More than 20 migrant labourers have died trying to flee Indias coronavirus locked-down cities for their villages over the past few days. Critics blame Prime Minister Narendra Modis hasty 21-day curfew call that, like many of his recent directives, was long on populist symbolism, but short on foresight or compassion.
Advertising
Read more
It was the biggest human lockdown ordered at the shortest notice without adequate planning or preparation for the fallout of a sweeping policy measure that was weeks in the making.
In a televised address to the nation at 8pm on Tuesday, March 24, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi put 1.3 billion people under a three-week lockdown. It was the worlds largest coronavirus directive – not even China, the worlds most populous country and source of the Covid-19 outbreak, imposed such a sweeping nationwide shutdown, with Beijing isolating only the worst-affected Hubei province. The time frame was breathlessly tight: the measures would start at midnight, Modi announced, giving his people less than four hours to stock up and disregard earlier directives to avoid hoarding.
The scenes that unfolded in the worlds most populous democracy in the days to come were reminiscent of post-war neorealist cinema or subcontinental “Partition dramas” based on historys biggest human displacement following the 1947 division of British India.
Millions of migrant workers from Indias vast informal sector attempted to leave cities – where many simply live on work sites that were shutting down – for their villages. With no jobs, homes, savings, social security or ability to earn daily wages in cities, the village offered the only chance of survival.
But public transportation was shut down under Modis vague, emotionally charged but detail-free curfew order. State borders closed. Supply chains, in the absence of emergency measures, ground to a halt stalling the entry of food and essential goods. With no access to food or transportation, Indias urban poor took to the streets, walking to distant villages in a flood of human misery. More than 20 migrant labourers have died trying to walk to their villages over the past few days.
The democratic state not only abandoned them, its law enforcement arm viciously cracked down on homeless civilians disregarding “stay at home” orders.
My conscience says you will forgive me
As social media lit up with clips of police brutality, Modi was forced to take to the airwaves again. Days after ordering the lockdown, the Indian prime minister apologised to the country in a radio address.
“I would firstly like to seek forgiveness from all my countrymen,” began Modi before declaring, “my conscience says you will forgive me." Populist apology out of the way, the Indian leader then explained the coronavirus crisis was “a battle of life and death” and he did not have other options.
The mea culpa failed to impress Harsh Mander, director of the New Delhi-based Centre for Equity Studies and a leading Indian social activist and author. “I dont think the apology amounted to an acknowledgment of the enormity of what has been done and there were no correctives offered. The entire plan had the imagination of a middle-class person: people were asked to maintain social distance, wash their hands and stay home assuming they have homes and salaries going into bank accounts,” said Mander in a phone interview with FRANCE 24.
Policies directed to protect the rich and middle class
A cursory glance at Indian economic statistics reveals this is not the case. Nearly 81 percent of the Indian labour force works in the informal sector, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Casual labourers account for one-third of the work force, according to the Indian Ministry of Labour and Employment, with vendors, construction workers, domestics and a vast array of other low-skilled workers surviving on daily wages with no labour protection.
India has 1,238 confirmed coronavirus cases and 35 deaths, according to the latest tally, although the real figure is likely to be higher since testing is not widespread. Experts agree that the Indian government needed to implement restriction measures. Given the countrys poverty, population density and poor public services, it was not expected to be easy.
But critics say the authorities had enough time and resources to avoid a lethally mismanaged lockdown.
“I would be willing to live with any difficulty thats equally shared by victims. But you cant have policies directed to protect the rich and middle class on the backs of the intense suffering of the poor,” said Mander. “If it was collectively planned, this could have been better coordinated,” he added, noting, for instance, that the Modi administration did not even alert the chief ministers of Indias states and union territories “who had to bear the brunt of the responsibility” about the upcoming curfew.
Imperious proclamations, brutal consequences
The coronavirus crisis is plunging the world into an economic recession with inequalities set to deepen and vulnerable countries left to absorb the financial shock. India, an emerging market, is not alone in feeling the economic pain. But as an emerging economy with an extensive administrative service experienced in disaster management, it should not rank among the least prepared to cope.
On Sunday, as Modi was apologising for the mismanagement, Benins President Patrice Talon took to the airwaves to explain why he would not be imposing similar confinement measures. “Rich countries are putting up huge amounts of money and some are even resorting to barely disguised monetary solutions,” said Talon. “Benin does not have such means…If we take measures which starve everybody, they will quickly end up being defied and violated."
The crux of the problem in India, according to veteran journalist Sidharth Bhatia, lies in the Modi administrations “peremptory decision making, lack of planning and shoddy execution. Theres another,” added Bhatia in a column in The Wire, “the complete lack of concern over the human cost, which has been colossal.”
Since he came to power in 2014, Modi has opted for shock announcements with little preparedness that have left the populace scrambling to cope with the fallout – humanitarian and economic – of his populist moves.
On November 8, 2016, for instance, the prime minister made a surprise evening television appearance to announce that, starting after midnight, the nations 500 and 1,000-rupee notes would be demonetised or no longer considered legal tender. Economists estimate the move wiped at least one percent off Indias GDP and cost at least 1.5 million jobs.
Then on August 5, 2019, Modi suddenly scrapped Kashmirs statehood and special status, plunging the disputed region into a communications blackout and human rights crackdown that drew international criticism. By the end of the year, his rushed-through citizenship amendment measures sparked demonstrations across the country with protesters denouncing the right-wing Hindu nationalist leaders anti-Muslim policies.
“With such a pattern of decision making, the obvious question is, doesnt anyone in the Modi government – and Narendra Modi himself – consider the human cost of such decisions?” asked Bhatia. “The imperious, firman [or royal edict] -like proclamations may appeal to him – it certainly pleases his devotees – but surely he would have thought about the suffering it causes?”
Economic package too little, too late
In the aftermath of the latest Modi shock move, as international media organisations and human rights groups detailed the extent of the upheaval, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman hastily announced a $22.6 billion economic package that provides direct cash transfers and food security measures. "We do not want anyone to remain hungry," Sitharaman told a news briefing on Thursday.
While welcoming the announcement, experts noted that the measures should have been announced before the lockdown to prevent the panicked flight of migrants at bus stops and railway stations, which exacerbated public health risks.
In an open letter to the finance minister, more than 600 academics, economists, policy analysts and civil society members detailed the shortfalls, including meagre allocations and inadequate disbursement mechanisms to reach vulnerable sections of the population who fall through the cracks of the countrys public distribution system (PDS) and anti-poverty programmes since they lack necessary documents.
Noting that the monthly cash allocations amount to less than two days of Indias statutory minimum wages, the equivalent of less than $5 per month, Mander, who was also one of the signatories to the letter, explained, “Thats expecting the poor to manage, if at all, on two days salary. And thats only for the ones with bank accounts. The rest are just being asked to be obedient.”
Elite fears and #CoronaJihad
In a March 31 op-ed in The Hindu daily, activists Nikhil Dey and Aruna Roy, a former Indian civil servant, criticised the government for not releasing food stocks to handle the emergency. “There is no excuse for hoarding the 58 million tonnes of current food grains stock when only four million tonnes are required by the PDS every month,” wrote Dey and Roy.
Castigating the MoRead More – Source
