Muslim scholars have a host of explanations for their followers about the causes of natural catastrophes like the present pandemic
Last month, Tariq Jamil, a prominent evangelist, was roundly criticised for insinuating that the deadly Covid-19 pandemic was because of the misdeeds of “immodest women.” Over the years, Jamil has gathered a significant following among segments of the country’s urban middle classes and also Pakistan’s sporting and showbiz circles. He had been invited by Prime Minister Imran Khan to speak during a telethon raising money to address the economic challenges posed by the pandemic in Pakistan. The event was broadcast live by a private TV channel.
Many of Jamil’s middle-class fans find his soft-spoken demeanour endearing, even though, of and on, some of his statements do raise a few eyebrows. Nevertheless, as a commentator on Twitter said, “It was only a matter of time when this likeable preacher would end up sounding like any other self-appointed scion of morality.” What I understand from this is that the nearer one gets to certain points of power, the more likely it is for him/her to lose their bearings in a bid to please patrons. Especially if these points of power include a Government that seemingly measures loyalty with varied degrees of sycophancy exhibited by its patrons or a fickle media that is as quick to kick one off the pedestal as it is to put them there.
Jamil himself understands well where his traction lies. It is in the way he has positioned himself: As someone who does not unsettle middle-class sensibilities and ideas of morality, unlike preachers such as Khadim Hussain Rizvi. That’s why, within days of making his controversial statement, Jamil offered an apology. Many of his fans belonging to the entertainment industry and some TV anchors almost immediately launched an attack on those who criticised him. Even Shireen Mazari, the current Federal Minister of Human Rights wasn’t spared; she had denounced Jamil for blaming female immodesty for the outbreak of the Coronavirus. The irony is that Mazari belongs to the same Government whose PM not only invited Jamil to his telethon, but remained silent during his tirade.
Another interesting bit to come out of the debate was a sudden realisation of a somewhat not-so-sudden phenomenon: There is an increasing number of show business personalities from India and Pakistan who are often quick to defend decisions or statements which — in another little ironic twist — do not bode well for their professions.
In this is a terrific opportunity for anthropologists or even psychologists to study a phenomenon which some believe is pregnant with concepts such as the “cult mindset” and the so-called Stockholm Syndrome. Nevertheless, Jamil is wise enough to realise that many of his less excitable, or less knee-jerk, middle-class admirers were taken aback by what he said; they thought he was “different”. Therefore, an apology became necessary and, no matter what the motive behind it, it should be commended.
So what is a preacher to say in times of natural calamities and pandemics? The best they can do is lead a collective prayer and ask the Almighty to give relief to those who are suffering. It is a comforting exercise that is entirely spiritual in nature.
But as often happens, a majority of preachers make it their job to explain the reasons behind natural calamities. Be it an earthquake, a flood or a pandemic, the reasons provided are always centred around obscenity, immodesty and so on. And women remain a constant.
According to a report in a July 1967 edition of Dawn, a group of preachers was quoted as saying that the damaging monsoon rains in Karachi that year were due to the Ayub Khan regime’s “secular policies” and “rampant sale of alcoholic beverages in the city.” From then on, until 1977, when newspapers again carried similar quotes during that year’s devastating monsoon rains in the city, the fact is, such “explanations” got very little column space.
The practice of inviting clerics on TV and asking them to explain the cause of a natural calamity was first introduced in the 1980s during the Zia dictatorship. This practice then continued unabated. After the 2005 earthquake in the country’s northern regions, private TV channels were flooded with preachers blaming the earthquake on “the culture of obscenity that Pervez Musharraf’s Government had been promoting”.
Preachers who are asked why a natural calamity took place often feel pressured to say something that is populist in tone. Just praying for safety and relief, they believe, will not get them any traction. However, there is a lesser-known concept in Islamic theology through which they can still stand out, without sounding misogynistic, reactionary or ill-informed.
Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi used this concept recently when he was asked to comment on Jamil’s statement. Ghamidi, a respected theologian who, interestingly, has a following within the same socio-economic class that Jamil derives his admirers from, said that it was silly to attribute social causes to natural calamities. He then added that floods, earthquakes and pandemics were all natural occurrences of a system that God has engineered. Scientists, too, understand these calamities as natural events due to the manner in which the universe operates.
By saying this, Ghamidi was reinvigorating an idea that was first conceptualised by the great 19th-century Muslim scholar Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who is often appreciated as being the pioneer of “Muslim modernism” in South Asia. Like his contemporaries in Egypt, Turkey and Iran, Khan produced scholarship which attempted to find a place for Islam in the context of modernity and science that was sweeping the world at the time. He was of the view that, since Islam was inherently progressive and rational, it was highly compatible with science. One way he tried to demonstrate this was through a concept he called “naicari.” He coined this Urdu term from the English word nature. In an essay for the 2019 Cambridge anthology on Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Professor of History David Lelyveld writes that, “To Khan, the universe and our world were run by an ingenious system constructed by God and that natural phenomenon, both benign or otherwise, is part of God’s creation.”
To Khan, biology, physics and chemistry were the best ways to understand how nature works and, thus, fully appreciate the genius of God’s creation. In one of his essays on Naicari, Khan writes that anything which contradicts the laws of nature cannot be part of Islam’s sacred texts, because these laws were designed by God. Therefore, according to him, the cause and explanation of a natural phenomenon need to be compatible with the laws of nature set in motion by God.
So what Ghamidi did was indirectly suggest that pandemics and other calamities were part and parcel of how nature works, and nature is what God created. Therefore, an explanation that is outside this context should be taken with a pinch of salt.
(Writer: Nadeem Paracha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
India, which has always believed in the philosophy of Antyodaya and Sarvodaya, should look into its own schools of thought to initiate philosophy-led technological advancements
In Mahabharata, when Ashwatthama learnt that Duryodhana was stricken down against all laws of chivalry, his anger swelled like the sea. He took an oath of vengeance against the Pandavas, whom he blamed for foul conduct. He killed the sons of the Pandavas by setting their tent ablaze at night. The grieving Pandavas, along with Shri Krishna, started searching for him. Ultimately, they found him hiding in Sage Vyasa’s ashram. Cornered thus, Ashwatthama quietly took up a blade of grass to convert it into a deadly weapon. He charged it with the mantra of “destruction” and aimed the Brahmastra towards the Pandavas. In retaliation, Arjun used his Brahmastra. Meanwhile, Rishi Vyasa was asked by Shri Krishna to stop this collision as he was aware of the apocalyptic capacities of these weapons for humanity. He ordered both to bring back their armoury. Arjun obeyed. Not knowing how to “bring back” the weapon to its source, Ashwatthama expressed his inability to control it. Swayed by vengeance, he decided to destroy the race of the Pandavas by diverting his Brahmastra to the womb of Uttara, who was pregnant with the son of Abhimanyu. This later brought him the curse of Shri Krishna, who hollowed his forehead and cursed him with immortality.
