Notes
1 In the original: yasma ̄t trayo ’pva ̄s ́ramin.o jnãnena ̄nnena ma ̄nhavam/gr.hasthenaiva
dha ̄ryante tasma ̄jjyes.t.ha ̄s ́ramo gr.hi.
2 We may briefly note here the reading of the tradition by the scholars of what is
known as “Hindu law” (a product of British colonial administration). Thus, it is stated
that, “the joint and undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu society. An
undivided Hindu family is ordinarily joint not only in estate, but also in food and
worship” (Desai 1998: 314). From the sociological point of view this statement
suffers from the conflation of two analytically and often empirically distinct groups,
namely the family and the household. The law qualifies the foregoing characteriza-
tion by maintaining that, “the existence of joint estate is not an essential requisite to
constitute a joint family and a family, which does not own any property, may never-
theless be joint” (Desai 1998: 314). It is obvious that it is a larger grouping than the
household to which the law refers; it is equally clear that without constituent house-
holds, there would be no joint families. The foundational nature of the household in
relation to Hindu society is thus implicitly recognized in Hindu law.
3 Virtually all but 5,000 to 10,000 persons of this community of about 300,000
persons have been driven out of Kashmir following the eruption of a Muslim mili-
tant, secessionist movement in 1989. The refugees live in temporary camps in Jammu
and Delhi, or have taken up residence in various towns and cities of India, mainly in
the north. The hope that they will be able to return to their homes are not bright. In
describing aspects of their domestic life, the present tense has been retained here.
4 The Hindu undivided family has tax-saving privileges that may be availed by indi-
vidual members. These are not available to non-Hindu households (see Gulati and
Gulati 1962).
5 A negative attitude towards renouncers is widespread, and may go so far as to ascribe
a malignant influence to them, responsible for misfortune among householders, as
do the residents of the village Ghatiyali in Rajasthan. For them the sam.nya ̄sı ̄is the
threatening outsider (see Gold 1988: 53). But there are exceptions. In Rajasthan
itself, the pastoral Raikas consider renouncers auspicious, even like gods, and their
blessings are valued by householders. The householder–renouncer relationship is not
antagonistic here but “intertwined” (Srivastava 1997: 266).
6 For vignettes of domestic life among four castes of north India (Brahman, farmer,
carpenter, and oil-presser), which show interesting similarities and differences, see
Wiser 1978.
7 That would be a neat way to conclude this chapter, but we must note (at least in a
note) that the values by which many secularized, Hindu, urban households live today
come from sources other than traditional culture. The process of change had already
become manifest in the late nineteenth century in cities such as Calcutta and
Bombay. Individualism was on the rise and large households were being viewed neg-
atively by social reformers. The process of social transformation has deepened and
become more widespread, particularly since independence. More and more people of
means in urban India today live in rented apartments, have small “households,”
affirm the values of individual choice and achievement, and gender equality, and
generally participate in a global culture of western origin. But, as the ethnographic
content of this chapter shows, the old household tradition is by no means dead, par-
ticularly in the rural areas, where three-quarters of the people of India live.
the householder tradition in hindu society 303