8/22/2019 Joint Family System Its Present and Future

1/4

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y September 21, 1957

Joint Family System Its Present and FutureR Da tta Choudhury

T H E future of the joint family

system in India has been a subje ct of mu ch speculation in recentyears; pronouncements ranging fromits gradual decay to its slowly regaining fresh strength and vigourhave equally forcefully been madeby contend ing schools of tho ugh t.But neither side has supported itspronouncements on the trends inthe joint family system with sufficient evidence. Before th e lastCensus, though an effort was madeto assess the position of the jointfamil y, no systematic info rma tio n

was collected wi th t hat end inview. The observations had, therefore, to be made partly on the basisof dir ectl y releva nt facts as theycame to notice and partly on thebasis of info rma tion collected forother purposes. In the 1951 Censusan attempt at systematic collectionof relevant statistics was made inall the States, excepting West Bengal, and the various Census Commissioners in their reports tried toassess the positio n of the jo in tfamily in their respective States.

Size of the FamilyThe average size of a family in

India works out to between 4 and5 persons. In 100 ru ra l fami liesthere are about 491 persons, whitethe corresponding figure for urbanareas is about 471 persons. In thedifferent Census zones of India thedistribution of the size of rural families (average number of persons per100 ru ra l households) is: Cen tra lInd ia-4 73; North-West India 511:No rth India511; South Ind ia 483;and West Ind ia 500.

Except in South India, the size ofurban households in every zone issmaller than that of rur al households. In South In dia there ispractically no difference between thesizes of rural and urban households.This is also reflected in thefigures for the three States shownin Table I. Of these three States,Uttar Pradesh has the largest sizeof family and Madras the lowest.But in the Punjab region the averagesize of a family in most of the distri cts exceeds five members. In thecase of West Bengal these figuresare no t comp arable because theState adopted a different definition

of 'house' and 'household' in the 1951

census. Fo r this reason the Regist rar General in his all-India reviewof the Census figures has left outEast ern Zone. However, West Bengal's figures per Census 'house* areroughly comparable with the figuresof 'households' of other States. Theaverage number of persons per census house in West Bengal rangesbetween 5.12 in Malda and 4.21 inCalcutta. It is significant tha t asin the case of Madras there is nosub stan tial difference between thesizes of rural and urban households

in West Bengal, and in many districts the latter is significantlylarge r; thi s is in sharp contras twit h the all-Ind ia figures whichshow almost a uni for mly biggersize of rural families than of theurban.

The West Bengal Census Commissioner has explained thi s phenomenon by saying that many of theru ra l households have left thei rrural homes with their families tolive in towns and cities; that inmany places the figure has been inflated by the num ber of refugeehouseholds most of whom are nowsettled in urban camps; and that theurban households tend to draw awaymore and more rural members bytheir greater faci lit y to provide

occupation to the residents. Wh ileit is difficult to say how far theabove explanation is applicable it isalmost certain that part at least ofthe explanation of the bigger sizeof urban households in West Bengallies in the manner of Census countof houses and households in thatState.

Definition of House

A 'house' was defined as a building or part of a building in which atleast one commensal family livestogether; but in the congested con

ditions of West Bengal there mightbe more than one family living ina single 'house' in which case the

definition of a 'house' rested on the

'rock-bottom foundation' of a room.It is only to be expected that in thiscircumstance the average size of ahousehold could not he ascertained,since two families living in a singleroom might be treated as a single'house'. Nevertheless the trend inthe average number of persons percensus 'house' in West Bengal issignificant for purposes of comparison.

The extent to which the size ofan average family has varied overthe past decades is difficult to deter

mine in the absence of truly comparable figures for the different decades. For this reason the Registrar General refrained from sucha comparison in his review of theal l-I nd ia Census figures. But someof the State Census Commissionershave made such a comparison, forinstance, the figures given by theU P Census Commiss ione r (seeTable I I ) . As these figures werenot collected on a uniform basisthey should be treated with reservation.