Technology and its dilemmas aren’t new to India. The aforementioned instance is one such which explains the strong philosophical synergies between technology and its user. Technology in the hand of a user lacking wisdom and moral perseverance has resulted in the destruction of humanity. In India, it has always been imagined as a tool for the betterment of humankind. China’s attempt to contain the novel Coronavirus through an app was lauded whereas a group of neo-Luddites cast aspersions when India developed the Aarogya Setu app for the same purpose. Ironically, many cast aspersions on the most vulnerable platforms such as Zoom and Facebook, conveniently forgetting about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s public apology and, of course, algorithm manipulations done by Cambridge Analytica.
While both China and India developed an app, the fundamental philosophy of both nations was different. One cannot, however, ignore the syncretism between technology and philosophy. Whether man or algorithm, it all condenses to the “philosophical choices,” especially in times of crisis. In a post-COVID society, we will not only witness an ever-increasing authority of algorithms but also a rising confrontation between man and machine, all based on philosophical dilemmas. Last month, The Guardian reported a report titled, “Hertfordshire hospital forced to consider who should be refused oxygen.” The decision taken by healthcare professionals must have been based on the philosophical discourse of that nation. A few years from now, with the ever-increasing scope of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning, imagine a robot designed by technocrats. How will it be programmed? Who would it refuse to provide oxygen to? What will be the moral grounding of technology? Can this decision be taken without thoughtful deliberations on morals, ethics, philosophy of a nation? Consider the following cases on how the moral philosophy of a nation can have a direct bearing on technology.
When the Titanic sank, the poignant moment illustrated the “choice” made between the elite and the destitute. It was decided to save the lifeboats for the former and leave the latter to their fate. More recently, the “choice” made by Italy and Iran with regard to who should be provided with a ventilator was based on philosophical groundings of that nation. Whereas the US made the “choice” to delay the lockdown due to Coronavirus, India, despite being more vulnerable to socio-economic and political shocks, decided to make a “choice” in favour of society. The choice made by Mao’s China during the infamous experiment in social engineering, the Great Leap Forward, came at the expense of millions of lives. On the other hand, India’s “choice” to save even separatist leaders during flood relief operations in Kashmir illustrates its philosophy, which ranks all lives as equal. All “choices” are based on the strong philosophical underpinnings of the nation. While both Arjun and Ashwatthama held equally powerful technology, what made Shri Krishna curse Ashwatthama was the “choice” he made.
Nevertheless, debates around “morality” and “technology” aren’t new. There have been two schools of thought. The instrumental vision of technology resulting from the neutrality thesis focusses on the ill-effects and can be attributed to its users, not technology per se. Thinkers such as Heidegger and critical sociologist Habermas went ahead, claiming that the function of any technology to a great capacity depends on how and why it has been conceptualised. Later, this theory embraced technology from the broader construct of political, social, economic and cultural realms. In the early 1980s, American novelist Thomas Pynchon said, “It’s okay not to be a Luddite.” Today, he would have wondered, “Is it even possible to be one?” A post-pandemic society will be entering a new age of disruption. Whether in healthcare, social-cultural, academia or the economic sector, unimaginable facets of technology will have to be routinised. Such a development will pave space for nations to reconsider their technological development map.
One cannot also ignore the dominance of private corporations in the current technological race. Such domination can also be put as “lack of involvement of society or state” in the technological race. But why does it become imperative to counterbalance market monopoly over technology by augmenting technological capacities of both society and State? A simple answer to this would be the philosophy that each follows. While markets usually couch their decisions based on utilitarian benefits, not always resulting in favour of humanity, social institutions primarily focus on social cohesion and development.
Consider the famous Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Co case (1981). People were killed due to explosions in a Ford Pinto car, the reason for which was attributed to a defective car design. What was shocking was that Ford had prior knowledge about the defect but remained inert as the cost of recalling and repairing the car would have been much more than the amount likely to be spent by it in lawsuits and accidents. The “choice” made by Ford converted a human life as a mere statistical tool. The “choice” was based on the cost-benefit analysis grounded on the famous “utilitarian” philosophy given by Jeremy Bentham. This brings forth three questions. First, despite the altruistic use of technology by many private corporations, isn’t there a need to counter-balance institutions that use “technology for society?” Second, for how long can technology and philosophy be placed in watertight compartments? Third, if we attempt to create such synergies, will we again ape the West for insights on technological dilemmas or reflect on indigenous schools of thought to resolve conflicts?
Amid the COVID pandemic, when the entire world has embraced Indian philosophical constructs, we can lead in thoughtful technological advancements. While philosophers, sages, ascetics in our country deliberated on such dilemmas for centuries, the engineers, technocrats and tech giants are looking for immediate answers. Thus, philosophy for technology has become more important than ever. Yet, the education system today is slow to augment technical education with philosophical reflections. In fact, the easy imitation of the West has usurped the space for philosophical discussions, which once were intrinsic to the indigenous educational system in India. Post-colonial interventions, the Indian education system, which initially was run by society, was usurped by the market as an extension. The result of such annexation has defined technology as a product of markets and not society.
The world is undergoing the biggest social experiment right now. Unaware of the controlled variables, we are trying to graph patterns amid chaos. Years of technological artefacts are lying almost dormant. Only within a span of 15 days, countries, which used to take pride in cutting-edge healthcare technologies, gasped out of exasperation. It just took 15 days of a microbe-ridden pandemic to hammer our egos. Modern man may boast about his admirable success in communication technologies and brag about Tesla’s cyber trucks or the plans to colonise Mars but it will just take a radioactive leak with a subsequent power outage to make even our Neanderthal brothers laugh at us.
While primitive technologies such as wheel, needle or scissors were based on belief and philosophy of human progress, modern technological advancements lack social validation. What reasons can be contributed to such technological redundancy? Somewhere from primitive to modern man, our philosophical underpinnings have changed; the dissonance between technology, man, society and nature has become cacophonous.
Social institutions are working in vacuum and silos, leading to technological advancement without philosophical moorings. IITs, NITs and IIMs have risen to the occasion during the pandemic but these elite institutes just comprise a mere three per cent of our students. Therefore, post-COVID-19 questions, such as how the application of technology will influence social justice and equality, should come to the fore. Technical education confronts “the real acid test” of how knowledge can handle technological disruptions, social issues and other problems. Technocrats should consider asking: Can technology help achieve social justice? Can it help a tribal family get its ration? Can it help forest dwellers conserve the forests better? Can it ensure the security of a Scheduled Caste girl living at a remote location? This can be done by formalising interlinkages between technology and philosophy.
