Changing family system

In India there had been a joint family social system where all the members of a paternal family lived in a single home with several rooms but with one kitchen. The head of the family, father or grandfather, whosoever was the eldest, was responsible to make arrangements to fulfill the domestic needs of the family and all other members were duty bound to obey his orders and support him. For quite a long period this was the tradition followed by every family whether living in a city or village. The families were not divided even after the death of the grandfather or father; the next senior most according to age was accepted as the head of the family. Major profession of the people, particularly in northern and central India was agriculture or joining armed forces. Soon the number of members of a single family swelled into hundreds, forcing the head to divide the land and other property among his sons. This resulted in the formation of another family where again the eldest male member of the family was accepted as the head. This division of the family was linked with the division of the land and property so within a few centuries the number of family members in ratio proportion was more than the area of land to be divided. This led to the emergence of small farmers and then farmers without land. Because very few families added more land to the existing and also were in a position to raise more property. Those who could not add anything either to their land or property were pushed to poverty and within years had no option but to work either as a labour in the fields of others, or join armed forces or migrate to the nearest city for bread and butter. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for such families to have a big house and remain united as a single family. So the process of division and further division of the joint families was set on under economical compulsion. But now in the present society, the division has been accepted as a need of the family. There is no economical compulsion for several families but despite this the families of today are not interested in going for a joint family system. The beginning of the nucleolus family system was initially opposed by several families but was adopted by all one by one and gradually. Now the society is heading from the nucleolus family system to a very unique system which can be described as n ‘no family system’. This system has been named as ‘The live in relation system’. In this system no permanent family is formed as is being formed till now with the solemnization of marriage, while in ‘Live in relationship’ marriage as no place and two persons of opposite sex or even f same sex stay together as long as both wish to. What will be the next face of the social system will be interesting to see.

In India there had been a joint family social system where all the members of a paternal family lived in a single home with several rooms but with one kitchen. The head of the family, father or grandfather, whosoever was the eldest, was responsible to make arrangements to fulfill the domestic needs of the family and all other members were duty bound to obey his orders and support him. For quite a long period this was the tradition followed by every family whether living in a city or village. The families were not divided even after the death of the grandfather or father; the next senior most according to age was accepted as the head of the family. Major profession of the people, particularly in northern and central India was agriculture or joining armed forces. Soon the number of members of a single family swelled into hundreds, forcing the head to divide the land and other property among his sons. This resulted in the formation of another family where again the eldest male member of the family was accepted as the head. This division of the family was linked with the division of the land and property so within a few centuries the number of family members in ratio proportion was more than the area of land to be divided. This led to the emergence of small farmers and then farmers without land. Because very few families added more land to the existing and also were in a position to raise more property. Those who could not add anything either to their land or property were pushed to poverty and within years had no option but to work either as a labour in the fields of others, or join armed forces or migrate to the nearest city for bread and butter. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for such families to have a big house and remain united as a single family. So the process of division and further division of the joint families was set on under economical compulsion. But now in the present society, the division has been accepted as a need of the family. There is no economical compulsion for several families but despite this the families of today are not interested in going for a joint family system. The beginning of the nucleolus family system was initially opposed by several families but was adopted by all one by one and gradually. Now the society is heading from the nucleolus family system to a very unique system which can be described as n ‘no family system’. This system has been named as ‘The live in relation system’. In this system no permanent family is formed as is being formed till now with the solemnization of marriage, while in ‘Live in relationship’ marriage as no place and two persons of opposite sex or even f same sex stay together as long as both wish to. What will be the next face of the social system will be interesting to see.