India, Its Life and Thought

by John P. Jones

On the other hand, Hindus themselves are coming to regard this system as being out of joint with modern life, under the ægis of a progressive, civilized government. One of its chief defects is its encouragement of laziness in members of families. No one feels that he is responsible for his own maintenance. And no matter how industrious a member may be, the product of his labour is not his own—it belongs to the family. Such a system saps the foundation of industry and enterprise. It furnishes constant temptation to slothfulness and inactivity. In former times, this may not have been so manifest; but at present, when opportunities open wide their inviting doors, and means of accumulating wealth and influence multiply, the system has become a source of discontent and of serious difficulty in the community.

A few years ago the educated Hindus of South India were so exercised over the injustice of the situation that they urged upon the Madras Legislature a new act, called "the Gains Learning Bill," whereby every man might claim the financial results of his own labours and accumulate wealth apart from the property of the family. The matter was fully argued in the Legislature, and the injustice of the Joint Family System was so clearly revealed in this matter, that the bill was carried through. Thereupon, orthodox Hindus raised such a storm of opposition to the bill and decried it so vehemently, as a subversion of their faith and an overthrow of their most ancient and cherished institution, that the governor never signed the bill; and it has therefore never become law.

Nevertheless, the agitation against the system is increasing, and the incongruity of the Joint Family System with modern social conditions is becoming so marked that the day of its overthrow is approaching.

A well-known Hindu writer describes the injustice of this system as follows: "As one of the usual consequences of a patriarchal system, a respectable Hindu is often obliged to support a number of hangers-on, more or less related to him by kinship. A brother, an uncle, a nephew, a brother-in-law, etc., with their families, are not infrequently placed in this dependent position, notwithstanding the trite apothegm, which says, 'it is better to be dependent on another for food than to live in his house.'"

Moreover, this system fosters family dissension. It requires an ideal family, under the strong guidance of an ideal head, to live in peace and harmony under this system. The writer above quoted, himself a Hindu who had long lived under the system, expressed himself strongly upon the subject: "The millennium is not yet come. Seven brothers living together with their wives and children, under one and the same paternal roof, cannot reasonably be expected to abide in a state of perfect harmony, so long as selfishness and incongruous tastes and interests are continually working to sap the very foundation of friendliness and good-fellowship. Union is strength, but harmonious union, under the peculiar régime indicated above, is already a remarkable exception in the present state of Hindu society. On careful inquiry it will be found that women are at the bottom of that mischievous discord which eats into the very vitals of domestic felicity. Separation, therefore, is the only means that promises to afford relief from this social incubus; and to separation many families have now resorted, much after the fashion of the dominant race, with a view to the uninterrupted enjoyment of domestic happiness."

Outside of the family itself, perhaps the two most important functionaries are the family priest and the astrologer. And of these two the latter is doubtless the more influential. It is well known, as I have written on another page, that Hindus are not only firm believers in astrology, but also the abject slaves of this science, falsely so-called, in all the affairs of life. It is wonderful how many events in the life of a family come within the realm of astrological guidance and control. From birth to death, most of the important transactions of life are controlled by astrological considerations.

And with the astrologer we naturally join the sooth-sayer, who is frequently in demand to pronounce his incantations and utter his mantras, to remove all kinds of maladies and misfortune that may overtake members of the family. It is impossible for a Westerner to realize how much of the life of the Hindu, in the home and in society, is circumscribed by superstitions and directed by omens only. In the case of a man setting out upon a journey forty-three different things may happen which prognosticate good, and thirty-four which forebode evil. In household matters, the eye of the Hindu man, and very specially of the Hindu woman, is ever open to any one of a thousand indications that may reveal the will of the god or the demon as to conduct on the occasion.

The position of women in the Hindu home is fundamental, and much misunderstood by the people of the West.

It is sadly true that woman in Hinduism has suffered, throughout the centuries, gross injustice, and has laboured under a thousand disabilities. But it does not follow from this, as those not familiar with Hindu lives are too apt to conclude, that woman is therefore a nonentity and a mere helpless drudge in the family.

It is true that the great lawgiver, Manu, said, "No sacrifice is allowed to women apart from their husbands, no religious rite, no fasting; as far only as a wife honours her lord, so far is she exalted to heaven." In accordance with this, Hinduism has always consistently maintained that woman's well-being is entirely derived from her relationship to man. Her salvation is to be acquired through him. Her glory upon earth and her bliss in heaven and final emancipation depend upon her attitude to him, specially her obedience and devotion.