I have personal reservations about sending parents and elderly relatives to an Old Age Home. To me, an Old Age Home is not a solution but rather a different kind of problem, reflecting how we have collectively failed as a society. The argument that the elderly would have a better life in such homes due to the stress-filled lifestyle of the younger generation feels like an excuse. While it’s true that seniors might find companionship among their peers in these homes, they will never receive the same level of care and affection that only a family can provide.
In an Old Age Home, companionship is often based on individual terms and conditions. In contrast, living together under one roof as a family naturally fosters company, care, and affection. More than the elderly, it’s the younger generation that benefits from the presence of seniors, who offer much-needed wisdom and balance in their fast-paced lives.
Of course, no living arrangement is perfect, and each has its pros and cons. However, I would personally prefer to stay with family rather than move to an Old Age Home.
Having said this, the negative perception of Old Age Homes needs rethinking, especially in light of modern lifestyles and the needs of both younger and older generations. Instead of viewing these homes as places where elderly people are abandoned or orphaned, they can be seen as spaces for preparing for vanaprastha—the third stage of life according to ancient Indian tradition. In a recent talk on Sun TV (April 10, 2011), Sri Suki Sivam made a case for this, suggesting that Old Age Homes could be used to spiritually prepare the elderly for the inevitable transition of death, with peace and dignity.
Sivam’s argument challenges traditional views of Old Age Homes, advocating that elders voluntarily going to these homes should not be stigmatized. He further suggests that instead of focusing on making young people sannyasis, modern ashrams and gurus should open more centers to guide the elderly into the vanaprastha stage of life. His presentation was clear and firm, offering a fresh perspective on an issue that is often seen in a negative light.
However, we must consider the broader context and historical significance of vanaprastha. In ancient times, this stage of life was not introduced as a response to modern pressures but as a natural transition from household life. The traditional meaning of vana + prastha—a journey into the fores—was meant for men, with women accompanying their husbands but not following the same spiritual path of renunciation.1 The Dharmaśāstras even specified that women had no freedom and were to remain under male control throughout their lives.2 Thus, to compare today’s Old Age Homes with the ancient vanaprastha model raises important questions about responsibility and care within the family structure.
In ancient times, the system of vanaprastha applied mainly to the twice-born, especially Brahmins, and was not a universal practice. Most people lived with their children and grandchildren, and the presence of elders in a family was seen as a blessing, not a burden. Elders shared their life experiences and wisdom, which younger generations cannot easily acquire from books or the internet. The modern shift towards Old Age Homes threatens to deprive families of this valuable intergenerational learning and bonding.
My main concern with Old Age Homes is that they can rob families of the beauty of human relationships. Can we deny children the love and care of their grandparents? Can we take away from the elderly the joy of hearing the innocent talk of their grandchildren or watching them play? These intimate moments cannot be replaced by photos, videos, or visits to Old Age Homes. No technology can substitute the warmth of human touch, the joy of a grandparent oiling a grandchild’s hair, or the comfort of sleeping beside them. I have witnessed grandmothers, though without milk, breastfeed their grandchildren to help them sleep—a profound symbol of nurturing love.3
Sivam’s suggestion that elders should learn to “let go” and not feel abandoned is understandable. However, why should grandchildren be deprived of their grandparents’ presence and love? Our parents never abandoned us, despite hardships like poverty or illness. Now, can we justify abandoning them, even for seemingly good reasons? While there are bad parents and bad children, these exceptions should not shape the norms for everyone.
I am not entirely opposed to Old Age Homes, especially for those who have no other option or whose children are unable to care for them due to unavoidable circumstances. These homes provide a necessary service for many, but they should not become the standard solution. Old Age Homes, no matter how well-run, can never fully replace the family, which is what elderly people need most in their final years. My mother often says, “Poverty in youth and loneliness in old age are cruel.” Without family, loneliness persists, even when surrounded by people.
The commercialization of everything, including Old Age Homes, is another concern. Paid homes often prioritize profit over care. If young couples can afford to pay for these homes, they could also afford to make alternative arrangements to care for their elders at home. The family is the foundation of society, and any attempt to undermine it should be carefully considered.4
Of course, there are challenges in caring for elderly parents, and some are difficult to please. But the solution is not to send them away; it’s to make them understand that we are willing to do whatever it takes to care for them. My own experience taught me the importance of communication and compromise. While caring for my mother, I had to balance her needs with my limitations, but eventually, she adjusted happily.
In closing, while I appreciate many of Sri Suki Sivam’s points, we must carefully examine the impact of these ideas on human relationships. Spiritual growth is important, but so is the deep bond between family members, especially when caring for elders. As Mahabharata beautifully reminds us, our duty to love and serve those around us begins with our own family members.
