Politics of sterilisation campaigns

The Supreme Court on Wednesday September 14 2016 finally directed the Union of India to stop sterilisation campaigns and to finalise the National Health Policy by December 31, 2016. It stated that the poor and the tribal men and women cannot be reduced to mere statistics in the country’s population control campaigns. The matter reached the Supreme Court after many reported deaths during sterilisation campaigns. However the centre tried to shift responsibility on the states and Union territories for the proper implementation of these programmes though the Population Control and Family Planning are national campaigns initiated by the Union government. The current case was filed by an activist alleging mismanagement at sterilisation camps in Bihar’s Aria in November 2014 and in Bilaspur district of Madhya Pradesh. A BBC report indicates that according to official statistics nearly 4 million sterilisations were carried out during 2013-2014. Between 2009 and 2012 there were 700 reported deaths due to botched surgeries and a further 356 reported cases of complications arising out of the surgeries. The court observed that mass sterilisation camps infringe on the reproductive freedoms of the most vulnerable groups of society who’s economic and social conditions make them easy targets to coercion. It dwelt on improved access, education and empowerment and not coercion. Is reported that during the emergency the states used some form of compulsion and force to reach their targets that resulted in sterilisation that were 15 times more in number than the forced sterilisations by the Nazis. Though unlike those campaigns in the use of force the current campaign nevertheless still has an element of notoriety and it was misused in some states. Though sterilisation campaigns were conducted in many countries some even forced with legal sanctions stating various reasons like medical conditions, genetics, population control etc. the International Criminal Court has now recognised forced sterilisation as a crime against humanity. On the other hand, for Nagaland the issue is not about the proper management of these campaigns but how relevant such campaigns are in a low density populated state like Nagaland. The point to note is that such campaigns come with many forms of added benefits that many rural folks will be tempted to be part of the campaign. In this column earlier, Eastern Mirror had also voiced out against such campaigns like the sterilisation fortnight campaigns in the state during the World Population Week. It reiterated the importance to change the slogan that is more relevant for a state like Nagaland and ran the title as Take responsibility to plan but not limit. With the current order from the Supreme Court, it should open the eyes of our lawmakers in the state. Targets as prescribed by the central agencies may not always be the best for Nagaland. As stated earlier in this column repeatedly, Nagaland need not import every campaign/project launched by the center without studying its effects in the state just for the sake of funds.