Editorial Viewpoint
Nobody’s child
Occasionally a phone call comes to our office from an anxious couple. “We’ve decided to adopt a child,” they say but appear unable to find one. Could Parsiana with its resources and contacts guide them as to how to go about locating a Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian baby, girl or boy for adoption?
When we inform them it is most unlikely they will find such children, their worst fears are confirmed. With its minuscule birthrate and a certain measure of economic surety, rarely has one an unwanted child to offer hopeful couples.
While on the one hand this is cheery news for the community, it can be devastating for the childless couple. If there are no young available in the community, should they look beyond the racial and religious divide?
Would that non-Parsi/Irani adoptee be acceptable? Could he/she be initiated into the Zoroastrian faith? Would the infant be permitted to enter a fire temple, avail of community trust benefits, have his/her body consigned to the towers of silence or interred in a Parsi aramgah?
Until now any person or child could have his/her navjote performed. They, however, would not be legally entitled to enter a fire temple or avail of any benefits as do Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians.
In early l980, when the Indira Gandhi led Congress government proposed social legislation to legalize adoption, the Muslims asked to be excluded as tragically did the Parsis. While some of the more liberal anjumans such as Delhi lobbied for inclusion, Bombay and others, including several high priests, opposed the move.
An exasperated Prime Minister asked the community to speak with one voice. This was the raison d’etre for Bombay and other anjumans to rejoin in 1983 the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India from which they had stormed out in l978.
With adoption not being legal among Zoroastrians, if an adoptee’s parents died without leaving a will, the child inherited nothing.
Acutely aware of the constraints in the law and conscious of the large number of children who have either lost their parents or have been abandoned by them, the Government of India amended the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The Act was initially meant to look to the need of juveniles (defined in the Act as “a person who has not completed 18 years of age”) who amongst other things “is found without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence.”
The amendment to the Act adds a clause on adoption which defines adoption as “the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes the legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to the relationship.”
Those qualified to adopt a child are “a person irrespective of marital status or… parents… irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters (they have) or… childless couples.”
Since the Act states the adopted child would have “all the rights, privileges… attached to the relationship,” opposition is bound to emanate from the Muslims who view adoption as being against the tenets of Islam and Parsis/Iranis who want to observe a racial divide. Zoroastrianism has no bar to adoption but unfortunately the community’s caste imbibed mentality seeks exclusivity.
Thus The Mumbai Mirror of November 27, 2007 quotes The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustee and former Bombay Parsi Punchayet trustee Homi Ranina as saying: “Our faith does not recognize religious conversions and that is why we are opposed to Zoroastrians being brought under adoption laws.” The Times of India of November 20, 2007 quoting advocate Rakesh Kapoor who specializes in adoption cases states, “It is not clear how this law would override the provisions of other personal laws. The Muslim personal law, for<
When we inform them it is most unlikely they will find such children, their worst fears are confirmed. With its minuscule birthrate and a certain measure of economic surety, rarely has one an unwanted child to offer hopeful couples.
While on the one hand this is cheery news for the community, it can be devastating for the childless couple. If there are no young available in the community, should they look beyond the racial and religious divide?
Would that non-Parsi/Irani adoptee be acceptable? Could he/she be initiated into the Zoroastrian faith? Would the infant be permitted to enter a fire temple, avail of community trust benefits, have his/her body consigned to the towers of silence or interred in a Parsi aramgah?
Until now any person or child could have his/her navjote performed. They, however, would not be legally entitled to enter a fire temple or avail of any benefits as do Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians.
In early l980, when the Indira Gandhi led Congress government proposed social legislation to legalize adoption, the Muslims asked to be excluded as tragically did the Parsis. While some of the more liberal anjumans such as Delhi lobbied for inclusion, Bombay and others, including several high priests, opposed the move.
An exasperated Prime Minister asked the community to speak with one voice. This was the raison d’etre for Bombay and other anjumans to rejoin in 1983 the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India from which they had stormed out in l978.
With adoption not being legal among Zoroastrians, if an adoptee’s parents died without leaving a will, the child inherited nothing.
Acutely aware of the constraints in the law and conscious of the large number of children who have either lost their parents or have been abandoned by them, the Government of India amended the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
The Act was initially meant to look to the need of juveniles (defined in the Act as “a person who has not completed 18 years of age”) who amongst other things “is found without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence.”
The amendment to the Act adds a clause on adoption which defines adoption as “the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes the legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to the relationship.”
Those qualified to adopt a child are “a person irrespective of marital status or… parents… irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters (they have) or… childless couples.”
Since the Act states the adopted child would have “all the rights, privileges… attached to the relationship,” opposition is bound to emanate from the Muslims who view adoption as being against the tenets of Islam and Parsis/Iranis who want to observe a racial divide. Zoroastrianism has no bar to adoption but unfortunately the community’s caste imbibed mentality seeks exclusivity.
Thus The Mumbai Mirror of November 27, 2007 quotes The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustee and former Bombay Parsi Punchayet trustee Homi Ranina as saying: “Our faith does not recognize religious conversions and that is why we are opposed to Zoroastrians being brought under adoption laws.” The Times of India of November 20, 2007 quoting advocate Rakesh Kapoor who specializes in adoption cases states, “It is not clear how this law would override the provisions of other personal laws. The Muslim personal law, for<
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive