Interview

Your name is linked to Lambada tribe exposure on sale of infants and banning of international adoptions in Andhra Pradesh. Can you tell me a little about this ?

I was commissioned by the UNICEF in June of 2001 to do a study on the relinquishment of girl babies in south Telangana. That was when I really became aware of the issue.

I had of course, been reading the newspapers and had an idea about the same, as Andhra has been having repeated scams from 1996. In 2001, we did an extensive survey in four mandals of Andhra Pradesh, where we covered every household of these high incidence mandals, where children were being relinquished. I met so many women, and for the first time, a different kind of a view was presented to me. Earlier, as a middle class person, sitting in a town and reading a newspaper, whenever I read things like child sale, I would be horrified at the idea that a parent would want to sell his/her baby. I could never imagine that. There was a lot of blame put on parents, especially the mother. When I did the study I got a completely different perspective. What they said was that they had never given away their babies earlier, but in the last 5 to 10 years, with dowry creeping into the Lambadas, and with touts going around offering money for babies, there was a process set in motion in which criminals were encouraging people to give up children. I found that the mothers who had given up their children were full of anguish. Earlier I had this very stupid notion that we love our children and perhaps, these women don't. I found that completely false. They love their children, they had no say as the mother in law and the husband took the decision; in some cases the women fought back and were beaten. I thought that it was bad to induce people to become criminals. Selling a child is a criminal act.

Then I contacted the agencies to know why it is happening. Every agency projected itself as clean and pointed fingers at others. 'They will do anything to get children, from buying to kidnapping'. It was so peculiar; I contacted ten agencies, each said that they were clean while the other nine were not. Each one tried to give me facts and figures on how the others were collecting crores of money. The only possible conclusion was that all of them were equally criminal and were encouraging international adoptions as there is a lot of money involved. That is how I got into this area.

You have done a lot of extensive research on the subject. Are these research papers available for public reading ? If yes then where ?

Yes they are available on some e-forums. Foreign adopters were very concerned that we were raising these issues here and were very upset as they felt that they were being portrayed in a wrong manner. So when they wrote to me, forums were opened for discussions between them and us. These forums are not open in a sense that you have to take the permission of the moderator to access the papers. Getting these papers Xeroxed and distributing them is a cumbersome activity, and so these papers have been put on the e- forum.

Who do you blame for the sale of Lambada infants ? Is it the women, the adoption agencies or the middle men ?

Adoption Agencies, there is no doubt about it. One can't blame the poorest of the poor because they have to cope with so many difficulties. The blame is assigned where someone is capable of taking the blame.

The middle men also belong to the tribe itself. They are involved in brokerage of many other activities and take this up as well. Adoption agencies however consist of people who belong to well to do homes and could have taken up any other profession or business.

What is the reason behind an increase in international adoption? Are there any perverted motives like organ sale or human trafficking ?

I don't think that these are the motives behind international adoption. In the West, people are increasingly childless and are not able to access children easily in their own countries.

Other problems are that the children out there are not infants, rather they are problem children, and the prices of in country adoption are very high. Through international adoption, you get a cheaper child. So I feel that the main motive behind the behavior of adoption agencies is money. They might as well have been trading in bricks or gold.

The second group of richer agencies comes from well to do families. There are govt official's family members managing these institutions. I think that the prestige that comes out of associating with something Western, supplying something that they need badly, frequent trips abroad, getting gifts, etc makes a difference to these people.

In our country, we accept anything that the West does, without giving a thought to whether it is good for our country and our people. I'd say these people are anti national. They would have settled in the West if they had had a chance and we would be well rid of them too.

By putting a complete ban on international adoption, do you think that one might be hindering the life of an orphan child getting better ? An orphan, who doesn't have a future or facilities to get it, is being offered all those through adoptions.

That is a wrong way of posing the issue because there are more than enough Indian adopters in India. There are plenty of couples waiting in lines in metropolitan cities waiting for children that are just not there. In Andhra itself there are more than 600 couples waiting at Shishu Vihar and there is no child available. So I don't see any reason why a child from Maharashtra should go abroad. The problem that has come up is that adoption is tackled only by Indian agencies and they have something called the Indian quota. If you give 50% of children to Indians, you can send the rest of them abroad. So the moment they finish their quota, they are desperate to send the rest of the children abroad. It doesn't matter if there are thousands of Indians waiting. So the first point is that children have homes in India.