(Writer: Purva Bhatt; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Delhi Govt proposes a doable and safe resumption of public transport, adapting from templates in virus-hit nations
It is by now clear that a post-COVID world is bound to undergo drastic changes and life will never be the same as before. It will have to be more need-based, mindful, resource-conscious and, therefore, balanced. And in the absence of a vaccine or cure, a behavioural and hygiene discipline like never before is the only preventive. With nations across the world contemplating the best ways to outline a safe exit plan, India’s challenge for lockdown 4 with easing of protocols is even bigger. For despite one of the world’s severest containment drills, the density of our population and our clustered existence have meant that cases have been spiking with a wildfire rapidity and we may end up being one of the worst virus-hit nations. Yet given our size, our economy is gasping because of the lockdown and the reverse migration of labour back to the villages has meant that a human tragedy has taken over public health exigencies. So India’s exit plan has to balance both crises besides grading and scaling both the outbreak and the economy. This is where the Delhi Government has taken the lead by emphasising the need for a safe resumption of the public transport system among other things as it is the lifeblood of an economy; people need to move to their place of work. But it is also a fact that modes of mass transport in India till now have been mostly overloaded and unhygienic given general public habits. Closed spaces inside metros and buses would mean limited ventilation and could pose a risk to passengers and even frontline workers — drivers, cleaning staff and security personnel. As a matter of fact, buses, local trains and metros were all designed to operate at high densities. Before COVID-19, the Delhi Metro alone used to ferry 1.5 million passengers and the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) about 20-25 lakh commuters per day. So imagine the extent of livelihoods affected in the absence of such systems. The Delhi Government proposes to limit the number of passengers on buses to 20 and run cluster fleet buses during peak hours. Metros, too, would run with at least one-third capacity with social distancing norms in place. Cleaning and sanitisation of the Metros and buses after they complete one full trip is to be made mandatory. All this means a digitally robust passenger information system and a 24X7 control room so that people know at what time and what ride they can avail, instead of queuing up and waiting in despair. Once this is proven safe enough, one could consider the next level. But the new measures would also push up input costs. For example, most operators would not be able to disinfect their vehicles, say, even three times a day. Cleaning habits, too, need to be inculcated as a work ethic rather than an unfair imposition. To do this, the authorities could organise “rapid response” cleaners at terminals. Besides, traffic on the roads could push up pollution again and necessitate the odd-even formula. But now that the odd-even drill is spilling over into shops and malls, Delhiites must get used to rotational living standards. Transport may not be the only sector, mall visits and park outings would now have to be planned.
The need to maintain physical distancing, masked and gloved, while travelling would be of utmost importance to minimise the risk of the virus. Some lessons can be learnt from China, which has mostly passed the serious phase of the infection. Initially, it resumed bus services with 30 per cent capacity and surveillance cameras to monitor compliance. Post this experiment, bus capacity in some places has been increased to provide more options to decrease rider density at specific times. It is encouraging its prevailing culture of walking and cycling. In severely-hit cities like Milan and New York, ambitious plans have been announced to reconfigure roads in such a way as to make more space for cyclists and pedestrians. In the UK, the Government has asked people to avoid public transport and walk, cycle or drive instead. At the same time, with people preferring cycling as a safer and free option, on-demand taxis have taken a hit. With the lack of designated pathways for pedestrians and cyclists, this won’t be a practical option here. In Hong Kong, the rail operator MTR is using robots to disinfect trains and stations. In Europe, many public transport agencies have closed the front door to reduce infection risk among drivers. Passengers now use the rear door (all-door boarding has been common practice). In Istanbul, there is a rotational lockdown on certain days of the week to control the traffic volume in public spaces. The human species also has a huge capacity to adapt and we need to devise clever workarounds to carry on with the business of living and sidestep the virus.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The present crisis could not be thwarted because of structural deficiencies in health governance systems and overall public management
The world is now in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. The last most dangerous outbreak that occurred was the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, almost 100 years ago, that reportedly originated in the US and which coincided with World War-I. According to a report prepared by America’s National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, entitled Global Health and the Future Role of the United States, the influenza outbreak took place in three waves. It infected one-third of the global population and claimed 50-70 million lives. The situation at that time was unmanageable partly because of the devastation caused by World War-I. However, this time, the contagion did not precede, coincide with or follow any war. Even so, the world has lost 3,09,047 lives and the numbers are expected to grow in times to come. However, the panic and economic devastation caused by the pandemic are unprecedented and the very legitimacy of the State has been put to test. In one line, the world is forced to face an uncertain future.
What is evident in all of this is that the crisis could not be thwarted due to structural deficiencies in the health governance systems and overall public management. And, as it appears, no serious thought was given by policymakers around the world, including India, to deal with pandemics, even as in the beginning of the 21st century itself, just in the last 20 years, the world has seen the occurrence of many outbreaks, such as SARS, H1N1, Ebola and the Zika virus. They claimed lives at an unprecedented scale and led to enormous economic losses.
Urbanisation, pandemics and risk society: Pandemics or “crowd diseases” are likely to grow in number and impact, with more urbanisation, choked urban slum settlements, narrow streets and roads, loss in biodiversity and heedless exploitation of natural resources, especially water. In his book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that a small population size does not help epidemic diseases evolve of their own. He stresses, “In contrast, the crowd diseases…could have arisen only with the build-up of large, dense human populations. That build-up began with the rise of agriculture, starting about 10,000 years ago and then accelerated with the rise of cities starting several thousand years ago.” With the increase in urbanisation and populations, more cities will be added to the existing ones, opening up the possibility of more pandemic outbreaks. The United Nations’ revised World Urbanisation Prospects, 2018 report, projects that by 2050, a whopping 68 per cent of the world’s population would live in urban areas. By 2030 alone, the world is projected to have 43 megacities, most of them in developing regions. These projections show that the urbanisation juggernaut is unstoppable and in turn is likely to act as a catalyst in the spread of pandemics.
With the future prospects of pandemics and health risks being high, we have no option but to reorganise ourselves and learn to deal with the unfolding “risk society”, a natural offshoot of the so-called modernity-propelled development and production processes. The renowned German sociologist Ulrich Beck has called this phenomenon “reflexive modernisation.”
In his book, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Beck writes, “In the overlap and competition between the problems of class, industrial and market society on one side and those of the risk society on the other, the logic of wealth production always wins…and for that very reason the risk society is ultimately victorious.” He further adds, “The race between perceptible wealth and imperceptible risks cannot be won by the latter. The visible cannot compete with the invisible. Paradox decrees that for that very reason the invisible risks win the race.”
The emergence of risk society is inescapable, thanks to reflexive modernisation. To face it, there has to be a shift in policy focus from a wealth distribution society to a risk society. Beck apprises us, “We do not yet live in a risk society, but we also no longer live only within the distribution conflicts of scarcity societies. To the extent that this transition occurs, there will be a real transformation of society which will lead us out of the previous modes of thought and action.”
