In this time of enforced leisure and enhanced anxiety, it is impossible to not engage in bouts of counterfactual history. What if, it is repeatedly asked, China hadn’t been so pig-headed as to deny and underplay the coronavirus threat when it first manifested itself late last year in Wuhan? What if the overpaid apparatchiks in the World Health Organization hadn’t chosen to uncritically accept China’s version of the coronavirus? What if we had sealed off the world into compartments much earlier? And, in India, what if the bigoted head of the Tablighi Jamaat had realised the changed circumstances and called off his convention in Delhi’s Nizamuddin?
These are questions that will forever haunt us as we stare into an uncertain future and a totally disoriented world. In India, we are confronted with the very real likelihood of the national lockdown being extended till the end of April at least. By then — or so we hope and pray — the spread of the pandemic will have been contained and, even if normal life doesn’t resume, we can get out of the abnormal existence we lead today.
To be a decision-maker at this time is a horrible prospect. In normal circumstances, the choices before the leadership involve calculating political, economic and social costs. Today, the choices are existential — a wrong decision can have catastrophic consequences. More to the point, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong. Each decision, however well-intentioned and considered, involves paying a heavy price.
On the strength of the ICMR’s modelling, it is said that if the Central government hadn’t taken the drastic decision to impose a national, 21-day lockdown, some 8.2 lakh would have been infected by the coronavirus. The lockdown has — except in some areas where people have chosen to be contrarian — been reasonably successful and, at last count, the number of those tested coronavirus positive is just above 6,000. As for the one lakh people around the world who have died as a result of the pandemic, India’s contribution is negligible. It would have been even more so had some people acted with a greater sense of responsibility.
True, we have paid a huge social, economic and emotional cost in keeping India’s numbers manageable. The plight of migrant workers, left to fend for themselves by heartless employers and an inhospitable city, has been quite vividly captured, particularly by those who now feel that India over-reacted. However, what has been less documented and appreciated is the huge extent of support the poor and helpless have got from community, religious and political groups. The state has no doubt chipped in and at least ensured supplies of dry rations to most parts of India. But without the solid support from the voluntary groups and community organisations, India would have confronted social unrest. That hasn’t happened.
Incidentally, talking about organisations that have done sterling work organising relief to those who need it most, we have read about the contributions of the Sikh gurudwaras, the big temples like Tirupati and bodies such as the Bharat Sevasram Sangh and the RSS. However, I have searched in vain for the relief work done by those multinational NGOs who guilt-trip individuals in the West, particularly during Christmas, to contribute some money and salvage their conscience. Presumably they are busy during the lockdown preparing some weighty and over-sensationalised report on how the poor got a bad deal from the coronavirus crisis. I look forward to reading the reports and simultaneously gnashing my teeth.
The larger point I am making is that when the history of the coronavirus pandemic comes to be written, it will record that India rose to the challenge rather well. Every Indian — including those who complained bitterly on social media and argued that we had exercised the wrong options — contributed to this war effort and made sacrifices in some way or another. However, this was possible because we had the necessary leadership. Imagine what would have happened had the country entered the coronavirus crisis with a fragile government led by someone who didn’t have the necessary political and moral authority? The results could have been absolutely calamitous.
I am aware that many skeptics and a section of the international community poked fun at Modi’s appeal for lighting a diya. The whole exercise got a spectacular response, even in areas where people are not accustomed to voting for the BJP. No doubt some people attached a quasi-religious significance to the 9pm-9minute appeal. But, people voluntarily participated for two reasons. First, because they wanted to be part of the larger national community and, secondly, because at a moment of grave challenge they felt that the leadership needed endorsement. This was less a political gesture than an endorsement of national solidarity.
The point needs to be highlighted because although the federal structure of India involves states tailoring their responses to suit specific requirements, there has been no bid to actually initiate a political war with the Centre. Some non-BJP governments have actually done rather well — Delhi, Rajasthan, Odisha and Maharashtra being examples. Others, notably West Bengal, have preferred short-term approaches that could be potentially damaging in the long-run. However, no Chief Minister has thought this was the time to trigger a constitutional crisis centred on wilful disregard of a national approach. Even Bengal has concealed its contrarian impulses by toning down the rhetoric while allowing social distancing to go for a six.
Creating a national approach has involved restraint from all sides. This is maturity and may be the basis of a healthier political order when life returns to normal.
The writer is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a presidential nominee to the Rajya Sabha. Views are personal