26. The mother is as the fire-stick about the bodies of all men. She is the medicine for all sorts of calamities. The existence of the mother grants protection to one; the reverse deprives one of all protection. 27. The man who, though shorn of prosperity, enters his house uttering the words—O mother!—does not suffer from grief. [at present I feel rich by having my mother with me] Nor does decrepitude ever attack him. 28. A person whose mother exists, even if he has sons and grandsons and even if he is a hundred years old, looks like a child of two [which is not possible once he sends his mother to a Old Age Home]. 29. Able or disabled, lean or robust, the son is always protected by the mother. None else, according to the Scripture, is the son’s protector. 30. When his mother leaves him then does the son become old, then does he become stricken with grief, then does the world look empty in his eyes. [Taaiyatrup poonaal siir attruppohum =once mother is gone, one won’t get welfare; Taayoodu arusuvai pom = with the mother is gone the six taste of food.—Tamil proverb] — M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. 1988, Vol. 6. Shanti Parva Ch. CCLXVI. P. 397.
Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, April 10, 2011. Revised on 12-09-2024
Notes
1. The primary concern of Braahmanical theology, therefore, was not that one should faithfully follow the sequence of Aasramas but that the obligations of the ritual religion be fulfilled before a person commits himself to a celibate life. A householder who has paid his three debts by studying the Vedas, begetting offspring, and performing sacrifices, is thus permitted to become a renouncer immediately. Whether or not a person becomes a hermit prior to renunciation is not an issue about which these theologians show great concern.— Patrick Olivelle, The Aasrama system The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.177
2 …”Her father guards her in her childhood; her husband guards her in her youth; and her sons guard her in her old age. A woman is not fit to act on her own.7—ibid., p.185
7. MDh 9:3: pitaa raksati kaumaare bhartaa raksati yauvane/raksanti sthavire putraana strii svaantantryam arhati// the verse is also found in VaDh 5.2; BDh 2.3.45; MBh 13.21.19; 13.46.13.—ibid., p.185
3. In Gonda, UP, where I once lived, I saw a unique practice in my neighbor’s household. When the mother was too ill to feed her baby, after giving the baby milk in a bottle, the grandmother would take over and breastfeed the child to help them fall asleep. In my own family, my grandmother also breastfed my cousin’s child when she was unwell, soothing the baby and helping him sleep.
4. To afford a decent Old Age Home today, a minimum of Rs. 5,000 per month is required for one person, along with an initial deposit of a few lakhs, depending on the accommodation. For a couple, the monthly expense doubles, plus additional costs for any extra services provided. Given this financial burden, it’s possible to offer a more comfortable living arrangement at home with the same budget. Many Old Age Homes have now become expensive, charging extra for every additional service, and frequent shifting from one home to another can be traumatic for the elderly, who often prefer stability. For example, my mother dislikes even moving her bed from one side of the room to the other.
From Nirmal [name changed]:
Swamiji,
Coming from a culture where “Old Age Homes” (we call them “nursing homes”) are common, I resonate with your observations.
My grandmother spent her last few years in a nursing home because of severe mental and physical health issues that my grandfather could no longer manage. However, during those years, I found myself viewing her less as my grandmother and more as someone I visited to ease my guilt. Knowing she was there made her feel distant from our family.
While Old Age facilities may be necessary in certain situations, I wholeheartedly agree that the ideal is for elderly parents to live with their families. Kalyani [name changed] and I plan to care for our parents ourselves, or at least coordinate with our siblings to ensure they are looked after.
Regarding Sri Suki Sivam’s remarks, I’d like to say, “Thank you for understanding the younger generation’s challenges. But please stop encouraging selfishness that allows us to avoid the responsibility of being a part of our families. It’s hurting us.”
By the way, Kalyani is pregnant (big news for us!), and we hope to raise our child with a strong sense of belonging to our family. We want our children to grow up knowing that they are not isolated but are part of a wider family, encompassing all ages.
Thank you for your wise words.
Shanti,
Nirmal
April 13, 2011.
Dear Nirmal,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your response to Sivam. He is indeed a good speaker, and I enjoy his presentations, but I also don’t agree with all his views.
My perspective is shaped by the Indian context, and I wouldn’t claim it as a universal principle. I’m happy to hear the good news about Kalyani! Even while the baby is still in the womb, it’s essential to develop the right attitude, as it will shape your behavior once the baby is born. Wishing you both a safe delivery. God bless.
Db.
April 15, 2011
From Kanakbhai:
Dear Dayanandji,
I appreciate your views on the subject.
Old age homes certainly have a place in our changing society, as family values have evolved. The best approach would be to have these facilities close by so that, in case of emergencies, children can access their parents easily, and parents can visit often. Living together under one roof day and night can sometimes lead to friction due to generational gaps.
Sincerely,
Kanakbhai
Dear Kanakji,
Shanti!
When it comes to relationships, we often justify avoiding our responsibilities by citing a ‘changing society’ or ‘generation gap.’ Friction is a natural part of human relationships, and learning how to handle it is an essential part of the art of living. Avoiding responsibility by adopting foreign values will ultimately harm both individuals and families. Of course, there are exceptions due to genuine physical or financial limitations, but these should not be the excuses we rely on to evade our duties in the name of modernity. That said, I respect other viewpoints, even if I personally disagree.
Db.
April 15, 2011
Leave a Reply