Adoption means a legal process that allows someone to become the parent of the child, even though the parent and child are not relatable by blood. But in every other way, adoptive parents are the child’s parents. Adoption falls under the ambit of personal law, due to diverse religions practised in our country, especially Hinduism and Islam. The law of adoption is a personal law practised by particular sects of people in India.

In the earlier concept of adoption in Hindu mythology, the only son could have been adopted for the continuation of family lineage and for the performances of funeral rites. But with time and new age, this concept of patriarchal tooth old concept was withered away and new laws of adoption were laid down under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which allows a daughter can also be adopted and which also stated that adopted child is entitled to all rights and duties of non-biological family.

The concept of adoption is characterised as personal law based on two different laws which are discussed as under.

HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956

This act is primarily governed by Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists for the reason that their law provides that ambiguity to the concept of adoption. It mainly provides guidelines for Hindu society and the act deals with topics such as the capacity to adopt, capacity to give in adoption, the effect of the adoption, and such others.

Who is eligible for adoption?

• Any male who is of sound mind, not a minor, is eligible to adopt a son or daughter. But if such male has a living spouse at the time of adoption then he can only adopt the child with the consent of his spouse (unless she has been declared incompetent by the court).

• Any female who is not married, or if married, whose husband is not alive or marriage has been dissolved or her husband has been declared incompetent by court, can adopt son or daughter.

• In case of adoption of a son, by any male or female, there should not be any living son in the succeeding three generations of the party (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption)

• In the case of adoption of a daughter, by any male or female, there should not be any daughter or son’s daughter at the time of adoption.

• Where there is the adoption of a daughter by a male then the adoptive father should be at least twenty-one years older than the child.

• Where there is the adoption of a son by a female then the adoptive mother should be at least twenty-one years older than the child.

Who can be adopted?

• The child can either be a girl or a boy if he/she is a Hindu (including Buddhist, Jaina, or Sikh by religion)

• He/she has not been adopted before

• The child should not be married

Once the child is adopted all the rights and obligations of a natural-born fall upon them. All the laws relating to adoptive parents are in sections 12,13 and 14 of the act. As per section 15, it can be noted that once the adoption is made by the parents or individuals it cannot be cancelled by them and nor can the adoptive child renounce the adoptive family and go back to his/her birth parents. Adoption generally is held permanent in nature, with neither party going back.

GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890

Unlike the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the law stated in the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 is different. Personal laws of Muslims, Jews, Christians and Parsis’ adoptions are not recognised so if a person desires to adopt a child it can only be taken for guardianship of the child as per Section 8 of this act. The statue makes the child a ward and not adoptive.

However, adoption can take place from an orphanage by obtaining permission from the court under this act. The act, however, became non-religious universal law regarding guardianship of the child.

In a recent landmark judgement of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, it was held that adoption cannot be restricted to those in need of care and protection. The court ruled that adoption can’t be restricted to those orphans, abandoned and surrendered children, those in conflict with law, or ones in need of care and protection.

CUSTODY OF ADOPTED CHILD

In India marriage is looked at as a sacred arrangement and adopted child as a legal transfer to the parents whereby the child enjoys all rights and obligations as a natural born. When a married couple adopts a child, they must adopt the child with the consent of their spouses present, provided they are declared incompetent by the court of law. The child becomes the legal child of both spouses. The adopted child has the same legal rights in a divorce as all children have in divorce, there are still some special things kept in mind before handling custody to either spouse. The adopted child is considered a minor up till the age of 18 years in the eyes of law and the court defines the guardianship of such child. The court makes the right of custody order that reflects the best interest of the adopted child. The adopted child has special needs and also of unique financial considerations. It is significant for the court of law to identify and address such circumstances that may apply when a child has been adopted.

In Indian law, both spouses have legal rights to approach the court of law for custody during divorce proceedings. In most matters, the custody of the child is legally shared by both parents but in the case of physical custody of the child only one parent gains. Often the family law courts make such decisions keeping the best interest of the child, especially the adopted child, and not merely based on arguments present by each party in the court.

