Acharya Tulsi
Sometimes I come across a feeble note, "How is it possible to bring back the joint-family?" Behind this enquiry stands a long tradition of intimate relations. Among the achievements or non- achievements of the 20th century in India," the disintegration of the family" has emerged as one of the most ponderable issues. There was a time when 50-100 people lived together in a family. They had interests in common. One man’s pleasure was every man’s; likewise pain. Not only did they share their comforts and discomforts with one another, but their thinking was also collective. They knew how to merge their thought into another's. They had no exclusive personal interest, so there was no occasion for self-centred; they were centred in the family. To sacrifice their own desires and ambitions in the overall interest of the family was a tradition they inherited at birth. That is why the culture of big families prospered here.
The western culture on the other hand is highly individualistic. The people there are self-centred. They are averse to any kind of interference in their private life. Their family relationships are not so interlinked. No adult there is dependent upon his parents. What to speak of dependence, he does not even want to live with them. Even the man and wife relationship there is unstable. Divorce is a common occurrence. Marriages there are not arranged by the guardians, or on the basis of any principle. A relationship born of a little acquaintance and a lot of passion cannot but be unstable.
On the contrary- in our Country the joint family has played an important role in promoting a harmonious relationship between man and wife. Whether man or woman, each is confronted by social or psychological problems. People living in groups are also effected with problems, but they find many occasions during the day to unburden themselves. When man and wife come together, they find many issues of day-to-day living already resolved in the family environment. So there is little room for tension in their relationship. But in the case of a wife obliged to live by her all the day long, away from the family environment, with whom is she to converse? To whom may she unburden her heart? From whom will she receive praise or blame? All the pressures and tensions of the day she uncovers before her husband, the moment he returns home in the evening, exhausted by the day's work, and seeking nothing but complete rest. As a result, tension gathers, and acrimonious relationship ensues.
In the culture of the West, even old parents have no urge to live with their children. Nobody expects much from another, and nobody trusts another. Hence people are not much given to complaining or finding fault with another.
The question arises which of these two cultures, Western or Indian, is better. The goodness of any culture, tradition or custom is determined by its utility. The Western countries have an environment of their own. Whether the culture of the joint- family can thrive there, is a moot point. But in the Indian environment, this culture has had deep roots; it ensured stability and freedom from care.
If some member of the family fell ill or was crippled for life, he did not become an unbearable burden. Other members of the family took care of his physical, mental and financial needs. A woman did not have to wait for the children’s holidays, in order to be able to visit her parents or in-laws. In fact, the bringing up of the children was not entrusted solely to their mother or the nurse.
The responsibility of imparting traditional values to t e children fell upon the old ladies of the family. The grandmother’s sweet tales, loving lullabies and affectionate tickling’s imparted to the children a great deal, which was vital for their development.
One great advantage of the joint family lay in the development of the spirit of cooperation. And the fragrance thereof was not confined to the family circle alone; it permeated even to neighbours and remote relatives. A whole culture of preparing paper and basis (cakes of ground pulse) etc. grew up round this spirit of cooperation in the family. Similarly, the occasions of birth, marriage, death, etc. offered opportunities for intimate cooperation and mutual sharing of joy and sorrow.
A man who is isolated and alone feels very helpless. He cannot share his joys and sorrows with anyone. Nor is he able to unburden himself completely before anyone, nor win anyone’s sympathy. His smile is lost forever and day by day he feels quite shattered.
An 80-year old teacher was undergoing the tragedy of being alone. One day she received a letter from one William L. Ritzer who had been her student 30 years ago. That letter brought her infinite joy. She had been leading a very solitary life, cooking her own food, eating it by, herself and she looked upon herself as the last leaf of a tree about to fall. For 50 years she had been engaged in teaching. But this was the first letter that she ever received which praised her teaching. She experienced a happiness she had never known before—just a little appreciation could go a long way to make a person feel so good, Similar is the great sense of joy that comes to a person who lives in a group and enjoys the love, sympathy and cooperation of all.
To say that -a joint family has nothing but benefits to confer would be a partial. Living in a group also entails certain difficulties. Only a tolerant person can cope with them. But this much may be safely asserted that many problems resulting from the disintegration of the family just do not arise in a joint family.
No one can say for certain when the crack first appeared in the joint family system, but for some time now it has been undergoing a slow disintegration. Whatever the reason, the exquisik harmony of family relationships is being more and more supplanted by mere formality. Particularly in the case of city life,-with its emphasis on a small and self—contained family. What to speak of the people in the neighbouring house, even families living in two flats facing each other on the same floor of the same house, do not get properly acquainted with one another. If a relative visits the family, the whole routine is upset. The culture of friendship is still somewhat alive, but natural relations are being stifled, or pervaded by a feeling of suffocation.
The noteworthy point here is whether whatever is happening is the result of conscious choice or of blind, thoughtless imitation of a foreign culture. Any change in tradition, wrought after thoughtful consideration is in the interest of society, but a mechanical, unconscious change is of little use to anyone.
A psychology which discounts mutual trust and the spirit of self- sacrifice and cooperation, causing disintegration in the family, cannot but be questionable. The responsibility for disowning it lies on the present-day youth and the succeeding generation. Both these generations must realise for themselves the truth experienced by their ancestors before they can create a new environment for the revival of the joint family system.
