Business Standard

Devesh Kapur: Tying up adoptions in red tape

There is too little international adoption from India

Related News

Recent media reports cite the (NCPCR) describing the state of affairs at “Apna Ghar”, a shelter home in Rohtak, Haryana, as “sickening” and “shocking”. and even forced abortion were apparently common in the shelter home. This depressing state of affairs is not uncommon across orphanages in India. In 2009 the Times of India reported that physical abuse of children had been rife in Delhi’s Arya orphanage. Indeed a search of news stories on this issue comes up with wrenching accounts of how the most vulnerable group in society is treated by its nominal caregivers and protectors.

Expectedly, there are a host of laws, commissions and agencies designed to protect orphans, abandoned and street children. The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act was passed in 2000. Adoption centres are supposed to register under this act, but most do not and operate illegally, with the high transaction costs of compliance with yet another part of the regulatory state an undoubted barrier. Under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act (CPCRA), 2005, eight states (Delhi, Goa, Sikkim, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Assam) have set up commissions to protect child rights. Unsurprisingly, protecting children does not appear to be the only criteria for appointment to these bodies. Recently commenting on the molestation of three minor girls of a government-aided orphanage, a member of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights admonished the media for blowing it out of proportion since the issue was “not as serious a crime as murder”.

In 2009-10 the introduced the Integrated Child Protection Scheme (ICPS), aimed at children in need of care and protection. Under this scheme financial assistance is provided to states for children’s homes, adoption agencies and shelters for children in need of care and protection. A new autonomous body under the Ministry of Women & Child Development – Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) – was created to regulate in-country and inter-country adoptions with elaborate guidelines for declaring a child legally free for adoption, detailed home study reports to assess the suitability of parents to adopt, a final adoption order passed by a competent court, and post-adoption follow-up by adoption agencies for period of two years after adoption. For an overseas family seeing to adopt from India, following these guidelines scrupulously would result in financial costs between $50,000-100,000. The most recent guidelines also give greater priority to domestic adoption with the ratio for in-country vis-à-vis inter-country adoption made 80:20 (in place of the earlier 50:50).

Given the sheer scale of the problem (rough estimates of street children alone in India exceed half a million), it is an ethical puzzle is why India has been so reluctant to facilitate international adoption from the country. Between 2007 and 2010 there were a total of 2,850 inter-country adoptions from India – averaging just over 700 a year, and just over a fifth of all adoptions in India over the same period (12,841). In 2011, there were just 226 adoptions by US-based families from India. International adoptions from most East Asian countries (China, South Korea and Vietnam) are far greater than from India – and even a cursory glance at human development indicators for children would indicate that this is not because these countries care less about their children than India does.

Is there any doubt that the life chances of an orphaned or abandoned Indian child are likely to be better with an adoptive family, at least if living in an OECD country, rather than in an orphanage or living on the street in India? Indeed, from a long-term perspective, if international migration and a growing diaspora are good for India, the case is even stronger – since, over time many of these children are likely to grow up to be adults with emotional links to the country of their birth. Consequently, it is clear that greater international adoption from India is in the interests not just of orphaned children but also of the country, if indeed credible opportunities for adoption are available in developed countries.

In recent years, there is growing anecdotal evidence of significant interest in pursuing adoption from India both among prospective parents in developed countries more generally, as well as prospective parents of Indian origin in these countries. Despite reasons to believe that this trend will continue to rise, and the fact that international adoption represents a significant instrument by which India can put into practice a commitment to alleviating the lives of thousands more orphaned children, it is puzzling that strong domestic barriers to international adoption remain in place in India and as a result adoption rates from India continue to be low.

There are several potential explanations for this state of affairs. There is a belief in some circles that allowing more liberal adoption would result in greater child trafficking, with unscrupulous agents buying children from poor parents and selling them to equally unscrupulous adoption agencies. Others worry about possible religious conversions. Government policies regarding international adoption have also put up substantial barriers partly arising from India being a signatory of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption of 1993, which states that “to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children each state should take, as a matter of priority, appropriate measures to enable the child to remain in the care of his or her family of origin.” That’s all well and good. The higher the barriers, the fewer failures in inter-country adoptions. But that also means far fewer adoptions – with the children languishing in abusive homes with grim life chances.

It is this counterfactual – what happens to the thousands of children who will not get adopted because of the labyrinth of procedures – that is rarely discussed. While the children can be protected from the evils of the “foreign hand” (even if our prime minister cannot), how much do we know (or want to) about the enemy within?


The writer is at the University of Pennsylvania

Read more on:   
|
|
|
|

Read More

Sreelatha Menon: The path of the frog prince

Not many would agree with the principle that one’s critic is one’s true benefactor. Well, industry, or some sections of it seem ready to embrace ...

Most Popular Columns

Sunil Sethi

Sunil Sethi: Why a little learning is dangerous
Sunil Sethi

Two living exemplars of the phrase in recent days are Smriti Irani and Zameeruddin Shah, for their ill-judged and obsolete ideas on education and ...

Bhupesh Bhandari

Bhupesh Bhandari: The unsung billionaire
Bhupesh Bhandari

Two weeks ago, Qimat Rai Gupta of Havells India passed away quietly. Born in a low-income family of Malerkotla in Punjab, he was worth almost $2 ...

Shyamal Majumdar

Shyamal Majumdar: The art of flattery
Shyamal Majumdar

Sycophants may be the butt of corporate jokes, but some of them have made buttering-up the boss a fine art

Advertisement

Columnists

Arvind Panagariya

Arvind Panagariya: How we shoot ourselves in the foot
Arvind Panagariya

The government has not acted to end tax terrorism, which means the 'Make in India' campaign is in jeopardy

T Thomas

T Thomas: Riding the tide
T Thomas

The government could offer a majority shareholding to Indian private-sector investors in all major public-sector enterprises, with, say, five ...

Sonia Gandhi

'A visionary who decisively altered India's trajectory'
Sonia Gandhi

Jawaharlal Nehru once remarked that wealth shouts, but knowledge whispers. That whisper about Nehru's life and work has weakened in recent years ...

Back to Top