exposing the dark side of adoption
Register Log in

Holy Cow


Today, Forbes in their never ending urge to report about unnecessarily rich people, published its annual list of wealthiest people in the world.  

Name Age Country Net worth Primary source of wealth

Warren Buffett



$62 billion

Berkshire Hathaway

Carlos Slim Helú and family



$60 billion

Telecom industry

Bill Gates



$58 billion


Lakshmi Mittal



$45 billion

Steel industry

Mukesh Ambani



$43 billion


Anil Ambani



$42 billion

Diversified investments

Ingvar Kamprad and family



$31 billion


K.P. Singh



$30 billion

Real estate

Oleg Deripaska



$28 billion

Aluminum industry

Karl Albrecht



$27 billion

Aldi supermarkets

Looking through this list one cannot but notice the presence of four people from India, among the ten most wealthy. So everything must be peachy in India, people are making such vulgar amounts of cash.

Well, not exactly.

While some people make more money than orphan mouths to feed and other's cash in on the orphan mouths that need feeding, a staggering number of people live in poverty:

Though the middle class has gained from recent positive economic developments, India suffers from substantial poverty. The Planning Commission has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994. The source for this was the 61st round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) and the criterion used was monthly per capita consumption expenditure below Rs. 356.35 for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 for urban areas. 75% of the poor are in rural areas, most of them are daily wagers, self-employed householders and landless labourers. Although Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas.

Wealth distribution in India is fairly uneven, with the top 10% of income groups earning 33% of the income. Despite significant economic progress, 1/4 of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day. Official figures estimate that 27.5% of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005. A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty."

Income inequality in India (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000) is increasing. In addition, India has a higher rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.

from: wikipedia.org

Meanwhile in the civilised United States of America, James Marsh on his excellent blog childlaw.us, exposed several emails pertaining to the Indian child trafficking rackets. His blog wasn't left unnoticed as the following post from [Censored] shows. The posts are no longer online, though the grapevines were kind enough to whisper them in my ear.

For those of you who are interested in Indian adoption, something eerie just happened.  I posted the message below to [Censored] and it was deleted before anyone receiving the digest could see it.  A few people who get individual posts saw it before it disappeared.

I have been a member of [Censored] since its inception.  I am speechless (literally), outraged, and saddened beyond belief that this could happen.  I don't know who censored me or how, but as a freethinking American (as most of us are) we deserve to know about what is going on and to evaluate what we read using our own judgment.

Those of you who are involved with Indian adoption and interested in some of the truly sordid things that are happening behind the scenes -- scary things -- and the unwitting involvement of some of our own agency people ... please read the article on India and pass this message to others you know who are on [Censored] but have not been allowed to see my censored post.

Please understand that I am not trying to attack or defame any person.  The two people in question work tirelessly for children who need families.  I just want what is already public record to be seen and evaluated by all who are interested.

If there was a good reason for the censorship, then someone could have had the courtesy to email me to help me understand.  I grew up during the 60s and I DO NOT TAKE KINDLY TO BEING GAGGED!


-- [Censored]

I posted:

A friend here in the States who is very interested in the Indian adoption scene just sent me a link to a fascinating blog.  It talks about adoption corruption all over the world and the latest article is about India.  The [Censored] that is named in the article (and discussed at length) is the same person that runs this list.  The Deb that is mentioned is from another agency ... not sure which ... but she is also an [Censored] member and i know that many of us know her. 

It seems that [Censored] has had some really scary experiences and learned a lot about the connections between powerful people in the Indian adoption world.  She even feared for her own life, and it looks like Deb may have been poisoned by a member of a powerful adoption "syndicate".  Check out this link -- it makes really powerful reading.

The blog writer appears to be an attorney in the area of children's rights.  He adds at the end of the article,

"P.S. Deb, [Censored], if you are reading this please fill us in on 'the truly disgusting things they are involved in' lest our readers let their ever vivid imaginations run wild . . . "

I would definitely like to know more, but Deb and [Censored] may not feel safe telling us all they know.  Is there any way for them to share more about the scary adoption syndicate and its dealings without putting themselves in more danger?  Could we circulate this privately?  We all deserve to know.

Here's the link: http://www.childlaw.us/

[Censored] in IL

On [Censored] the following explanation was given for the sudden disappearance of the post.

[Censored], I removed your post (and link) because this situation is far more serious than the [Censored] list members 'right to know'. Aside from my own feelings about having my private emails (to my family) altered & taken out-of-context, believe it or not...this is not only about me.

It's about not being willing to put other's lives at risk. Occasionally situations can be far more complicated, involved and even potentially
life-threatening than they appear. That is the case in this situation, so I made the executive decision to delete the post rather than risk
consequences for others & for myself.

The request to delete posts applies to all list members. If someone feels a post should be deleted, all they need to do is write to me. At
request, I have deleted posts quite a few times in the past.

I think we ought to keep open communications about all topics here on [Censored], unless of course it is potentially harmful. I think that
the 'need or right to know' should be balanced with how potentially dangerous it might be to do so.


by Niels on Thursday, 06 March 2008