The second point that concerns both inter country and in country adoption is that right now, because of the prices involved in adoption and the kind of money involved, people are willing to stoop to anything to get their hands on the money. Even a domestic adoption is anywhere between Rs. 20,000 to 2 lakhs. What worries me is that due to this price tag on children, there is an urge to separate a child from his or her natural family. The classic example is that of an unwed mother because many of these children come from unwed mothers. She is in a state of distress; but there is no doubt that given a little bit of financial and other support and counseling, she could retain the child by setting up home somewhere else, etc. What is wrong with an unwed mother having a child? If there was a man involved in the picture who gets away scot free then why should there be a stigma on the woman? So for example Maharashtra is implementing a scheme where the mother gets Rs 250 for keeping her own child.

Adoption agencies first of all strike at this vulnerable group to get children. Secondly they avoid any involvement of the extended family in taking care of the child. One must explore the options of the extended family taking on responsibility - grandmother, uncles, aunts, etc. But here they are in a hurry to take away the child. In fact it is not even hurry; rather, they pressurize and force these people. For example, women who get divorced/separated, and have to go out for work, keep their children in these agencies to be taken care of, for schooling, etc. They are asked to sign blank papers and when they return, their child is gone. Then the third case is that of outright kidnap in railway stations and bus stands where children go missing and land up in adoption agencies. Now what happens is that we forget that every child has a right to his/her natural family and roots. I have done extensive interviews with adoptees. I find that there is such grief here - about being parted from family, community and country, having been abandoned/ having been kidnapped. I wouldn't want to wish adoption on any child. Where it is within our powers to retain the child in the family, there should be no two thoughts about. It is only if there is no alternative that we need to explore the possibility of adoption.

Foreign agencies are funding Indian agencies. For example Holt International sends

Rs 50 lakh for 6 babies for six months for one of the Indian Agencies. That is each adoption agency has a regular tie up with a foreign agency. The money is in advance, that is, the children are pledged. So by hook or crook they have to get the children. In Andhra when a child gets lost, parents first go to adoption agencies to search for their children.

What exactly is your case against international adoptions ? Is it cultural difference or is it child abuse ?

My case against international adoption is not that of child abuse, though there are certainly cases of child abuse. For example there is a baby called Priyamvada who was to go for adoption to a parent named Gail Hunt who was living in with another person called Stephen Shaukat Ali. They married this January. While the case was pending in Andhra, they had adopted another child from Guatemala. The father battered the six month old baby to death in April 2004. The child had diarrhea, the father on seeing the soiled diapers, banged the infant's head against the bath tub. Now Gail Hunt still has not withdrawn the petition of adoption of this child. So Priyamvada could be sent to a home where child abuse has already been reported. Now, child abuse is there everywhere. Even in India. Our agencies do not check the background of these adopters as money transaction is more important.

My second problem with international adoption is the terrible grief, sometimes denied, among adoptees. Various factors that cause this are racism in the West, inability of white adopters to teach survival strategies to brown children, etc. The children are unequipped to handle their situation and feel that India has abandoned them.

I am tired of the agitprop of adoption agencies that adoption is a beautiful thing. I support adoption when a child is genuinely abandoned. But our children, particularly those of the poor, have lost their rights not to be separated from the parents. Do we want India's families to break up ?

Have you also met any children who are well adjusted ?

At varying levels and degrees, every adopted child faces these problems. Who is termed a `well-adjusted' adoptee also will have these problems, could be coping with it better, or could even be in denial. In India too, adoptees face a similar kind of a crisis, but based on how well cushioned the child is in terms of family support network, the values one is brought up with, the support one has later, extended family support, etc., the child can face upto these challenges. We do have a lot more help. But adopted children feel that India has abandoned them. This is the bottom line of all the interviews that I have done that, 'India has abandoned me.'

One believes that older and special needs children get more easily adopted abroad than in India.

If that is the case then don't you think that instead of disciplining the defaulters, the action of banning of adoptions has deprived several children from finding homes abroad ?

Not true again. This comes under the general concept of what I said on Indian agencies not encouraging adoptions by Indian parents. They tell the Indian parents that their quota is full and that they must come back the next year. Then they also calculate that if they have kept the child for several years, then they must recover the money. As the child gets older, the child gets more expensive. And there are plenty of older couples in India for whom the older children are suited. But they don't get that kind of money from the Indian parents. I think that older children suffer much more than infants, because they know the language and culture and they get a shock when they go into a completely different environment.