Poverty and pandemics: Shift in policy focus from a wealth distribution society to a risk society is not that easy in India, a former British colony, which retains its colonial legacy to a large extent. The typical syndrome that most of the former European colonies still suffer from. German sociologist Robert Michels has termed this syndrome “iron law of oligarchy.” In their book, Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson summarise the iron law of oligarchy saying that in essence “new leaders overthrowing old ones with promises of radical changes bring nothing but more of the same.”
Another syndrome that India suffers from is the new absolutism — that is, communism. In its post-Independence avatar, India tilted towards the communist Soviet system, thus allowing structural space to the communist ideals in the governance system. The authors of Why Nations Fail have rightly pointed out, “It is impossible to understand many of the poorest regions of the world at the end of the 20th century without understanding the new absolutism of the 20th century: Communism…Beyond the human suffering and carnage, the communist regimes all set up various types of extractive institutions…”
The syndromes of the iron law of oligarchy and new absolutism tend to create extractive institutions begetting the vicious circle of poverty and prove counter-productive to the efforts to push the policy focus towards risk society. For economic justice and poverty reduction by redistribution of the nation’s wealth take centrestage in policy priorities. This is not to suggest that there exists a binary opposition between the wealth redistribution society and risk society. What is intended here is that the process of transition from a wealth redistribution society to a risk society needs to be expedited by eliminating poverty and making society just and egalitarian.
Thus, the challenge before the new leadership in India is to do away with the new absolutism thought process and the prevalence of the iron law of oligarchy ingrained in our political and economic system. The extractive institutions need to be weeded out.
Universal Basic Income: Poverty reduction still remains a Herculean task for policymakers in India. Although since Independence, a slew of policy measures has been undertaken by various Governments to reform the economy and enhance its outcome with an aim to take more people out of the poverty trap, it is still miles to go. So what do we do in such a scenario? What are the choices we are left with? Though there cannot be a substitute for a poverty-free society in absolute terms, increase in social security net and implementation of Universal Basic Income (UBI) can provide a kind of a defensive wall in the fight against pandemics, natural hazards and any other unwarranted risks.
A whole chapter was dedicated on UBI in the Economic Survey, 2016-17 which states, “…UBI is a powerful idea whose time even if not ripe for implementation is ripe for serious discussion.” But since this was given a miss in the Union Budget that followed the Economic Survey, the idea failed to generate “serious” discussion on its utility and practicality. Clearly, the UBI at least ensures a minimum income guarantee for beneficiaries. The implementation of UBI will place extra burden on the exchequer but there are definitely ways to implement it in a limited manner just to begin with. Given the tight fiscal space that India has, it may not be prudent to commit the UBI to everyone, just to prove its universality. In his article, Out of my mind: Income for everyone, economist Meghnad Desai suggested: “The allowance (UBI) should be paid to women only. They constitute almost half the population. Many cannot earn as they have to look after their families. When they work for wages, they are underpaid. The criterion cannot be gamed. It would revolutionise Indian society.”
If we have UBI, the need for women and children to migrate in search of work will get reduced. In the wake of pandemics, people, especially migrant labourers and within that bracket, women and children, will not have to march, hungry, thirsty and barefoot, hundreds of kilometres towards their home States, as happened recently soon after the lockdown was announced by the Government. They will have a fighting chance at a life of dignity and independence.
(Writer: Sandeep Kumar Dubey; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Opp CMs are stealing a march with their interactive strategies vis-à-vis the handout briefings of the Centre
In the beginning, it seemed like a genuinely cooperative effort, the decision to fight COVID-19 in the Indian context and within our set of challenges and resources. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known for his muscular approach, did enforce a nationwide lockdown in the world’s most populous democracy, overriding any other concern except that of saving lives and arresting the spiral of the disease. There were several rounds of discussions with Chief Ministers of affected States, experiences and lessons were shared and an all-party consultation held. Modi himself did set aside politics on the shelf and even consulted his predecessor Manmohan Singh on the economic fallout of the disease. Then the reverse migration of the daily wage earners threw everybody off guard and the humanitarian crisis of returning labourers, wanting to escape the forced lockdown, the big city disease and work in their own fields for whatever it paid added another front in the battle. And now that everybody is up to the gills in trying to assess the trajectory of the problem, they are coming apart yet again. Although Central despatches talk about a peak in May/June before a petering out, Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh said he doesn’t expect the curve to flatten before September. Meanwhile, Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot expressed concerns over the phased and gradual easing of lockdowns, saying the disease spiral was such that an opening up decision could go either way. Now as the nerves are fraying at the edges, both ruling and Opposition parties have begun whataboutery and mutual blame games at a time when we are just about reining in the disease and need to choke and chase it away. The Maharashtra BJP is blaming the Shiv Sena alliance Government of Uddhav Thackeray for mishandling the migrant issue. The Bengal BJP is blaming the Mamata Banerjee Government for fudging death figures in cases of co-morbidities and the Delhi BJP is in a war of words with the Aam Aadmi Party Government over access to medical gear and testing. Now there’s a raging war over whether we are testing enough, although the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is confining tests to hotspot clusters, claiming the penetrative approach, and not wasting kits. Of course, the rapid antibody tests have just landed. Perhaps the distancing between the Centre and Opposition States is becoming more pronounced over issues of transparency.
It is a fact that apart from his national addresses, rallying his citizen soldiers for a big fight, the Prime Minister hasn’t exactly held a press conference or been talking to the media, except for some confabulations with newspaper barons on sectoral concerns. His Health Minister, too, is missing from daily briefings, leaving that job to the Health Secretary. In comparison, Chief Ministers of all Opposition States have been interactive on a daily basis, keeping their people abreast of developments and spelling out strategies according to the evolving situation. This spontaneity and hands-on approach have not only struck a chord with the people, they have made the Chief Ministers look taller than they were before COVID-19. Politically, the success of Chief Ministers like Gehlot in Rajasthan with the Bhilwara model or Pinarayi Vijayan in Kerala has given them a doer-deliverer image that will last for a while. No BJP Chief Minister is being seen as proactive, continuing to be just under Modi’s shadow. Even Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, only ridiculed these days without any political capital, has emerged as a mature version, something which he could have done long before. He, too, held an impromptu press conference and though provoked, refrained from attacking the Modi Government over crisis management. Truth be told, he did raise an alarm about the possible COVID-19 impact as early as February, has been harping on early testing to save lives and pleading for an economic package. However, he was pooh-poohed by not just the BJP’s IT cell but its senior leaders. Still, at the press conference, he emphasised how all parties should work together in a united fashion to face the crisis. Rahul, who had paid dearly for personally attacking Modi, has been mature in his approach. In fact, he just insisted on making “constructive suggestions” to the Government, calling for direct cash transfers to migrants and rushing the overstocked foodgrains in a disciplined manner. He is taking the moral high ground and at least started to make sense. And with his press conference, he is just pointing to the vacuum in communication from the other side. Communication dissolves panic and fear. Everybody is using the COVID-19 scenario to reap dividends later on. The Prime Minister has stepped up no doubt, but needs to build a credible and constructive talking point, too. And be seen as a deliverer rather than speech-maker.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
‘Covidiots’ are breaking the law and putting the lives of other people at risk. They must be held accountable and booked under the criminal justice system
Does it make sense to be politically correct when faced with an existentialist crisis? If a person is fighting for his/her life and finds that survival depends not just on his/her own actions but also on the actions of the neighbours/community, how should one respond?
