The most striking feature of the Hindu Society in the caste system. Even among Muslims, whose religion preaches equality there is a loose sort of caste system.
The essential feature of the system is that a man’s social and domestic relations are determined by the rules of the caste into which he is born. He cannot marry in any other caste. There are also some restrictions in the caste, with whose members he cannot eat or drink, without being ‘fallen in caste.’ An important off short of the caste system is untouchability.
1. It has increased the productive efficiency of labour. Each caste specialises in a particular occupation the weaver, doing only weaving etc such specialization of labour increases the efficiency of workers.
2. It prompts the transmission of skill from the father to son. The son would learn all trade secrets under the loving care of his father who would naturally takes utmost pains to teach his son. Thus the son is not to incur expenditure for learning a trade.
3. It has fostered the spirit of cooperation and fellow feeling among members of the same caste. By helping the poor and needy, it has avovided the necessity of the state supporting the poor.
4. It has preserved the racial purity of the higher rules by the forbidding indiscriminate inter-marriage.
1. There is no mobility of labour in the system because people cannot take up any occupation they like but must follow the calling of their forefathers. Suppose the prospects of any occupation improve very much and the wages rise, the supply of labour cannot increase in the occupation, as it is fixed by birth. If in any occupation, the prospets decline, workers cannot leave it, and go to a better one. Thus labour in unable to adjust itself to the changed conditions in any occupation and suffers accordingly.
2. As it renders labour immobile, it is not favourable for large scale production so the general economic condition of our country is very bad.
3. It often results in putting man in wrong occupation. There is no guarantee that a barber’s son would also like to be a barber, or would possess the qualities of a successful barber. But under a rigid caste system, he cannot take up an, other profession even though ne may possess the skill for it. Each profession has, therefore, to tolerate many persons who are inefficient or unless in that profession but who may do better in some other jobs.
4. It breeds a feeling of contempt for manual labour in the minds of the higher castes. One of the main causes of middle class unemployment is due to this contempt for manual labour.
5. It is an obstacle to the growth of national unity. It has lead to the growth of a feeling of discontent among the depressed classes.
6. Caste systems is against the principle of democracy because in democracies every individual has got right irrespective of his caste, creed and colour and he got equal opportunities with other for his moral and physical development while caste system stood in the way and does not allow free choice of occupations and does not afford equal opportunities to all the members of the state for their mental, moral and physical development.
There is no doubt that whatever be the merits which the caste system possessed; its disadvantages fat outweighed them. It is a happy sign of the times of that the rigidity of the system is breaking down in recent time.
The structure of the family is no fixed, it varies in different culture likewise the function of the family are flexible the sex and parental function are the primary functions of the family. |n addition to these fuctions the family may provide economic services to its members; it may help to educate them give them religious guidance, furnish recreation, protect them against dangers of various sorts and provide affection and social intercourse.
It is important in appraising the significance of the family in any culture to ascertain what function are performed and to what extent they are exercise. The family may thus be interpreted, in terms of its varying organization and function. Thus the family performs various functions which have got universal importance.
The family to-day seems to be troubled institution. The divorce rate is high, and the number of separations ii large. Families without children are numerous. This situation is source of anxiety to many persons, virtues are developed.
It is evident that there has been no unliberal evolution of the family from the simple to the compel family life to-day is not greatly unlie early family has shown a great deal of variation j different times and in different places. The modem family stands in a Markel contrast to the early agricultural family.
With the growth of the factor system and the rise of cities family undergoes profound changes. The economic functions are largely transferred to outside agencies, and the family declines in economic significance. A mate is id longer automatically a worker and n economic asset as before but may now be an economic liability. Hence the economic motive for marriage long ceased to be important.
Children also are expensive to have, so with the aid of scientific contraception the family tends to be much smaller. With the large scale transfer to traditional functions to outside agencies and the reduction in the size of the family increasing emphasis is placed on psychological values such as affection, companionship and emotional security.
The wireless, the gramophone, television and facsimile transmission all may make the home a very attractive recreation centre. While the intestification of research along these lines in the future is likely to provide new aids in these lines strengthening the personal aid of family life. The extension of electric power into home may increase the economic and recreational functions of the family as well.
The institution of family has got universal importance. We agree that there will be a change in its from and functions but it will not disappear.