The death of the Indian family

The death of the Indian family

In the late nineties , I overheard a senior officer of Indian Oil speak about the then ED Mr. A K Arora speak ‘ I know we are all working for the family, but……’ . Later in 2002 as I was reading Hofstede for the doctoral thesis proposal amidst country metaphors for organizations the one for India was ‘the family’. It sort of drew a parallel between the Indian family and the organization. Similarly the French parallel was a pyramid, the German one a well oiled machine, the English one a village market and so on. None evokes the familial than the Indian one.

Much later in 2010 with the movie ‘Outsourced’ which speaks the travails of a US expatriate in India and his slow recognition of the Indian values and adaptation, it gave a new dimension to an international audience about India. Prof. Jayashankar of BRIM in the context of building an institution also similarly spoke about building the pillars and finding rest when one is old was applicable both to an institution and no less to the primary social institution, the family as well.

The family is all sacrifice for the next generation. It thrives on thrift and an economy of its own. Thrift in the sense of no personal spending except when absolutely required and the savings thus gained kept apart for a harder day or for the future generations. In fact ‘economics’ itself came from the Greek oikos for kitchen. The dhabawalas of Bombay thrive on the Indian penchant for having home made food both for its purity and for its saving potential. In its conception as a building, resting and passing on over time without much of a formal authority structure, it is unique. The west laments the loss of family values and no US Presidential campaign is complete with exhortations to return to family values and display of the candidate himself as a family man.

It is not uncommon to hear that if women were freer economically there would not be the family. Thus what was supposedly an economic arrangement as well as a social arrangement can be destroyed if individuals gain economic freedom. The only other reason to hold the family together is the social one. The emotional one can be in turbulence when in the search for economic freedom, the time and energy is compromised more against the family. I am of the opinion that the whole of present day economic arrangement is against the family. The workplace demands more and more from the individual and over time gains a momentum and convenience of its own.

When the woman’s income rises and children are few both by private intention and public persuasion, the tolerance levels are less especially for the woman. The family survives on the woman’s tolerance at least in the Indian context. The divorce laws are stringent in India and time consuming although a section of the judiciary has started commenting on the need for liberal rules in the absence of any hope of coexistence. A recent law, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence put the first axe on the Indian family. As the name suggests it presumes that violence is against women and only against women and the culprit is the man or the woman’s in laws.

It lacks on two counts. One is the above presumption. The other one is about the word violence. The woman can be violent in very subtle ways. The female psyche is different from the male psyche and presence of other members itself can lead the woman to assume loss of affection. The male psyche is more pragmatic at least in this domain. I am also not discounting the immense power of the female to be the good catalyst to direct all energies in the family in a positive way. In practice the man finds helpless if the woman accuses one under the Domestic Violence Act or merely remains silent. Unscrupulous women can misuse this law.

The dynamics of this law will prompt men not to marry. One solution is the now common ‘living together’, a term denoting a kind of family without the public ceremonies. No obligations on either side to remain for life in abundance or penury. In case of a hint of violence, the one affected can leave. The problem arises when the woman demands alimony when the man leaves. The courts have pronounced that the woman is entitled to alimony. The presumption here is that the man was using the woman for sexual purposes.

This leaves only one option for the man and that is not to marry, not to live together but to have occasional relations for the feminine company however short or long the emotional or urnal extent. Because recently the Supreme court has pronounced that an occasional relation cannot be construed of the nature of marriage or living together. Living together should be so in the eyes of the society. An evening or a weekend spent together is no reason for alimony. Even ‘keeps’ ( a woman kept and provided for by a man to gain sexual favours) are excluded from alimony.

Therefore it is for the women now to decide whether they want to opt as a keep or provide occasional company to men because men would rather opt for either or both of these options to avoid the hassles of Protection of women from Domestic violence Act or living together. That to me sounds like the death bell of the Indian family. On my part I am afraid for my son as many parents are now who are more comfortable with daughters because laws are in their favour. Even that is not long lasting when men opt to have occasional flings and attachments with no strings attached.

For the Christian community in Kerala another source of litigation is also impending as when the sister/s can now claim equal share in the father’s property when the father dies intestate. The custom arose as a deterrent to the land property getting too fragmented. In its place he woman was provided a share also called dowry. Men can await their sister’s wrath very soon or pray that their mothers don’t bear girl children.

That is what happens when centuries old societal norms are overridden by law.