The choices are pretty stark and binary, there is no time or place for grey areas and that is how it should be. Simply put, good deeds must be rewarded while bad deeds must be punished. And political correctness be damned.
During the present pandemic, as the number of confirmed Coronavirus cases and casualties continue to spiral not just globally but also in the country, there are millions of anonymous doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, media personnel, soldiers, policemen, grocers and shopkeepers, delivery staff, sanitation workers and many others, who keep our essential services functional. They are on the frontline, battling the COVID-19 monster, keeping us safe without a care for their personal safety and for the future of their families.
Many healthcare workers have even been infected and died due to the pandemic. These “Corona warriors” must be thanked and applauded for their dedication and resilience, wherever in the world they may be. In fact, more than just gestures, we must reciprocate and do our best to keep them safe, albeit by ensuring that we remain disciplined and follow rules regarding social and physical distancing; contribute what we can to make their lives easier and, most importantly, treat them with the respect they deserve.
The other side of the coin pertains to how we deal with those who violate social and physical distancing norms, knowingly or unknowingly, “Covidiots” as they have commonly come to be known. Ignorance after over two months of facing this pandemic is no longer a viable excuse and those who violate norms must be treated as deliberate defaulters, regardless of how illiterate or ignorant they may actually be. The motivation for their actions obviously stems from the belief that either it is not in their hands or that they are unlikely to be effected by the virus, even if they catch it.
The problem of disciplining or getting these people to adhere to the law is that our legal system is such that summary punishments do not exist. So, actually punishing a wrongdoer takes months, if not years. Moreover, given the poor quality of recruits to our police forces, leaving the disciplining of wrongdoers in their hands will lead to sadistic and uncalled for abuse. None of this is likely to deter individuals from indulging in activities that may not amount to being seen as criminal in nature but are certainly not socially acceptable behaviour either.
For those indulging in such behaviour do not see that their actions could be responsible for putting others in harm’s way and even if they do, for some it is of no concern.
In fact, some who feel that they have been treated unfairly by society at large, or even by the country, see this as an ideal opportunity to get even. Among the latter there are also those working at the behest of forces that are inimical towards the country and wish it harm. They should obviously be categorised separately and their actions must be treated as deliberate acts of bio-terrorism and treated as such with no quarter being given. There is no differentiation here between Over Ground Workers (OGW) and terrorists and all of them are no different from those wielding guns or explosives.
Even among the scores of others who disobey societal norms, there are some who do so deliberately because they believe they are above the law. These are those who belong to religious groups or political parties or are seen as influencers who consider that their wealth, social status or position protects them.
The examples that best illustrate this kind of horrendous behaviour are from Karnataka, where the unwillingness of the State administration to act is condoned by the Central Government, just because it happens to be a BJP one.
In one case, a chariot-pulling ritual that was a part of the Siddalingeshwara Fair, held in Chittapur village, in Kalaburagi District of Karnataka, saw the participation of thousands of devotees, who violated the nationwide lockdown and social distancing norms with impunity.
The police and District Administration remained mere spectators even though they were aware of the planned event well in advance. They were finally forced to act and lodge an First Information Report (FIR) against the temple trust a day later, after a maelstrom erupted on social media. The likelihood of any substantive action being taken against those responsible seems unlikely.
Incidentally, Kalaburagi has been deemed a COVID-19 hotspot and is under complete lockdown. It also has the dubious distinction of having reported India’s first death from the Coronavirus. Clearly, the Central Government’s writ seems to run only within the National Capital Region (NCR), even if there!
The second incident is even more appalling because those involved are the very ones who are expected to set examples for the rest of us to follow. It pertains to the marriage of Nikhil Kumaraswamy, the grandson of former Prime Minister Deve Gowda, to Revathi, the grand-niece of former Congress Minister M Krishnappa. Hence, a VIP wedding.
While only family members were invited and the event was moved out of Bengaluru to a farmhouse some distance away, the adherence to social distancing norms or the wearing of masks, as is mandated, were completely disregarded by those attending. Photographs available in the public domain show this utter disregard for the nation”s fight against the virus. But this was only to be expected as the Karnataka Chief Minister, BS Yediyurappa, had earlier set a precedent of sorts, when he along with some of his Cabinet colleagues attended a wedding in Belgavi, at which there were over 5,000 guests present. This, just days after he had himself passed directions that not more than 100 guests could be invited to weddings.
Finally, there are also those who either unwittingly or carelessly break these norms just because they lack self-discipline or believe they can get away with it, much like those who jump traffic lights when there are no policemen about.
The fact of the matter is that all “Covidiots” belonging to any of these groups are breaking the law and putting the lives of other people at risk, for which they must be held accountable.
This clearly suggests that given the infirmities in our criminal justice system, there is an urgent and pressing necessity to introduce summary punishments. These must be handed out without fear or favour and be applied on all who break the rules. Obviously, the scale of punishment meted out should be based on the severity of the misdemeanour.
This will be similar to the legal process of summary disposal that exists within the military justice system, where punishments are awarded and carried out on the spot.
If the offence is seen to be of a serious nature, or the individual is a repeat offender, s/he could then have an FIR registered against him/her as per our criminal justice procedure. However, for such behaviour, the charges preferred against the individual must be non-bailable and instead of being kept in a prison s/he must be kept locked in specially earmarked “internment camps” where s/he will be ineligible to receive anything other than prophylactic medical care for COVID-19 till his/her case is brought to trial. There is little doubt that extraordinary situations demand extraordinary measures. Those who follow the law cannot be held hostage by the few who do not follow rules, using our democratic process as their excuse. The notification of such a measure will act as a strong deterrent against willful misbehaviour and should be put in place for the duration of this pandemic.
