While pandemic infections and fatalities are disturbingly soaring with studies and experts apprehending numbers to be picking up to new heights in coming days and months, there are media spaces being filled in with the debate of efficacy, relevance and – more predominantly – of the futility of lockdown in the country. Two points are prominently discussed, rather alleged – One, the lockdown was unnecessary and could have been avoided and Two, Narendra Modi utterly failed and, therefore, later abandoned the pandemic midway leaving it up to the states to handle and take the blame of the failures and of the consequences thereof. Many examples of many countries are cited to prove the point that the idea was ill conceived and ill-advised and was mainly aimed at Modi’s own PR exercise which he is often used to and which in this case backfired and boomeranged, that Modi’s credibility has drastically come down and his ‘so called popularity’ had a bitter blow and more importantly the ‘poor and the youth’ who had been madly in love with him are now ‘completely disillusioned’ about him. It is also put out to people that Narendra Modi did assure to win over the virus in eighteen days or twenty-one days when he came to address people commencing the lockdown – and he miserably failed as the pandemic pick up more speed instead of stopping there or even slowing down. The miseries of migrant workers too is attributed to the decision of ‘sudden lockdown’.
First thing first! We are now in mid-June. The lockdown decision was taken at end of March. We have lot more data with us now compared to March when the lockdown decision was taken. Different countries were struggling in different manners and ways at that time. Using today’s data and experience to analyses a decision taken when there was almost nil or very little data or experience would naturally be unjustifiable. It would be also recalled that the decision was appreciated across the board and was largely welcomed to be the timely one back then. The first visible and remarkable dissent came from Sonia Gandhi at the end of lockdown I, still observing that the decision to lockdown was correct but ‘some time’ was to be given to enable people to ‘prepare for the lockdown’. Even this statement was not taken in good taste then, Sonia was widely criticized for that and even many congress leaders too did not feel comfortable with her observation.
The experts, including the WHO, did say and comment at that time too that the lockdown was not a treatment of pandemic and that it was just a measure to ‘break the chain’ and ‘prepare the real crisis to come’. It would just be naïve, rather foolish, to believe that our Prime Minister did not know this and that he felt the lockdown would win over the crisis and he would be the hero of the game. People who still feel that the lockdown should have been planned and programmed giving some time to prepare for that. Really? How much time was needed for that preparation and what the people would have prepared? Given the size, population and socio-psycho-economic conditions of our people the time for preparation would have been the time for chaos, commotion, confusion, disorder and unmanageable crisis all over the country. Everywhere there would have been Anand Vihar like crowds – crowds of all of us trying to travel elsewhere from wherever we were, trying to get to store and hoard necessities and trying getting together with nears and dears. Did our system have the capacities to provide all that in a given time? The Prime Minister also would not have at the first instance come and told the people that the imminent crisis was awful and appalling and thereby created panic in the country. And so he must have pitched for eighteen days or twenty-one days. As he went by, he did say that we had to live with the corona. Experts do still feel that the lockdown was timely it did have as much effect as expected of with regard to the pandemic.
Yes, the lockdown could not be managed the way it should have been and it looked like a law and order situation where the administration enforced the people to be in their homes at least in initial days. The fall out and consequences especially with regard to migrant workers became as severe as becoming the greatest human misery in independent India. The spirit of Prime Minister’s dictum – people to be wherever they were – was just not understood. The entire system – center as well as the states – failed to respond. But then this was the failure of the welfare state and the country would do well to learn the crude lessons of this and the other fall outs – such as loss of wages and loss of jobs and overall diminishing economy. But for the sake to managing Covid-19, the lockdown could safely be termed as more than hundred percent successful. The equity, utility and usefulness of the lockdown has been undisputed, successful and widely recognized explicitly across experts’ forums.
Answers & Comments
Answer:
While pandemic infections and fatalities are disturbingly soaring with studies and experts apprehending numbers to be picking up to new heights in coming days and months, there are media spaces being filled in with the debate of efficacy, relevance and – more predominantly – of the futility of lockdown in the country. Two points are prominently discussed, rather alleged – One, the lockdown was unnecessary and could have been avoided and Two, Narendra Modi utterly failed and, therefore, later abandoned the pandemic midway leaving it up to the states to handle and take the blame of the failures and of the consequences thereof. Many examples of many countries are cited to prove the point that the idea was ill conceived and ill-advised and was mainly aimed at Modi’s own PR exercise which he is often used to and which in this case backfired and boomeranged, that Modi’s credibility has drastically come down and his ‘so called popularity’ had a bitter blow and more importantly the ‘poor and the youth’ who had been madly in love with him are now ‘completely disillusioned’ about him. It is also put out to people that Narendra Modi did assure to win over the virus in eighteen days or twenty-one days when he came to address people commencing the lockdown – and he miserably failed as the pandemic pick up more speed instead of stopping there or even slowing down. The miseries of migrant workers too is attributed to the decision of ‘sudden lockdown’.
First thing first! We are now in mid-June. The lockdown decision was taken at end of March. We have lot more data with us now compared to March when the lockdown decision was taken. Different countries were struggling in different manners and ways at that time. Using today’s data and experience to analyses a decision taken when there was almost nil or very little data or experience would naturally be unjustifiable. It would be also recalled that the decision was appreciated across the board and was largely welcomed to be the timely one back then. The first visible and remarkable dissent came from Sonia Gandhi at the end of lockdown I, still observing that the decision to lockdown was correct but ‘some time’ was to be given to enable people to ‘prepare for the lockdown’. Even this statement was not taken in good taste then, Sonia was widely criticized for that and even many congress leaders too did not feel comfortable with her observation.
The experts, including the WHO, did say and comment at that time too that the lockdown was not a treatment of pandemic and that it was just a measure to ‘break the chain’ and ‘prepare the real crisis to come’. It would just be naïve, rather foolish, to believe that our Prime Minister did not know this and that he felt the lockdown would win over the crisis and he would be the hero of the game. People who still feel that the lockdown should have been planned and programmed giving some time to prepare for that. Really? How much time was needed for that preparation and what the people would have prepared? Given the size, population and socio-psycho-economic conditions of our people the time for preparation would have been the time for chaos, commotion, confusion, disorder and unmanageable crisis all over the country. Everywhere there would have been Anand Vihar like crowds – crowds of all of us trying to travel elsewhere from wherever we were, trying to get to store and hoard necessities and trying getting together with nears and dears. Did our system have the capacities to provide all that in a given time? The Prime Minister also would not have at the first instance come and told the people that the imminent crisis was awful and appalling and thereby created panic in the country. And so he must have pitched for eighteen days or twenty-one days. As he went by, he did say that we had to live with the corona. Experts do still feel that the lockdown was timely it did have as much effect as expected of with regard to the pandemic.
Yes, the lockdown could not be managed the way it should have been and it looked like a law and order situation where the administration enforced the people to be in their homes at least in initial days. The fall out and consequences especially with regard to migrant workers became as severe as becoming the greatest human misery in independent India. The spirit of Prime Minister’s dictum – people to be wherever they were – was just not understood. The entire system – center as well as the states – failed to respond. But then this was the failure of the welfare state and the country would do well to learn the crude lessons of this and the other fall outs – such as loss of wages and loss of jobs and overall diminishing economy. But for the sake to managing Covid-19, the lockdown could safely be termed as more than hundred percent successful. The equity, utility and usefulness of the lockdown has been undisputed, successful and widely recognized explicitly across experts’ forums.
HOPE IT HELPS!