I t will be seen from the table howthe size of an average family hasfluctuated between 1911 and 1951.First, there was a fall in the de

cade ending 1921 and thereafter acontinuous rise until it rose to 5.04in 1941. Since then it has remain ed stat ion ary. The Census Commissioner of U P accounts for thesevariations as follows:

"The population fell in the de-cade 1911-21 by 3.1.1 per cent andthe number of households by 1.71per cent, thereby causing a. decrease in the size of householdby 1.71 per cent. In the decade1921-31 the population increasedby 6.67 per cent, the number of

households by 2.02 per cent,thereb y causing an increase inthe size of household by 4.56 per

1233

8/22/2019 Joint Family System Its Present and Future

2/4

8/22/2019 Joint Family System Its Present and Future

3/4

THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY September 21, 1957

cent. In the decade 1931-41 thepopulation rose by 13.57 per cent,while the number of householdsincreased by 7.62 per cent only,resulting in an increase of 5.53per cent in the size of household"

Is Joint Family Breaking?

The changes in the relative sizeof an average family since 1911 donot establish the conclusion tha tthere has been a tendency in U Pfor the jo in t fam ily to "break up;on the contrary it might be permissible to draw the opposite conclusion, since there has been a steadyrise in the size since 1921. The fallof the decade ending 1921 might beexplained in different ways: suchas, the defective count of theCensus houses (many empty'houses' were also coun ted as Census'houses') and the influenza epidemic of 1919, in which manyfamilies were simply wiped out. Inin the case of West Be nga l too asimilar fall in the average size of afa mil y was registered due to thesame cause, viz, the influenza epidemic. It is probab ly significa nt tha tin the decade ending 1941 when thefull effects of the economic crisis ofthe early 30's on the population cameto be reflected, there was a rise in thesize of fami lies in urb an areaswhere, however, the average size ofa family has been consistentlylowe r in other decades. This wasthe result of the large influx ofpopulation from rural to urbanareas in search of work in times ofacute economic distress.

Composition of the Family

It must be conceded that it issomewhat difficult to determine thetrend in joint family from a studyof the average size of a fa mi ly.Various factors havin g no directrelation wit h the trend in join t

family seem to influence the size ofthe fam ily. Increase in bi rt h anddeath rates, emigration and immigration and other factors may influence the size of a family. But todraw any conclusion as to the trendin joi nt fami ly from a study ofthese figures which are influencedby indir ect causes is not prudent.Probably the information regardingthe composition of an averagefam ily may be more helpful forobservin g the tren d in the jo in tfamily.

The joi nt fam ily system is avaria ble concept. In the westerncountries where individualistic senti

ment is very strong, the compositionof an average family is made up ofhusband, wife and their children;where a var iat ion occurs in thisnormal pattern by the addition ofsuch members as the in-laws it is

considered a 'cal amity '. But inIn dia it wo uld be considered anorm al pattern if a fam ilywere to include, besides the headsof households, such relat ives asfathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, etc;the social conscience would still revolt against anyone who protestsagainst such addi tion . Thus thenatur e of the composition of anaverage family would indicate betterthe trend in the joint family in India.

In the 1951 Census, information onthe composition of an average Ind ianfa mil y was collected for the firsttime; consequently, it could not becompared with such information inthe past. Unf ortu nate ly, even theinformation that has now been collected is neither very exhaustivenor very accurate. Fo r instance,under the heads 'male relatives' and'female relatives' all the distant andnear relations of the heads of households are lumped together; these donot give us the precise relationshipof the relatives with the heads ofhouseholds. It is wel l-kn own thatin India due to custom and practice,it is usual to recognise one familymember, such as the eldest brotheror the father, as the head of thefamily, while for all practical purposes there might be more than onehead of family in such cases, asfor instance, when tw o brotherswith independent incomes live together . It wou ld he useful to haveinformation on this type of relationship in order to determine the financial status of the joint family; butthe Census figures of relatives ingeneral do not afford us this typeof inf orm ati on. Consequently, wecan only guess as to how ma nyIndependent and dependent membersthere are in a family,