(Writer: Deepak Sinha; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
All our future financial and economic systems should value fixing of broken relationships with nature to minimise the potential risks of such pandemics in times to come
Lockdown, social distancing, restricted train services, no flights, taxis, job losses, salary cuts and no business! Could we, the so-called superior species, inhabiting “Mother Earth”, empowered with knowledge, research and innovations, ever have imagined in our wildest dreams such a scenario of hardships, horrors, threats and uncertainties at the beginning of a new decade? Whether the global crisis brought on by COVID-19 is rooted in the disruption of ecosystems, illegal wildlife trade and so on, or embedded in the race for world economic supremacy through some sort of biological warfare, is hard to tell. Debates will continue without conclusive evidence. However, while rebuilding the ruptured economy and redefining the pathways for future development, we need to remember that an invisible virus has the power to stop us in our tracks. It has crippled the economies of the world, curbed lifestyles, disrupted supply chains, threatened our very survival by bringing large sections of populations in all geographies under the threat of extreme poverty and hunger. It has widened social inequalities, triggered reverse migration and emerging social unrests of different dimensions.
However, due to the pandemic our rivers are cleaner. We are breathing clean air. The sky is a clear blue in cities that have not seen it like this in many years. We can actually see the stars now and snow-clad mountains are visible from distant cities after decades.
All of a sudden we have peacocks dancing in the streets, an increasing number of birds chirping in the trees and surprise visits from precious wildlife in cities and towns all over the world.
As we wait for a breakthrough by the scientific community working hard to come out with a vaccine or drug to combat the virus, we have ample time to think about life. What future do we want? What are the lessons learnt from this outbreak? Are we willing to take responsibility for our action in bringing this virus upon the world?
Recent pandemics are a direct consequence of human activity, particularly our global financial and economic systems that value economic growth at any cost. The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, CK Mishra, has shot off a letter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, emphasising that, “There is a consensus among scientists that a rise in zoonotic diseases like Nipah, Avian Influenza, Zika and Coronavirus is linked to the loss of biodiversity and forests. Hence we are urging corporates to invest in biodiversity conservation.”
The vast illegal wildlife trade, humanity’s excessive intrusion into nature, unsustainable extraction of natural resources and extreme anthropogenic pollution sources are to be blamed for the disconnect.
So what seeds are to be sown now for a sustainable era? Certainly, we want a cleaner, greener future and a more equitable world for everyone. We need to halt further destruction of nature. Future financial and economic systems should value fixing of broken relationships with nature to minimise potential risks of such pandemics in times to come. COVID-19 also forces us to look into the way we develop our cities; the way we grow our food; the way we develop businesses; the way we respect and value nature; the way we conserve species; the way we degrade natural resources; the way we consume; the way we recycle waste and the way we inhabit and care for planet Earth. We need to fix our broken relationship with nature.
During and post the global pandemic, businesses in all geographies will be striving to ensure their short and long-term viability. While their immediate efforts will focus on revival, renewal and reconstruction, companies must also continue to think and act for the long-term. Recovery and reconstruction packages and new business models involving multi-trillion dollars will be rolled out. New normals in terms of business opportunities and practices will emerge. In any version of a sustainable future, there will be a fundamental need for companies to integrate circular economy principles. Respective industries have to introspect and redefine their role in valuing, restoring and protecting the natural world on which we all depend. Sectors involving agriculture, airlines, transport, fossil fuel-dependent energy sectors, mining and so on, need to adopt ecological ethics and morality in business practices.
Self-compliant and redefined business practices should pledge for zero pollution of water resources, ambient air, efficient waste recycling, land degradation neutrality and adhering to the strictest environmental standards. Citizens also need to be responsible by adopting sustainable consumption lifestyles that include transport, food, mobility, housing aimed at minimising our carbon footprints.
A global “one health” approach needs to be broadened on the principle of “human health can be ensured only through care of nature, Mother Earth and the surrounding ecosystems’ health.” The health of people is intimately connected to the health of wildlife, the health of livestock and the health of the environment. It would be great if we could at least preserve what is left of nature.
Headlines like, “Planet Earth is under repair”, “Mother Earth is under shutdown” also remind us of our responsibility to ensure a safer, cleaner and habitable planet for our survival, otherwise nature has its own ways to address and punish defaulters. While nature has tremendous destructive powers, it has immense healing powers, too. Protecting nature is an investment in our future.
“I am not polluting.” “I will not degrade nature.” “I will love wildlife.” “I will not allow others to harm nature.” These should be the guiding principles of ecological ethics for everyone. Humanity has to coexist with nature.
Whatever new narrative and norms will emerge post-Coronavirus, the above basic principles of ecological ethics and care for nature need to be integrated into everything that we do. This means all stakeholders, including policymakers, governance frameworks, businesses, communities in all geographies, need to pledge for a sustainable future and a better reconstructed world to avoid probable risks of re-emergence of such pandemics.
(Writer: Vivek Saxena; Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Daily wagers, vendors need cash handouts, not long drawn out policy interventions that aggravate their agony
We must not forget the stark truth. No matter what the Government’s reassurances, the fact of the matter is that the reverse migration continues in greater swells. Even though dedicated buses and trains are now running to ferry workers home as they have been rendered jobless and penniless in the cities due to the COVID-19 lockdown, thousands are continuing the long march by road. And various reports indicate that they aren’t coming back anytime soon as they feel a thoughtless Government didn’t care for them or provide an actionable alternative before announcing the lockdown. Many have said that they would rather earn little, even go back to subsistence farming, than risk a return to the city that gave them the disease, stigmatised them as carriers, took their jobs and evicted them from their homes as landlords didn’t even grant a grace period. Their anger, hurt and determination have already resulted in a chronic shortage of labour across the country and although economic activity may slowly resume through the post-COVID recovery, labour isn’t coming either cheap or ready. Which is why the second tranche of the fiscal package for daily wagers and street vendors, again in the nature of policy interventions that never make it to implementation and funds that routinely bleed out before they reach the beneficiaries, makes no sense at all. Nobody can afford to wait or queue up for food doles, destitute labourers need money in hand now. And all the relief announced so far involve an incubation period and will take time to materialise. Farmers and agricultural workers’ unions have been consistently demanding an income support of Rs 7,500 per month instead but the Government is yet to address the need for a cash component. They had demanded Rs 18,000 a year under PM-KISAN for all farmers, including tenants. But other than the routine Rs 2,000 installment to a reduced number, nothing has materialised. Nor is there any mention of interest-free loans. In a joint statement, farmers have claimed that while 14.5 crore of them should have benefitted from the PM-KISAN scheme, only three crore had got agricultural loans and that is not as part of any special drive carried out under the lockdown circumstances. Besides, most of the loans are cornered by agri-businesses and large farmers as banks are reluctant to give them to smaller growers. Neither are there any assured remunerative prices for agriculture produce or compensation for supply disruptions and wastage. Although loans have been announced for street vendors, they are expected to take a long time coming, given our procedural hassles and clearances. Verification of over 50 lakh street vendors, who are expected to benefit from an estimated outlay of Rs 5,000 crore, is not a fast-track operation. Neither can they wait so long for a working capital of Rs 10,000. So no immediate relief for them either. In short, there is just a promise but no clear cut means to honour it.
