India picks lives over the economy, but at what cost?
The Indian authorities are struggling with the often conflicting demands of ‘life’ and ‘livelihood’, in tackling the deadly corona virus threat. Two months ago there was little conflict between the two. ‘Life’ clearly came first, as the magnitude of the disease began to dawn. Indeed, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was widely praised, at home and abroad, for appreciating the looming danger, and virtually locking down the entire country, stopping all internal flights, trains, and buses. Countries like the US, Britain, Italy, Spain, China (from where the virus seems to have emerged), among others, were considerably slower to react — with disastrous consequences. In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself was infected and barely managed to survive. In the US, Italy and Spain, the death toll began to climb alarmingly. South Korea, thanks to its top-class health service and its high levels of public hygiene, was the only nation able to contain what has been labelled Covid-19, and is now free of the scourge. It provides a model for the rest of the world to emulate. .
Returning to India, it is evident that the two months of strict lockdown have managed to keep the number of cases that have tested positive and deaths relatively low. There could be other factors at play that are being currently analysed. India’s average younger-aged population, compared to the average higher-aged in Europe and the US, is one, since older people are more vulnerable to Covid-19. Another could be the fact that much of the Indian population has been inoculated by the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (both tuberculosis and Covid-19 attacks the lungs, hence vaccinated Indians have better protection).
Be that as it may, a major section of the Indian population seems to have been overlooked when the initial lockdown announcement was made: the Indian migrant workers spread all over the country, working on contract or a daily-wage basis. They came from some of the poorer states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand, seeking work elsewhere, often as agricultural labourers or construction workers, as jobs were scarce in their home states. They were stuck, far from their homes, with no transport to take them back, as trains and buses had been stopped. Nobody seems to know the exact figure, but there could be millions of them. In desperation, thousands started walking back, their few possessions carried on their heads or on a hand-cart that they wheeled along with them. It was one of the most pitiable sights, widely seen in India and abroad on TV screens, reminiscent of the days when India and Pakistan came into being and there was a huge exchange of populations.
The Indian government belatedly realised their plight, setting up refugee camps and food points where they could be fed. The latest lockdown announcement has also made provision for them, with special trains now starting to operate from where they are to be taken to their home towns. But the transportation poses a logistical nightmare. How will they get to the railway stations and then, again, back to their villages which may be located far from the station? And, will they be welcomed back, or shunned, or worse, not allowed to enter their homes, the villagers suspecting that they may be carrying the dreaded virus? Major challenges lie ahead.
Despite the much higher proportion of deaths, the US and many European countries have taken a different route from India’s by opening up. Several American states have completely lifted their earlier restrictions, except for social distancing and the wearing of masks. Even Italy, once the worst affected, has opened offices and factories. The governments of these countries obviously feel their economies, already badly hit, must be revived fast. Getting people back to work is of the utmost importance, and, in a long-term sense, even more vital than the immediate saving of lives. With New Delhi’s recent announcement of a further two-week lockdown, after May 3, the Indian government clearly has a different view.
The issue has divided Indian society. Respected Indian industrialists like Narayan Murthy and Rajiv Bajaj have publicly called for a greater opening up of activity, especially trade, services and manufacturing, similar to what Europe and the US are doing. Otherwise, they say the Indian economy will go into a further decline, from which it will take years to recover. Covid-19 cases may go up and some extra lives lost, they imply, but jobs and livelihoods matter more in the long run. They also point out that foreign companies that have established themselves in India are beginning to look elsewhere at places where doing business is easier and where conditions are returning to normal quicker.
Admittedly, the Indian authorities have announced a few measures more positive for industrial revival, such as opening up of offices and manufacturing units with fewer staff and workers. But at the same time, they have divided up the country into three zones, red, orange, and green — the red being where the virus has been most rampant and green, where there have been very few cases of infection. The green zones are mainly the rural areas, and less populated states in the north-east. Unfortunately, the red zones comprise virtually all of India’s major cities, and where most offices are located and industrial activity takes place. How will the staff and workers get to office and to the factories if trains cannot run and buses and taxis ply?
Evidently, the Indian government has not carefully seen the virus issue through with its various ramifications. The worst consequence would be for the bureaucrats to take matters entirely into their hands and return India to the earlier pre-liberalisation “permit-licence-raj”. That would be a tragedy. What is needed is a high-powered body of leading doctors, businessmen, prominent citizens, and government officials of course, to take things forward — and fast, before other countries march ahead.
Indian industrialists like Narayan Murthy and Rajiv Bajaj have publicly called for a greater opening up of activity, especially trade, services and manufacturing, similar to what Europe and the US are doing.