Reference no: EM133187652
Lockdown measures expose India's economic and social divides
India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, had a busy schedule arranged for January and February 2020. He hosted a visit from the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, followed by a visit from US president, Donald Trump. Involving huge public expense, these visits were a way for Mr. Modi to be seen alongside fellow nationalist strong men with whom he identifies. The mood of the country, however, was soon to change radically. The first case of Covid-19 in India was recorded on 30 January. The spread of the virus from China to the advanced economies of the US and Europe was watched nervously. When the WHO declared a pandemic on 11 March, India's health ministry was not unduly worried. However, the prime minister became concerned when looking at events in France and Italy. He asked the population to engage in social distancing and called for people to come outside and clap for health workers, banging pots and pans to show their support. Indians responded enthusiastically, taking to the streets for marches and processions. Mr. Modi, a Hindu nationalist, thrives on street demonstrations of loyalty that serve to reinforce his populist credentials. However, he was suspected of having an ulterior motive: he would be aware that Hindu street celebrations cause fear among Muslims, who was recently targeted by a new citizenship law that discriminated against them.
By 24 March, Mr. Modi decided that strong measures were necessary to respond to the pandemic, even though the numbers in India seemed to be very low. He appeared on television, to announce a lockdown that would commence the following day and last until 14 April. This was a drastic step to take in a country of nearly 1.4 billion people, at only four hours' notice. Markets, shops, and transport would shut down; crops would not be harvested. People were told to stay at home. India's very rich were able to isolate themselves in their luxurious homes. But for ordinary Indians, the order led to disarray. With no work in the cities, India's poor were stranded, without the means to live. One-fifth of India's urban households slums and rural housing conditions are hardly better, with poor infrastructure and cramped living conditions. Mumbai, for example, is home to 20 million people, 40% of whom live in overcrowded conditions with shared running water and inadequate sanitation.
Many are migrant workers and day labourers. Without work in the cities, many set out on foot for their home villages, which could be hundreds of miles away. This was despite the fact that there would be little or no work in the countryside, even if they managed to make the trip safely.
State health services and local authorities had the difficult task of dealing with a pandemic, their poorly-funded facilities already stretched by the health problems associated with pollution and poor sanitation. They attempted to close off hotspots. They had streets sprayed with disinfectants, but people were also sprayed. Testing for Covid-19 was very limited initially but did improve. Millions of Indians suffer from tuberculosis and malnutrition, making them vulnerable to the spread of the virus. As the numbers of those infected climbed, Mr. Modi decided that the lockdown would have to continue to 3 May, even though the impacts on the economy were becoming dire. He planned to ease the lockdown in anticipation of the designated date, mainly for activities such as harvesting food crops and providing work for agricultural day labourers. While he was focused on the plight of the poor, however, he was also turning his attention to the very real possibilities of continuing social unrest. Mr. Modi extended the lockdown into June, but with a gradual easing of restrictions.
Under the lockdown laws, police have been active in charging student protesters who have taken to the streets against the new citizenship law. There have also been arrests under terrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Gatherings have been banned in the lockdown, and the police have been inclined to see any signs of gatherings as protests, for which the participants can be arrested under the terrorism laws. As the usual court proceedings are suspended, those rounded up are unable to apply for bail. Human rights activists are now concerned that the lockdown is being used for increased authoritarian rule. A new mass surveillance app for smartphones was unveiled by Mr. Modi, to enable the tracking of the virus. In only a few hours, it had been downloaded by 83 million users. But the implications of the app are alarming on grounds of human rights. Although the app is similar to those in other countries, India does not have privacy and data protection laws, common in other countries, that would protect citizens.
As of 18 May, India had 96,169 confirmed cases of Covid-19, and 3,029 deaths, according to the WHO. Mr. Modi's inclinations towards authoritarianism present risks to democracy and human rights - both of which are essential components of any sustainable recovery. India's economic growth lost impetus in 2019, and the lockdown of 2020 caused extreme economic disruption. He is likely to embark on a recovery policy based on self-reliance, with industrial policy directed from the top. He is also keen to attract FDI from firms that are choosing to exit China. What other policies should he be focusing on? It has become clear that social welfare and infrastructure should be priorities. These include healthcare, public transport, and municipal services such as safe drinking water, sanitation, and power supply. Reducing poverty and improving health would help enormously towards sustainable development.
Just after the lockdown was eased on 3 May, a leak from a polystyrene chemical plant occurred in Visakhapatnam in the eastern state of Andhra Pradesh, releasing toxic gas into the houses of workers and their families in the middle of the night. About 1,000 people were exposed to the gas, and twelve died within two weeks of the leak. LG Polymers, the South Korean company that owns the plant, admitted it did not have environmental clearance for the factory. This tragic incident bore resemblance to the Bhopal disaster of 1984, again reminding the world that it is poor in Indian society who are among those most vulnerable when crises strike. A few days after the chemical leak, Mr. Modi announced plans for a grandiose redevelopment scheme for Delhi, including a palatial new parliament building and prime minister's residence, at an estimated cost of $3 billion.
What should be in the prime minister's plan to improve human wellbeing for the millions of Indians at the bottom of the social ladder?