The Government has attempted food security by pledging foodgrains to even non-ration card holders for the next two months and announcing portable ration cards. But the “one India ration card” will take at least a year to materialise, considering the Government envisages covering eight crore migrants. Till then they have to use their existing ration cards at their native places, one of the reasons that fuelled the exodus in the first place, the prospect of free food. Question is why weren’t these measures mulled earlier than dumped as an apologetic afterthought? Wouldn’t it have been easier to have an organised network of community kitchens or even food tokens in the short term? A cash dole would have also helped labourers retain some dignity and they could use it as they would their own incomes. A few days ago, there was much noise about returnee migrants being absorbed in projects under MGNREGA. The enrolment numbers did go up initially but have now plateaued out. One, the scheme itself needs funding to expand operations and two, social distancing and new norms in a post-pandemic scenario mean only certain activities can take place. The subsidy scheme for affordable housing has been extended by another year but that’s hardly an intervention. For without jobs and incomes, nobody is certainly thinking of awaas yojanas. The Government also has to balance its declaration of ensuring minimum wages and workers’ rights while the BJP Governments in States are trying to do away with the complex web of labour laws in a bid to attract sizeable investment. But won’t 12-hour work shifts without a concomitant social security net be counter-productive in the end?
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Vijay Mallya should be on his way home. This is a good signal from the Government to economic criminals
After a long-winded process through the English courts, it finally appears that fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya’s last and final appeal against extradition to India has been exhausted. Despite a last-minute tweet and the use of some pliable retired judges to argue against the extradition, just as that other fugitive Nirav Modi is doing, Mallya seems to have run out of options now. He can still approach the European Court of Human Rights but that court has not usually fallen on the side of those accused of financial crimes. The exhaustive appeal process, where the Government of India has been assisted by the British Government and Home Secretary Priti Patel, has been thorough. The assistance of her Majesty’s Government has been welcome. It is good that the British Government is finally taking a stand against such fugitives from justice and who are making London their home.
One should not suppose that Mallya will be found guilty by the Indian justice system. He must be given a fair trial for he might well be innocent. It is, however, certain that some facts and details will emerge during the case that might leave several politicians, bureaucrats and bankers with red faces. Indeed, some of them might even not want their complicity to emerge. This is why Mallya ought to be given proper security as well as healthcare facilities when he is extradited to India. It is also important that all prisoners being brought back to the country are kept safe from the Coronavirus, which is spreading like wildfire in certain prisons here and across the world, too. It is particularly appropriate in these times of strife brought about by the virus that economic crimes are prosecuted. When millions are in economic distress, those who have stolen money from Indian banks and, thus, the taxpayers, must be made to pay for their crimes if they are successfully prosecuted. However, India must work towards improving prison facilities to ensure that future extradition cases do not drag. This is not just for economic offenders alone. Possibly India should seriously consider having separate types of jails for different types of offenders and criminals. White-collar non-violent criminals should have different jail facilities. This may not be an idea that can be implemented quickly but it must be something that the Home Ministry should look at going forward.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
For a sentiment to become reality, we need to generate mass confidence, demand and scale of home-grown brands, a tall order
If there is one big lesson that COVID-19 has taught us, it is the need to be self-sufficient and shed some dependencies of globalisation, which have been good for market economics but have been tested during the pandemic that has found us wanting in preparedness. From testing kits to drugs, ventilators and hospital equipment and capacity, we are relying on imports. The poor budgetary support to healthcare and education over the years has meant our public health system is extremely fragile while our R&D is languishing. Yet if some rapid inventions of the last month-and-a-half are anything to go by — indigenous test kits, ventilators and aggressive vaccine efforts that are both reliable and cost-effective — then the crisis has also opened up the possibility of capitalising on our innovation and skill sets. If we prime and encourage these efforts through incentive and funding hereon, we could at least develop some resistance given the frailty of our healthcare services. For example, the pharmaceutical industry imports nearly 70 per cent of crucial chemical ingredients from China. It is with the idea of building self-sufficiency in mind that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has given a clarion call about being “vocal about local” goods but set off a neo-Swadeshi movement in motion. Canteens of military personnel have even been asked to stock up “made in India” products, including FMCGs. While we must attempt our own recovery in crucial sectors bit by bit, a blanket call may sound a bit like sloganeering, considering we depend on global brands for 70 per cent of all consumer goods. The fact is all such home-grown enterprises have failed in the past without economies of scale and the depth of experience. In the end, the imports have always come cheaper. So till we generate a mass demand, develop scale and upgrade quality benchmarks, “be Swadeshi buy Swadeshi” will just be a sonic boom. Perhaps, this is a good time as any to at least push “Make in India” at the granular level. At the same time, we also have to take care about not being too insular and protectionist but competitive. Once we graduate to a level-playing field and comply with the market insistence on evolved standards of quality, our brands could see greater visibility internationally instead of having curated presence. But that’s still a long way off. Anyway, most MNC majors, who have been doing business in India for over 50 years, source raw materials locally and manufacture them here. So it is not like they should be turfed out or that we should be left without stocks of essentials. There is no doubt that India should promote local manufacturing, which will create jobs and develop critical engineering and manufacturing skills. But that “import substitution” should be done by encouraging foreign firms to bring in their expertise and money to India, not discourage them.
The Gandhian ideal of self-reliance did birth several home-grown majors, some of which have survived though most have fallen by the wayside. JN Tata established his Swadeshi Mill in 1886. And Ardeshir Godrej believed that India could realise its dream of self-rule by reducing its dependence on the West for manufactured goods. But we aren’t a colonial outpost anymore. One has to look at what happened to home-grown soft drinks, born after the American giants were chucked out by the Janata Government in 1977. While Thums Up survives today, it is owned by Coca-Cola. Localisation did not give birth to globally competitive companies, so we must temper our reactionary responses. Similarly, Bajaj Auto’s incredible international success today is because it competed in the crucible of the Indian market with foreign giants. And the success of the Tata Group, Mahindra and Hero, all Indian multinationals, is because they have weathered competition and have collaborated with the best foreign partners. India is particularly dependent on China, importing goods and services worth $50 billion more than it exports. We are deficient in rare-earth metals and cannot produce solar power equipment, wind turbines, cellphones, laptops and electronics. Many international manufacturers already have plants here, assemble 90-100 per cent of their portfolio here, are expanding their R&D facilities and component sourcing from India. Global brands dominate 90 per cent of the market in the smartphone and television categories, although the latter did have a healthy domestic brand showing till about the 80s. Our own brands of refrigerators, washing machines and ACs have long lost out to Chinese, Japanese and South Korean imports. Our discretionary and luxury segments are totally dominated by global brands. Khadi is still a home-spun effort that has slim international acceptability as Indian linen. But if our experiments with home-grown retail majors, hypermarket chains and fast food brands are any indication, then we have stood up quite well despite global players. Promoting Indian firms for smaller contracts is a worthwhile cause. But we should stop conflating self-reliance with Swadeshi. India is an integral part of the global economy and we do not want to go back towards the bankrupt days of India in the 1970s.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
With Covid-19 looming large, social justice, the signature tune of our Constitution, still eludes scores of citizens in these troubled times
Noble words like “justice”, “liberty” and “equality” in the Indian Constitution’s preamble — “We the people of India… do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution” — safeguard the staggering population of above 137 crore citizens amid adversities. Pitching real issues over rhetoric to improve our Human Development Index (HDI) ought to be sensed pragmatically. With a plan to impose lockdown 4.0 to wage war against the Coronavirus, the Government announced a Rs 20 lakh crore special economic package. This is equivalent to around 10 per cent of India’s GDP, which is the component of Aatma Nirbhar Bharat or self-reliant India. Further, the Prime Minister has stated, “Corona will be with us for a long time but our lives cannot revolve around it. We will wear masks, we will follow doh gaj doori (keep a distance of six feet) but we won’t let it derail our targets.”