The average composition of 100Indian households as given in theConsus is shown In Table I I I . The

numb er of male heads of households exceeds the figures of wivesof households, because the re are19 wido wers. The figure of female heads of households pro bab lyrepresents the number of widows

who have become heads of households on the death of the ir husbands. One thing appears to beclear fro m these figures: polygam yamong- the Hindus is very rare. Ifpolygamy was widespread thenumbe r of wives should havesho wn some tendency to exceedthe numbers of male heads. Amongthe children of the heads of households the daughters form a lesserproportion than that of the sonsbecause of the fact that they aregive n away in marri age. Of thesons, a large proportion live with

their parents to an advanced age,pro bab ly because (a) the sonsma rr y at an ear ly age, and areunable to live on their own wi ththeir families, for a considerableperiod after their marriage and(b) a large propor tion amongthem may be minors and dependents. Am on g the relatives, asmi gh t be expected, females outnumber males for the simplereason th at a large number ofthem constats of daug hters -in-la wof the heads of households. A n other reason is that female relatives such as widow sisters or auntsof the heads of households oftencome to live w it h them. Prob ablythe figure of the male relativ esIndicates the number of unemploy-ed relativ es to be found in 100households; where the head ofhouseholds is other than thefather, the figure of the relativesmight include a brother who mightbe an earn ing' member. To theextent, therefore, these figures conceal this type of members theycould not be an indication of thenumber of unemployed dependentsin a family.

The Trends

The average Indian family stillincludes a considerable numb er ofboth male and female relatives

1235

8/22/2019 Joint Family System Its Present and Future

4/4

September 21, 1957THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY

about 24.6 perso ns in 100 households. The fact, therefore , In dicates that. the tr ad iti on al Jointfamily still remains by and large,the most common chara cter isticof the Indi an fam ily life. The

largest number of families arecomposed of several members besides the heads of households.Consequently the "large" type ofhouseholds is still the most numerous. This would be revealed by astudy of the prop ortio n of fourtypes of households amo ng 100households us gi ven in the 1951Census. (See Table I V ) .

It will be seen from Table IVtha t the 'mediu m' type of households forms the largest number ofhouseholds both in the ru ra l andin the urban areas, followed by

'small', 'large' and 'very la rge'types, in tha t order. If 'medium'type of households is also regardedas comprising a large fam ily wemight consider 'medium', 'large'and 'very large' households jointly.In that ease it would be seen thatthe largest number of householdsis sti ll of the joi nt fami ly type.To this we must also add the circumstance that these figures arebased on a sample, wh ich recog-nisedly resulted in the selection offewer 'larg e' type of householdsthan of the 'sm all' type. If there

fore actua l figures were kn ow nthey wou ld revea l a yet larg ernumbe r of 'large ' type of house-holds, and this would furthe rstrengthen the conclusion that the'lar ge' type of households sti llcharacterises Indian family life.

But one fact should neverthelessbe noted about the tre nd in Jointfamily which is recognisable fromthese figures: the 'sm al l' type ofhouseholds toda y forms a substant ial proportion of the totalhouseholds. It comes nex t to the

'medium' type of households whichis the single largest type of house

holds and in every three ru ra lhouseholds there are to be fou ndtoday at least one 'small' type ofhousehold. The proportion of thesmall type of households is larger in the urba n areas than In

the rural. The explanation for thiscan be ascribed partly to the immigrant character of the urban population and partly to the break upof joint family.

The conclusion seems irr esi sti ble: the most comm on type offamily in India today is still the

joi nt fa mi ly . But a si gn if ican tproportion of the total householdsalso forms the 'sm all ' type ofhouseholds. Wh at is diffic ult tostate at this stage is whether thetrend is towards the 'small' or the

'large', i e, jo in t fam ily, household. For th at we shall have towait for the 1961 Census.

Manufacture of Automatic

LoomsTHE Government of Ind ia has

set up a 7-Member Committee,with the Textile Commissioner, ShriV Nanjappa, as Chairma n, to inquire into the qualit y, productionand delivery of indigenous automatic looms.

The Committee which will beginits wor k immediatel y wi ll recom-mend measures for improvement ofquality and increase in the rate ofproduction of automatic looms. Theheadqarters of the Committee wil lbe in Bombay.

1236