“Dharm” a 2007 film directed by Bhavna Talwar, is an investigation into religious identity, adoption, and the meaning of faith in the Indian context. The protagonist, Pandit Chaturvedi, and his spiritual journey are the primary focus of the film, but it also delves into a number of social and legal topics important to Indian family law.
This blog will examine the concepts of “Dharm” through the prism of a few legal precedents, examining and emphasizing the ways in which the storyline of the film interacts with actual legal issues. The narrative of “Dharm” is fictional, but it precisely depicts the intricate relationship that exists in Indian society between the law, religion, and society. The film looks into interfaith adoption, religious identity, and communal unity while establishing numerous links between constitutional principles and Indian family law. A few noteworthy incidents in the film were:
An incident involving a member of the Shudra caste and the main protagonist, Pandit Chaturvedi,
The inception of a romantic relationship between a Native American and the daughter of the Pandit's benefactor,
Purification rites that are based on doctrines of religion, especially after learning the truth about adopted child Kartikey/Mustafa.
That’s right, purification rites follow learning about the identity of the adopted child. Vedika, the daughter of Pandit Chaturvedi, brought home a child after school. The child was handed over to her by a woman (the mother), who later disappeared. Upon Pandit ji’s interrogation about the “jaat”, i.e., "caste,” of the child, Vedika’s mother was quick to respond and say that the child was “Brahmin.” After a few days of back and forth with the inspector, citing Lord Shiva, Vedika’s mother convinced Pandit Chaturvedi to adopt the child, hence the name "Kartikey."
“Dharm,” which examines what true religious duty and righteousness entail. It depicts the social and emotional difficulties that can occur in interfaith adoptions truthfully, notwithstanding the legal structure. “Essential religious practices” has been a crucial theory in this respect, “What constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself” - stated in Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004).
The standard of the Paramountcy Principle (a child's best interests) in adoption cases has been given utmost attention by Indian courts in matters of adoption. On further reading of the case, one might infer that religious obligations (dharm) are susceptible to change and should be understood in light of the fundamental principles of the faith. This milder legal analysis of religious rituals is consistent with the protagonist's gradual awareness that true “dharm” is found in humanity rather than in strict caste or religious divides.
The Paramountcy Principle
“The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides for adoption of children by Hindu parents. The main purpose of law of adoption is to provide consolation and relief to childless person. An adopted child is transplanted in the adoptive family creating all rights and relationships as if the child was a biological child.” The film illustrates the profound emotional bond between Kartikey/Mustafa and the Pandit's family, stressing that the wellness of the child is above matters of caste or religion.
In Philips Alfred Malvin v. Y J Gonsalvis, it was further highlighted, “… secular motives were also important such as man's desire for celebration of his name for the perpetuation of his lineage, … The position of an adopted child in respect of inheritance and maintenance is the same as that of a natural born child.” This idea is illustrated in the film when, in the end, the protagonist decides to put Kartikey/Mustafa's safety and emotional needs ahead of religious differences and decides to protect and re-adopt him amid the communal chaos.
The Social Fabric and Constitutional Concepts
The climax, which displays Hindu-Muslim uprisings, emphasizes the larger constitutional and legal ideals of secularism and interfaith coexistence. Religious freedom and secularism are concepts enshrined in the Indian Constitution. In multiple rulings, courts have continuously affirmed these values.
The Supreme Court had stated that, “Religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups and protection of their life and property and of the places of their worship are an essential part of secularism enshrined in our Constitution.” After arriving at an in-depth understanding of faith, kind of an epiphany, the protagonist abstains and rejects communal violence. His acts in “Dharm” are consistent with these constitutional objectives. The plot even though fictional, illustrates the intricate relationship between law, religion, and society in India.
Conclusion
The evolution of India's legal system has put the needs of children first and encouraged a deeper understanding of family behavior. The same can be observed by the enactment of progressive laws like the Juvenile Justice Act and important verdicts from the Supreme Court. But as “Dharm” fantastically shows, laws alone cannot address the deep-rooted social and psychological issues that surface in cases of all things interfaith and communal riots. The line between legal rights and social realities continues to be blurred due to India’s rich and inclusive nature. The film acts as a reminder that although statutes are important, their impact more often than not requires introspection and a will to let go of such practices and ideas that are deemed to undermine constitutional values. From strict orthodoxy to a rather liberal sense of faith, “Dharm” is not only a gripping story but also a true reflection of India's ongoing debate between tradition and modernization, personal law and secular law.
Comments