However, stories of starvation are becoming the new normal. The migrant population is struggling to manage one meal a day. Unemployment and desperation are all around, be it in rural or urban areas. In the aftermath of the lockdown, distribution networks of crops are choked and sometimes the State Governments are clueless on how to move the food to where it is most needed. At the beginning of this year, the World Economic Forum reported that India ranked 76th out of 82 countries on the social mobility index. This precisely signals the sordid state of social justice. Reflecting on inclusive development, the United Nations (UN) has underlined the aspects of HDI, equality and justice in its ambitious 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprising 17 objectives. Nonetheless, the Corona crisis will upend the timeline and derail the development of prescribed goals. It has infected the SDGs at the very core.
The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) has taken up the challenge to achieve the SDGs. Aroya Setu, the Government’s app, is enabling the machinery to identify potential Covid-19 cases in the country. However, the infection has claimed above 2,500 lives, rendered millions jobless and stranded people at numerous locations with empty bellies. This makes one question the achievement of inclusive development and social justice on the constitutional apparatus as 5.5 per cent of India’s total population is under the extreme poverty line and is battling the epidemic alone. Rights groups have demanded adequate social security measures for women and labourers on a war footing.
Social justice in India is in shambles. Sixteen migrant labourers, who were fatigued and fell asleep on railway tracks in Aurangabad district of Maharashtra, were crushed to death. This human loss could have been averted if they had been promised free travel home. Millions are starving and the Public Distribution System (PDS) in many States is unable to address food insecurity as the gap between demand and supply is widening each day. To combat the Coronavirus, the nation is reeling under lockdown 3.0, which will extend into 4.0 after May 17. There are potential problems rising to counter the infection. The doorstep delivery of free rations and other essentials for vulnerable sections of society is yet to be intensified. When normalcy is limping back in a regulated manner, liquor shops have opened which contradicts the theory of meagre supply of essentials for the deprived. In a startling note, the Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies and the Supreme Court have asked States to contemplate online sales and home delivery of liquor.
Usually, the five southern States — Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala — consume half of India’s liquor and also provide major excise to the Government. In the wake of the opening of liquor shops in Delhi, the Government has imposed 70 per cent “special Corona fee” on the sale of liquor, aiming at enhancing revenue, which has been hit hard due to the lockdowns. However, there is chaos outside shops, forcing police to use batons to disperse crowds jostling to buy alcohol. In the melee, social distancing norms are grossly violated. Though the police had drawn chalk circles at the appropriate distances for people to stand in a queue, all their effort was in vain.
With Covid-19 looming large, social justice, the signature tune of our Constitution, still eludes scores of citizens in these troubled times.The Union Government has taken a $1.5 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank to provide social protection to the needy. Understanding that constitutional justice is non-negotiable, State Governments are on their toes to deliver basic amenities to citizens. The Maharashtra Government has announced free ration to the disabled for a month. The policemen, who are above 55 years of age in Mumbai, have been asked to go on leave. The Rajasthan Corona Sahayata Yojana is catering to the needs of the disadvantaged.
The Odisha Government is trying to bring out a whopping 4.86 lakh stranded migrant workers from Maharashtra and Gujarat. The Uttar Pradesh Government has brought back thousands of labourers from neighbouring States. The Government has started train services from the national Capital to various cities. The passengers are made to adhere to social distancing norms and stand inside circles marked on the pathway and the platform. They are subjected to thermal scanning and the trains are being sanitised. However, it still seems that there is a dearth of efforts to meet the requirements of the people in the time of crisis.
In order to achieve its SDGs, India cannot afford to leave anyone behind and there is no other way to end stigma and discrimination than through social justice and inclusive societies. Previously, abject poverty, lack of education, healthcare facilities, gender parity and the inability to reduce maternal mortality rates were the factors due to which India failed to achieve its 2015 Millennium Development Goals. That cannot happen again.
Currently, glaring instance of lapses in securing social justice worldwide cannot be ruled out, too. Older Black Americans dying in greater numbers is setting a disturbing trend in the social milieu, warranting a probe in socio-economic and racial justice issues. In Spain, older people were found dead and abandoned and elderly homes were not paid the required attention. In India, such community issues are yet to come to the fore. However, these issues of neglected social justice, human rights and unaddressed social insecurity are not new. It is not during Covid-19 alone, the issues of social unrest were also there whenever any major epidemic broke out in the past. When the Zika epidemic broke out in South and Central America among sugarcane workers, they were subjected to racial, gender and economic inequity. Women in El Salvador from Central America encountered serious barriers in exercising their sexual and reproductive rights.
The West African Ebola epidemic, which killed above 11,000 people, exacerbated the poverty crisis. The endemic was neglected as a social justice issue. Human rights violations were prevalent while dealing with the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic and the Asian Flu. Similarly, the outbreak of SARS caused social exclusion of a racial minority — the Asian-Canadian group.
Social justice remains a distant dream. Millions were denied social, economic and political justice when epidemics were dealt with from time to time. There are several precedents of nonchalance in enforcing laws and initiatives during epidemics. The Indian Swine Flu outbreak in 2015 resulted in socio-economic inequities. Dana Majhi, a tribal from Malkangiri district of Odisha carried his wife’s corpse on his shoulders as he failed to get a hearse. His wife had died of Japanese Encephalitis and he walked around 10 km from the hospital with his wife’s body.
Social justice, equity and human rights are at the borderline. At this juncture, no one should be left behind and we must end discrimination through social justice and inclusive societies. The politics of epidemics is not the panacea. The approach to the epidemic should be holistic by bringing science, governance and social justice into one fold.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month