As per Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is held to be the natural guardian of the child up to the age of 5 years. Generally, the custody is given to the parents of the adopted child but sometimes for the welfare of the adopted child, custody is given to a third person such as any adult individual from either families of the spouse or Nari Nikeatan’s or Child Welfare Homes (governed by government) as an interim relief till the proceedings of the matter. Unless proved otherwise, the mother of the child enjoys the physical custody of the adopted child up to the age of 5 years and later the best interest of the child is looked upon by the courts.

In short, all adopted children have similar rights as a biological child in the custodial proceedings in the court of Indian law.

The writer is Advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The views expressed are personal.

The relations between the academic community and the Hindu community have recently come to be characterised by a sharp debate, which has also spilled over into journalism and the Internet. This development has been prompted by the reservations expressed by a significant number of Hindus in North America and India over the way Hinduism is portrayed in the Western academia and by the vigorous response of the academic community to such criticism.

As an academic, who is also a Hindu—or conversely, as a Hindu, who is also an academic—I (along with some of my other Hindu colleagues) stand at the volatile point of intersection between these two communities. This makes my role in the debate particularly fraught. I shall, nevertheless, try to address the issue or issues involved.

It seems to me that the issue first needs to be viewed on the broadest canvas possible, namely, that of the history of ideas.

Such a historical perspective is best developed by utilising the distinction regularly drawn in the study of religion between the insider and the outsider, notwithstanding some problems of definition involved in invoking this distinction. From the point of view of this distinction, the study of religion seems to exhibit a four-fold typology in terms of the modalities of transmission involved, in the context of how the study of the various religious traditions has proceeded over the past few centuries: (1) insider to insider; (2) outsider to outsider; (3) outsider to insider; and (4) insider to outsider. The various religions flourished in relative isolation in the pre-modern era. Historians do warn us that perceptions of such isolation may be somewhat exaggerated, but no one has seriously challenged the view that the main channel of communication involving the various religious traditions during this phase was from insider to insider.

This state of affairs began to change with the rise of the West and the onset of the modern era. During this phase, as the West became familiar with the religions of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, one main mode of transmission about these religions became one from outsider to outsider even as the other continued.

Western scholars, outsiders to these various religious traditions, began sharing their knowledge about them with other Westerners, who were as much outsiders to the religious traditions they were receiving information about as those providing it. The West, however, began to control the intellectual discourse in its colonies as the Western domination of the world became institutionalised in the form of colonialism, and the insiders to these traditions began to be profoundly affected, even in their self-understanding of their own religious traditions, by Western accounts.

Thus another dimension was added to the manner in which religious communication was taking place—from outsider to insider. This age of European imperialism had run its course by the end of World War II and the direction of the discourse took yet another turn with the liberation of the former colonies.

The members of the various non-Western religious traditions began to challenge their colonial descriptions in the post-colonial world. Now the insiders themselves began to claim the right to tell the outsiders about their faith, thus reversing the flow of information from outsider to insider, to insider to outsider.

The present tensions arguably reflect the state of discourse about Hinduism at this cusp of insider to outsider.

If the perspective presented above possesses some merit, then we now stand at a turning-point in the relationship among the interlocutors in the study of religion. Historical changes, however, are not linear even when their direction is discernible. Historical changes are more like the changes in ocean flows caused by tides. It is sometimes not apparent that the tide has begun to turn, even when it has. And even as the tide advances there are backflows, which tend to confuse the onlooker. Such a tidal shift also generates eddies and undercurrents. The going is not always as smooth as at high tide, when the scene takes on a serene aspect and the ocean seems to bare its bosom to the moon, as Wordsworth might say.

This metaphor, if not off the mark, may serve to both illustrate and explain the messiness of the present situation. However, although it might make it more understandable, it does not make it easier to deal with, for many issues demand our attention at the same time.

