Monthly Archives: June 2012

CAN INDIAN GOVERNMENT TAKE STEPS TOWARDS JUSTICE REALISATION LIKE NORTH CAROLINA?

Standard

The Eugenics Board in the state of North Carolina between 1929 and 1974, gave out a figure of about 7,600 men, women and children deemed un fit to reproduce and ordered that they be sterilized, in most cases without consent. The estimated 2000 men and women survivors of this the Eugenics Board program are still living.

The N.C Eugenics Board programme approved the majority of its sterilizations after the WW II resulting in many number of surviving victims.

The N.C. Eugenics Board program was abolished by the state legislature in 1977 and the powers of the Board were transferred to the state courts.

Involuntary eugenics laws in North Carolina were finally repealed in 2003.

The Governor’s Eugenics Compensation Task Force was created by Governor Beverly Eaves Perdue in   March 2011 through Executive Order 83 as a Division of the Department of Administration, to help identify victims of the state’s Eugenics Board program, serves as a point of contact to victims and the public, and to staff a new Gubernatorial Task Force on Eugenics. Don Akin, the state statistician came up with the final number of victims.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/no-money-for-forced-sterilization-victims-in-n-c-1.3795983

Comments:

The government of North Carolina (Department of administration) has revealed information related to the number of living victims of the sterilization campaign and the compensations.

Unlike examples from other states where the governments have acknowledged violations committed and tried to put justice mechanisms in place, in India, even among the policy planners feel that despite evidence from the states of quality assurance standards violations in sterilization camps, there is lack of active redress mechanism and transparency.

Can our government in India take bold steps to reveal the names of victims of failed sterilizations or deaths in states?

But then the government has to work upon the record keeping (adverse consequences registry with distinction between natural failure as compared to what is quality of care related issue) before it can attempt transparency.