Nationality as a religion

Dear, Religion and nationality are different different things ..... Yes religion can be changed but nationality will not get changed automatically .... Kapil Chandna Adv 9899011450

"Indian" is not a religion.

Religion and nationality are two different connotations, which you are aware.

First understand your question fully and then ask what you want to clarify.  Nationality is different from religion.  If you do not want to give any religion to your child, you can very do it, there is no compulsion for that.

You can state 'HUMANISM' or 'SECULARISM' as religion.

you have not stated your religion.  You have also not stated your nationality.

 

it appears from your name that you are hindu.

 

For a valid adoption under Hindu law

1. adoptive parent should be hindu
2. adoptive child should be hindu

there are some other conditions which do not seem to arise if you declare your religion anything else than Hindu (which includes Sikh/ Jain /Buddhist)

Identity of nationality cannot be used as religion.  Because Nationality and Religion carries two different meaning and concept..  Can you call your HEAP as your MOUTH?

In India adoption is not permitted for Christians, Muslims, Parsis or jews because those religions do not permit adoption. Only Hindus and those belonging to other religions which originated in India can adopt. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is the only act for adoption in India. If you are a Hindu now by birth, but you declare that you do not belong to any religion, then also you can adopt under the Hindu Act. A child adopted under the Hindu Act need not necessarily be a Hindu. But he or she cannot be a Christian, Muslim, Parsi or Jew. Thus if you are born a Hindu you are free to declare that you do not belong to any religion. The same would apply to the child adopted by you also. But once the child becomes a major he or she will be free to follow his or her own convictions and conscience. You cannot control that. There is no religion called Indian. The meaning of the words Hindu or Hindi itself is Indian, objection from so called secularists notwithstanding. In languages to the North-West and West of India they pronounce vowels from the throat. Hence vowels have the sound of 'h'. In Tamil the sound 'h' is absent, though of late a letter has been introduced. The word Hindu in other languages is pronounced 'Indu' in Tamil. Are things clear to you? If not ask me.

I disagree with the view that "A child adopted under the Hindu Act need not necessarily be a Hindu."

I reiterate section 10 of  Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

 

No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :-

(i) he or she is Hindu,

(ii) he or she not already been adopted.

(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption.

(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being take in adoption.

.

Query of the Author is,-

" Is it possible to change a religion as our Nationality?" We are to give our opinion to that question only but not otherwise.

If so the answer need be only 'yes' or 'no'. Suggestions of humanism, secularism etc. are superfluous. The author has also stated why he is asking that question. He is asking because he wants to adopt a child. Hence answers covering adoption laws are also relevant.

I alsoreiterate section 7 of  Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption:

Provided that, if he has a wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.

Explanation.- If a person has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, the consent of all the wives in necessary unless the consent of any one of them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in the preceding priviso.

The author did not disclose his religion he only stated that he wants to take adoption of a child and whether he can declare the religion of the child as Indian?

In my view it is a stupid query , cooked up by the author to harass Experts  just for a fun..  Do you think he does not know the reply? He knows everything but pretending as a fool..

@ Adv. Biswanath Roy: It is very harsh to say that the person is stupid. One can say that he had not said the whole truth. Clients often do say the whole truth by default and not deliberately. It would be for the lawyer to ask him questions and get at the whole truth. Shri Sudhir Kumar: I am confused with sub-section (c) reproduced below. It may be that my knowledge of English is poor or that not being a lawyer myself; I do not have a legal brain. 2. Application of Act (1) This Act applies- (a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj, (b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and (c) to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of the law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. It is clear that the law does not apply to a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. It is applicable to others by default. Why I say ‘default’ is because that the law will apply to them even if they are not Hindus unless something is proven. And who will prove that? The person who wants to adopt will not go about proving that he was not eligible to adopt. What has he got to prove? He has to prove that he would not have been governed by “the Hindu law” (quotation marks are mine) -------------if this Act had not been passed. “The Hindu law” means this adoption Act. In other words he would not have been governed by this Hindu Adoption Law, if the relevant Act had not been passed. Isn’t this funny? Who will be governed by an Act which had not been passed? None is the answer. I conclude that after the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was passed it is applicable to all persons, who are not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. That was why I said that one need not “necessarily” be a Hindu. Please note I used the word “necessarily”. Further under Explanation the same section says the following: (3) The expression "Hindu" in any portion of this Act shall be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is, nevertheless, a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained in this section. This explanation holds for the Section reproduced by you also. Still I would not say that I am not confused. I will be happy if any of the learned members could enlighten me.