India’s Lockdown: Partial Success is Total Failure

Image source: vox

Rakesh Neelakandan

Democracy is government by discussion. The India Government, in announcing the nationwide lockdown in response to the global coronavirus blitzkrieg, appeared to have rewritten this definition. It now reads: democracy is government by action. This invariably leads to two questions: Action as to what end? and Action as to how?

On March 19, the Prime Minister requested citizens to observe a day-long nationwide janata curfew on March 22, a precursor to the lockdown. He exhorted the citizens to voluntarily remain indoors for a duration of 14 hours to arrest the spread of the virus. Evidently, this measure was planned ahead of the curve and it did not jolt the common man and provided him with time to prepare for a holiday. But it was a miniature construct of what was to expect and what was to come. On the day of the curfew, people, especially it being Sunday, adhered to the curfew and made it a grand success. Meanwhile, on March 19, a total of 151 cases were reported in India with three fatalities. That was in a nation of 1.4 billion people.

While people stayed indoors obediently, towards the end of the day they got out of their homes in droves and clanked utensils together and clapped aloud in a show of tribute and solidarity to the doctors, nurses and paramedics who are on the frontline of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. The Prime Minister himself had asked the citizens to pay tributes from their balconies and had never asked them to take out processions. This denoted a fundamental issue with the whole exercise. The key message was lost in transit and the race was lost in the last lap of the one-day marathon. The occasion, in typical Indian style, became a cause for celebration.

But why did this happen?

The Modi Cult

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a political celebrity in India. And what do the fans of Modi, unlike followers, do, but celebrate? The lid was kept like a pressure valve on a pressure cooker for the whole day, only to be vented towards the end of the curfew. And it spilled over to the streets accompanied with whistles, clanks and cries. Think of the worldwide release of superstar Rajnikant’s movie: fans would wait for the entire eve of the premier of the movie to get into the cinema premises and celebrate. The same theory applies to Modi’s case. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister cannot get to script the movie and control its outcome as his silver-screen is the fabric of the nation itself—the seventh largest in the world in terms of area and the second biggest in terms of population. The political brand building forged in stardom will take expectations sky-high for the citizens and in the event of them not being met can make a flop of his career. But that is hardly the topic here.

If the core purpose of the janata curfew was to prepare the populace for a lockdown, and to instil in them the reason as to why it should be done, the exercise failed miserably. People should have confined themselves to balconies and courtyards, but it was automatically sabotaged.

With the preparatory lesson botched up, the real lockdown was announced at short notice. The fact that it came at short notice, just four hours before the lockdown was to take effect, is indicative of the hurried nature of decision making.

Objective of the Lockdown and its Implementation

In his speech to the nation announcing the countrywide lockdown, Modi stated his objective of the lockdown thus: “in order to protect the country, and each of its citizens…”. This being simple, ambitious and noble an objective, it should be welcomed with open arms. But the question lingers as to how this decision came about. What was the model being followed?

Obviously, this was an act from the lockdown playbook of the People’s Republic of China. But there is a big difference. China’s lockdown aimed at confining 760 million people or half of its population, whereas India’s aim is to fence out the entire population. That day, did India stand still, and also for the following days? If the rumblings and long marches of migrant labourers from the biggest cities of India are any indication, that hardly was/is the case. With 14 days to go before the lockdown is hopefully lifted, and not extended as has been said, it may be summarised that it could only be a partial success. And in the times of corona pandemic, partial success is complete failure. It is like a total, all-out war. Win or lose, there is no halfway house. Because, even a single carrier of the virus can wreak havoc. Fresh cases are being reported daily. Migrants, poor and famished, in exodus on foot are also dying in one of the hottest seasons in the subcontinent. People still gather around defying lockdown and curfews. The states are deploying police forces aggressively sometimes to detrimental effects. Industrialists are questioning the mode of implementation of the lockdown.

At best, the lockdown has enabled the government to borrow some time to prepare for a major fallout which is in the offing. It appears that things may get worse before they can get any better.

Ultimately, the decision to implement the lockdown must be appreciated because it indicates that the political leadership is well aware of the cost of not going in for a lockdown. This trade-off is also a huge political gamble which the Prime Minister is known to not shy away from. Even as he apologised for the hardships caused by the lockdown, it must not be forgotten that had a robust contingency plan been in place for which the PM had got no less than 48 hours, the odds could have been in his favour by a better degree. Uncertain times obviously need actions of certainty and thorough planning to pave the path to success.

The author was a former Research Intern with CPPR. Views expressed by the author are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of Centre for Public Policy Research.