One is thus forced to be selective, one hopes without being arbitrary. I would like to identify nine such issues that stare us in the face. I hope these issues will resonate with the readers independently of whether they belong to the academic community or the Hindu community. I shall employ a rubric to encapsulate the key point of each of the issues I wish to foreground, in the hope that the expressions being employed to describe them will become increasingly clear as we proceed. These nine encapsulating expressions are the following:

• The Response Threshold

• Cognitive versus non-cognitive approaches

• Bias and error

• The Genetic Fallacy

• The Observer Effect

• The Distinction between an Academic and a Polemical Work

• The Idea of Purvapaka

• Objectivity as an Academic Desideratum

• Actor and Spectator

THE RESPONSE THRESHOLD

We owe this expression to Professor Eric J. Sharpe. He writes: A “response threshold” is crossed when it becomes possible for the believer to advance his or her own interpretation against that of the scholar. In classical comparative religion this was hardly a problem, since most of the scholar’s time was spent investigating the religions of the past and often of the very remote past. Interpretations might be challenged, but only by other specialists working according to Western canons and conventions. Today, by contrast, a greater proportion of study is devoted to contemporary, or at least recent, forms of living traditions. The study of religion often shades into a dialogue of religions, in which the views of both partners are (at least in theory) equally important. The response threshold implies the right of the present-day devotee to advance a distinctive interpretation of his or her own tradition—often at variance with that of Western scholarship—and to be taken entirely seriously in so doing.

What one is thus experiencing now in the academic world is the crossing of the response threshold by the Hindu community in North America and India. This community in North America has reached the critical demographic mass, when its reactions can no longer be disregarded; it is also displaying a new assertiveness in India. As teachers of religion we have perhaps already had our own experience of the response threshold being crossed by our students, when we have fielded questions from those who belong to the very faith about which we are teaching them.

This raises the question: How should members of the academic community react when members of the faith community, and not just members of the student community or colleagues in the academic community, cross the response threshold? The answer to this question is now in the process of being formulated.

COGNITIVE VERSUS NON-COGNITIVE APPROACHES

It is clear from the documentation around this debate that the protest is not always about the facts that may be adjudicated on the basis of evidence but often about interpretations, which do not seem susceptible to such verification. The main achievements of modern science proceeded from the falsifiability of its hypotheses but such does not seem fully applicable to the case here. We thus need to distinguish clearly between cognitive and non-cognitive approaches to the study of religion: “When we assert that what we take to be a fact (or deny what is alleged to be a fact), we are using language cognitively. ‘The population of China is one billion,’ ‘This is a hot summer,’ ‘Two plus two makes four,’ ‘He is not here’ are cognitive utterances. Indeed, we can define a cognitive (or informative or indicative) sentence as one that is either true or false.” Thus the statement that ‘Sanskrit is the language in which many sacred texts of Hinduism were composed’ represents an example of the cognitive use of language. “There are, however, other types of utterances which are neither true nor false because they fulfill a different function from that of endeavouring to describe facts.” When it is proposed that ‘Sanskrit is the language which contributes to social and political oppression,’ then this statement cannot be said to be true or false in the sense that the statement about it ‘being the language in which many sacred texts of Hinduism were composed’ could be considered to be so.

When we ask whether a claim is cognitive or non-cognitive, the “query at once divides into two: (1) Are such sentences intended by their users to be construed cognitively? (2) Is their logical character such that they can, in fact, regardless of intention, be either true or false?” Once the Western presentation of the tradition, which happens to be non-cognitive in nature, is attacked by the followers of the tradition, the non-cognitive approach may be far more open to frisson than if the cognitive approach were being employed. One could perhaps appeal to the verdict of the “academic community” on the point, just as one might determine the stance of a “faith community.” However, the fact that the approach is non-cognitive, which is to say non-falsifiable in the usual sense, either historically or phenomenologically, does seem to suggest that a new set of criteria might be required to asses it. This makes the study of religion less of a science to that extent, and more of an art. It also complicates claims to academic freedom, for how is one to adjudicate the charge of the community that, in a particular instance, an exercise in academic freedom has degenerated into an exercise in academic licence, and that the exercise in academic license, in turn, has further degenerated into an exercise in academic licentiousness?

