In the contemporary world, Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) have emerged as a critical framework for understanding human coexistence and equity. They capture the multiplicity of human identities such as gender, caste, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, language and ability. Inclusion refers to the active processes through which individuals and groups are recognized, respected, and empowered to participate fully in social, cultural, educational and organizational contexts. Academic discourse on D&I has evolved from liberal notions of tolerance to critical frameworks that interrogate power, privilege, and structural inequities.
Bringing together diversity as categories and diversity as a continuum is important. Categories are important for visibility, recognition and justice. Continuum perspectives are essential for a nuanced understanding of lived experiences, identity fluidity and intersectionality.
The notion of D&I is rarely neutral. Politics determines which differences are recognized, whose voices are amplified or silenced. The global scenario is restructuring the understanding of D&I, movements highlight intersectionality and systemic inequities, pushing D&I beyond tokenism. Climate-induced migration and displacement create new categories of diversity (climate refugees, indigenous environmental rights). Diversity is being reframed as not just a social good but also a business imperative for innovation and global competitiveness.
We move from a brief outline of diversity and inclusion to understanding it through a practical lens of Child Adoption. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) website displays that there are more than 36000 parents registered for adoption.
‘Why are there such long waiting lists when there are so many children in institutions?’ is a common question. The reason stated by agencies was that at any given time, not all children were ‘legally free’ for adoption. Children who were relinquished by their parents have to remain in institutions for a mandatory two-month period, giving the biological parents the time to reconsider their decision. A child who is abandoned or lost, or whose parents are untraceable must first be declared ‘free for adoption’ by the juvenile justice system through the Child Welfare Committees. Various agencies, such as the police, medical institutions, and a probation department are involved, and each take their own time to file reports. Currently, more rigid timelines have been given to fulfill various requirements.
A visit to an institution is an eye-opener because of the heterogeneity of children, both in terms of age, gender, medical condition, and their legal status. I would observe a seemingly healthy child at an agency, only to be told that the child had hepatitis B or C, was cytomegalovirus (CMV) positive, or had tested positive for HIV. The incidence of a transitory health problem such as low birth weight, developmental delays, cleft palate, club foot, tuberculosis, or hernia is another significant reason for children remaining in institutions for long periods. Children whose parents are deemed ‘unfit’ or children with ‘no visitation’, are two categories added on more recently by the Supreme Court of India. The last two are extremely subjective categories to determine.
The availability of residential care becomes an attractive immediate solution to the problems faced by very poor families struggling to meet the survival needs of their children. Lack of support by the government to parents facing financial, medical, or social challenges has been one of the most significant reasons for children being assigned to institutional facilities. Most parents who relinquish their children for adoption or have their children taken away from them do so because of economic and social issues. The people who adopt them are most often middle and upper-middle-class people. The mainstream child rights and feminist movement have, by and large, been pro-adoption and have resisted an explicitly intersectional position on the inequities and injustices that typically bring adoptive families together. There are many reasons for this, but here are the two that are prominent. It is assumed that the decision to relinquish a child for adoption is a choice that people make freely. The upper class, highly educated and more powerful people, are better parents of children.
There will always be some children who need to be adopted into families. The desire to become a parent through adoption does not make anyone entitled to someone else’s child. Today, market forces, coupled with classist state interventions and a do-good societal narrative, make adoption a fairy-tale ending. This means that people who have class privilege will continue to build their own families through the constrained choices, coercion, and loss of those who do not. On one side, single, unmarried, poor women are denied their rights, and on the other, a variety of family types are asserting their right to adopt a child.
The Juvenile Justice Act is not only a protective law but also a rehabilitative framework for Children in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP). It ensures that children without family care are provided with alternative care options, education, vocational skills, and long-term reintegration pathways, always guided by the principle of being ‘in the best interest of the child’. Yet, determining it remains complex because it requires balancing safety, long-term development, cultural belonging, and the child’s own voice. The court has stressed that the best interest of the child must override all other considerations, ensuring adoption is not reduced to commodification and has laid down safeguards and priority to Indian families. Inter-country adoption is considered a last resort, in line with the principle of subsidiarity (Article 21, Hague Convention, 1993). Children with physical or mental disabilities, serious medical conditions, or older children (above 5–6 years) are frequently considered for inter-country adoption as they are rarely adopted within the country.
Once a child is adopted abroad, the giving country has limited means of ensuring post-adoption monitoring or cultural continuity. Adoptees frequently report identity struggles, experiences of racism, and the loss of connection with their origins. Accountability remains asymmetrical: scandals involving trafficking or coercion in giving countries are met with global criticism of their systems, whereas the demand-side pressures in receiving countries are rarely problematized.
Power inequalities in intercountry adoption extend beyond economics into law, culture, and representation. They reflect broader patterns of global inequity, where children from the Global South are relocated to the Global North under a humanitarian discourse that often obscures structural causes of family breakdown.
Sometimes adverse early childhood environments (ACEs) lead to maladjustments with the adoptive family and the return of the child to the institution. This is called ‘adoption disruption’ when done before legal finalization, or ‘adoption dissolution’ if done after finalization of the adoption. The adoptive parents cannot ‘return’ the child privately—this would be treated as abandonment.
In countries like the U.S., rehoming is often used to describe situations where adoptive parents, unable or unwilling to care for a child, place the child with another family through private arrangements, sometimes even via online forums or personal networks. This practice bypasses child protection authorities, adoption agencies, and courts. It raises serious risks: child trafficking, abuse, lack of background checks, and violation of the child’s rights. Internationally, it is seen as a failure of the adoption system to provide adequate pre-adoption preparation and post-adoption support.
In this highly complex phenomenon of Child Adoption, D&I emerges as a critical framework for understanding and restructuring. The conceptual understanding means a movement from rigid categories to fluid, intersectional, and hybrid identities. Inclusion is being reframed as creating belonging and equity. D&I are no longer defined only within borders but across global movements, diasporas, and international institutions. The global scenario is restructuring D&I by expanding its scope, shifting it from static categories to dynamic, intersectional continuums, and situating it within global justice concerns. Diversity and inclusion today are not only about who is included but also about how global systems of power, economy, technology, and environment shape belonging, equity, and justice.