. Nearby Tepoztlan there exist green pastures and forests, but there is no green pasture or any jungle near Ramkhera, this reflects the problem of the shortage of fire wood and explains the reason for cow dung being used for fuel purposes instead of manure.
4. Ownership of Land: In both the villages we find both kinds of land private as well as public. But contrary to Ramkhera in Tepoztlan every individual has equal right over the public land one is free to use it. Whereas in Ramkhera, certain castes are prohibited from the use of public land. While around 80% of the total land in Tepoztlan in public only 7% of the land in Ramkhera is public. Because of these factors, about80% of Indian population is engaged in agriculture in comparison to only 15% of the Western population. That is why each agriculturist in the West has large holdings. In both the villages, there are disputes over public land.
5. Professional Differences: About 90% of Tepoztlan families are occupied in agriculture, whereas in Ramkhera it is 53%. In Ramkhera there are washer man, barbers, potters etc. like any other Indian village. The number of landless laborers is higher in Indian in comparison to West. 
6. Animal Husbandry: In West cattle breeding is for the purposes of food, whereas in Indian, on account of religious beliefs, animals are not bred for feeding. In fact meat is consumed in Indian but lesser than the West. In India, the number of livestock is relatively very high but their condition is very poor in comparison to the western villages.
7. Social Structure: There are striking differences between the Western and the Indian cultures. For instance in Indian villages, blood relationship has a very crucial role. A number of families in a village are closely linked by blood relationship. Whereas, western social structure is based on class structure. Indian village society is based on caste structure which is determined by birth, but in western village no social class stratification is found. There exist less economic and social differences among various classes in the Western villages. The evil of untouchability is peculiar in rural Indian and it does not exist in West.
8. Social Stratification: There is no caste system in western villages, and the relationship among villagers is cordial with a high sense of community feeling but the relations among individuals are becoming more and more impersonal. On the other hand in spite of castism the relations among villagers in Indian are still personal and intimate. But the Western society is not wholly class, where classes are formed on regional, religious and cultural bases, but the peculiar feature of castism like restrictions of marriage, sharing of food and mixing up on festivals etc. are absent in the Western Society.
9. Familial Differences: In West we find small family units and nearly no joint family system in West. On the other hand, joint families in Indian are common where a family not only consists of husband and wife but includes parents and brothers of the husband and sometimes includes uncles and aunts.

Besides above noted similarities and differences, there exist the differences between Indian rural structure and the Western structure. Some of the notable fields of difference are given below: 

• Differences in the communal feeling and organization of villages.
• Differences in political conditions and village leadership.
• Differences in the inter-village relations.
• Differences in social dynamics.