The current controversy thus enables us to identify a new challenge: How to adjudicate differences of opinion, sometimes sharp, between the academic and faith communities, with criteria ideally acceptable to both, when the non-cognitive use of language is involved?

BIAS AND ERROR

It has been alleged during this debate that some, or even many, academics are either biased or in gross error when dealing with some aspects of Hinduism. However, fallibility is a human condition – no one is either infallible or capable of achieving Archimedean objectivity. Both common sense and humanity demand that some procedures be devised in our field for distinguishing between random human error and error caused by bias (conscious or unconscious).

The task might appear insurmountable on the face of it, but there is good news. Statistics as a science is concerned with, and indeed has, evolved ways of distinguishing between random error and systematic error (or bias) through the process known as hypothesis-testing. It is a pity that for all the popularity statistics enjoy, no one has been willing to give this scientific turn to the discussion of Orientalism. What one needs is a data bank of examples of (alleged) biases and errors pertaining to a work, an individual scholar, or to the field in general. This will make it at least theoretically possible to identify both Orientalist as well as chauvinistic excesses in the current discourse perpetrated by “outsiders” and “insiders” respectively.

The current situation thus enables us to identify a third new challenge: The need for creating a data base for which the following acronym is proposed—ASBESTOS (Archives for the Study of Bias and Error in the Study and Teaching of Religions). As applied to Hinduism, it should document instances of bias and error identified by concerned parties, both in the Western presentation of Hinduism as well as in the presentation of Hinduism by the Hindus. This will level the playing field and provide the basis for achieving greater academic objectivity, an aim worth pursuing even if we think it is an aim which can only be approached asymptotically.

(Part 1 of the 3-part series.)

The writer is the Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at the McGill University in Montréal, Canada. He is also associated with the Nalanda University in India. The views expressed are personal.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on Thursday condoled the sad demise of Virbhadra Singh. In his condolence message, the Chief Minister said, “I am deeply saddened to learn about the death of Virbhadra Singh who was a seasoned politician and a fine human being with the qualities of head and heart”.

Virbhadra Singh, former Himachal Pradesh chief minister and the veteran Congress leader died in Shimla in the early hours of Thursday at the age of 87.

Singh, who suffered from heart attack on Monday and was critical, died at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) at 3.40 am on Thursday, senior medical superintendent Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) Dr. Janak Raj said.

Singh was put on ventilator in the intensive care unit under the supervision of the doctors of the cardiology department on Wednesday after he had complained of breathing problems, he added.

The veteran leader had tested positive for Covid-19 on June 11 for the second time in two months. He had earlier tested positive for the disease on April 12.

Recalling the outstanding services rendered by Virbhadra Singh as 6 times Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Captain Amarinder Singh said that he not only ensured holistic development of the hill state but also played a pivotal role for overall wellbeing of all sections of the society. In the death of Virbhadra Singh, a void has been created in Congress as the party has been bereft of his valuable services and advice on certain internal matters, added the Chief Minister.

Sharing his heartfelt sympathies with the bereaved family, relatives and friends, Captain Amarinder Singh prayed to the Almighty to grant courage to bear this irreparable loss in this hour of grief and eternal peace to the departed soul.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has gifted Haribhanga mangoes to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Mamata Banerjee thanked the Prime Minister for sending the gift, Assistant Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, Imrul Kayes told the media on Thursday.

In the letter, Mamata wrote, “Respected Hasina, I am very happy to receive your mango. I heard the name of Haribhanga mango in the Rangpur district of Bangladesh, I have never eaten it before. You sent so many mangoes that I wasted them.”

Mamata further wrote, “I respect your love and the fragrance of Bangladesh that is mixed in that mango. I’m really overwhelmed.”