Special needs children are also being adopted in India. Parents who come for adoption and are counseled make compassionate choices and are adopting children with special needs. Even HIV positive children are being adopted. It's a myth that Indians are not adopting special needs children. We must not say that we have exhausted our options; we are just not trying here.

Let's say that there are a certain percentage of Indian adoptions and a lower percentage of international adoptions that are benefiting certain children.

In this case to make it a win-win situation, why not correct the defaulters and root out the corrupt agencies rather than putting a ban on international adoption

per se ?

Who will correct the defaulters ? There is no system as of today. The adoption agencies are a check on themselves. You have for example at the state levels, the VCA, i.e. the voluntary coordinating agencies. They are comprised only of adoption agencies with a member secretary. The voting power is with the agencies. At national level you have CARA. This too has a majority of adoption agencies on its board. There are plenty of quarrels among them, however these pertain to 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine' and 'I allowed you to send that child, now why are you stopping me from sending this child'. It's about accommodating each other rather than putting down norms for the general good of society.

What changes would you suggest should be made in this system ?

There should be outsiders on the board. People interested in child welfare, who are not into adoption, who are working for the interests of the children, should be there on these committees. Right now, there are few such members, largely agencies. The member secretary can be outvoted or out shouted. In Andhra, change has been initiated in that agencies are not allowed to do the matching; in other words, they can't do the 'selling'. The matching is done by somebody else.

Where international adoptions are concerned don't you think that due to a few bad apples we are discarding the entire car t? Is it justified particularly when it involves the lives of little children ?

Couldn't there be other means of handling the situation.

International adoptions are a can of worms. We haven't even started opening it as yet. India is a small part of it. Romania has banned adoptions. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Moldova have a moratorium on these adoptions. Guatemala has also made the rules stringent. China is also rethinking its adoption policy.

In fact India has possibly better laws than the others. In Guatemala you can directly go to the parents and buy the children. This had lead to kidnapping. Now they have made it necessary that DNA testing be done to prevent kidnapping. Now one finds horror stories from Nepal.

What would be the number of adoptions at international or national levels ? What can we do to improve the situation ?

International adoptions are about 1,500 a year; there is no database regarding in country adoptions. There are a lot of institutions like Ramakrishna Mission which are doing only Indian adoptions, but these are not recorded by any authority. CARA has figures only from agencies which do international adoptions.

To improve the situation there are associations of adoptive parents in major cities which I feel should take up the work of preparing a data base. They could easily get funds from CARA or the Ministry of Social Justice. This means that every court (family court and civil court) where adoptions take place should have their files checked to get a figure on legal adoptions. Community adoptions in villages, also called open adoptions, should be covered through sample surveys. Only then can we assess that adoptions occur on a vast scale in India. It's only because some people want money that children are sent abroad.

What do you think of the role of CARA and how the entire regulatory chain is organized ?

I think CARA should be dismantled. Rather, the system should be changed so that we help the child remain with the family and we help Indian adopters to access children more easily. If this were to happen, we wouldn't need CARA, regulatory systems or any of these holier-than-thou adoption agencies who think that they are doing a great service to society by selling our children. So I'd say if we change the system, these agencies will wither away.

I would be happier if the adoption rate came down. I want children to remain with their families. This is not going to suit our middle class and rich people who are unable to have children. If you don't have a child, its better to resign oneself to it, rather than get a kidnapped child or a child snatched away from the mother for money. I certainly don't want children to be institutionalized. But they should not be sent to these institutions in the first place.

Is there a case for putting a stop on more agency licenses being issued ?

Yes, certainly. Now you have thrice the number of agencies doing inter country adoptions compared to Indian adoptions. These agencies have immense clout and so the cancellation of licenses looks bleak. They are ready to spend money, use influence and get embassies involved in the name of good work.

I think that the focus today should shift to the rights of the poor people to keep their children and the rights of children to remain with their family, rather than projecting adoption as something beautiful. It is not

beautiful; it is the next-to-best remedy, a poorer alternative to a natural family. If we are not clear about that, we will always have rich people buying poor people's children, whether foreign or Indian.

Important Note

IndianNGOs.com offers a platform for people to express their views. In the above interview, we have edited two direct references of names given by Gita Ramaswamy. In case you are keen to contact her directly to know her views, we would be happy to provide her e mail address. Send a mail to Marilyn

If you would like to place your views related to the interview content, we would be happy to place them in this section with a link from this page.

IndianNGOs.com and CSA do not take the responsibility for the views expressed by Gita Ramaswamy