The mangoes are of the Haribhanga variety grown in the Rangpur region, the Dhaka Tribune newspaper reported. These mangoes are round in shape, extremely fleshy, fibreless, and typically weigh 200 to 400 grams.

Earlier on Sunday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina sent Haribhanga mangoes as gifts to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and also sent the same to the Chief Minister of Tripura.

In the recent affidavit filed in the suo moto matter taken up by the Supreme court, NCPCR said that in Haryana 2438 kids below the age of 18 are orphaned owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whereas the state government’s data claims that there are only 105. Such children are facing the challenge of huge data disparity. The different States have a different database for these children, which are not matching with the national agencies who are surveying on the ground, hence the benefits that are supposed to reach the child on the ground, are still missing the plot.

The Daily Guardian met such three kids of Haryana’s Panchkula, whose details still have not been sought by the department of Women and Child Development. 14 years-old Sindhiya (name withheld), wishes to sell her small house so that she may meet the expenses of her siblings as her parents passed away due to Covid-19. Her two siblings are studying in school while she is now working somewhere as a domestic helper. Her neighbors are trying hard to get her name adjusted to the Government list so that some remuneration starts coming to the kids. But, says Shikha Sachdeva of Sector 6, due to the laxity of the departments, the matter is not getting sorted.

As many as 30,071 children were orphaned, lost a parent, or abandoned mostly due to the Covid-19 pandemic as per data submitted by different states till June 5, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) informed the Supreme Court on 6 June 2021. Of the total, 26,176 children have lost a parent, 3,621 have been orphaned and 274 have been abandoned. The commission clarified to the apex court that the total data given in the present affidavit includes the data already submitted to the court till May 29, which said that 9,346 children were abandoned, orphaned, or lost a parent mostly owing to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Recently Chandigarh Education department gave a list of 46 kids who lost either of their parents or were orphaned due to Covid-19. But on the Baal Swaraj portal, Chandigarh claims to have ZERO orphans and 2 kids who lost either of their parents.

As per NCPCR, Himachal Pradesh has a list of 98 kids who were orphaned and 803 kids whose either of parent died, whereas Punjab claimed to have 23 kids as orphaned and 106 kids whose either of parent died or are abandoned.

“NCPCR collected data from 1 April 2020 to date which includes data of every child who was orphaned due to any reason, and the process of uploading the data on Baal Swaraj portal is still on, says Priyank Kanoongo, Chairman NCPCR.

Hema Sharma Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Haryana, told The Daily Guardian, “We are uploading data on Baal Swaraj portal, we have a record of 105 kids who are orphaned due to the pandemic. I will find out why this much gap is found in NCPCR figure”.

MUMBAI: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) built the city’s largest public toilet at Juhu Galli in Andheri (West). Mumbai Regional Congress Committee (MRCC) President Bhai Jagtap inaugurated the facility on July 3.Spread across 4,000 sq. feet, the lavatory will cater to around 60,000 slum dwellers. Each family has to pay Rs 60 per month for unlimited use. Mumbai Regional Congress Committee (MRCC) president Bhai Jagtap inaugurated the facility on Saturday and said, “This ground-plus-one structure has 60 seats and we are going to add 28 more seats”. The BMC has also planned to set up 80 multi-utility air-conditioned mobile toilet vans at major traffic signals, but the plan has been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The block is designed with cartoon characters, and the main source of attraction lies in the Tom and Jerry picture welcoming the users. Not only is this the biggest public toilet in the city, but the block also has an efficient cleaning system. With the launch of this sprawling toilet block, people residing in slum areas will have an uptick in hygiene.

Earlier in 2018, the city had a 55-seat-public toilet in Gilbert Hill, followed by a 32-seater, the latest 88-seater-jumbo block, and 10 big and small blocks. However, another 324-seaters-public toilet is likely to be launched in December. With the BMC election in 2022, Mumbai civic corporation is speeding up its development projects.

The facility has been built as part of the BMC’s programme of promoting health and hygiene in slum areas and officials and local elected public representatives have billed it as the largest community toilet in the city.