It is by now well acknowledged that an exceptional situation caused by the advent of COVID-19 has led to the suspension of normal politics in many democratic countries. Many of the rights a citizen took for granted have ceased to be operative. The freedom of movement has been seriously curtailed by the lockdown, as has the right of assembly and even the right to carry out a livelihood. Even the right to congregational worship — so important in a country where religion is an important part of life — has been suspended for the time being. In short, many of the exceptional measures that are taken in times of war are shaping our lives today. Without the Constitutional provisions of an Emergency being invoked, India is actually witnessing a grave Emergency-like situation.
The only freedom that has been left totally untouched is the freedom of speech and, by association, the freedom of the media. It is the survival of this basic freedom that has distinguished the Coronavirus Emergency from the Emergency that was imposed by Indira Gandhi between 1975 and 1977.
There is another big difference. In 1975, the Emergency was imposed in the face of bitter domestic opposition and led to the incarceration of tens of thousands of political activists and large numbers of MPs. The lockdown of India in 2020 was no doubt initiated by the Prime Minister in his broadcast to the nation on March 24, but it was accompanied by near-total public support. Confronted by a fearful and unfamiliar pandemic from which there was no known cure, an anxious India reposed its faith in the elected government to do what is right for the larger national good. The social contract that binds the state and the people was re-negotiated with a phenomenal degree of popular endorsement.
India is not the only country that has undertaken exceptional measures. It is, however, the largest democracy that has managed to carry these tough measures through. Many other countries, much more compact and prosperous than India, have hesitated to undertake really stringent steps that public health experts believe are imperative to prevent coronavirus from spreading into the entire community and decimating entire populations. Narendra Modi didn’t blink and went the whole hog. Future historians will record that it was his audacity that saved many tens of thousands, if not lakhs, from certain death. But Modi could afford to take this ultimate step because he quite rightly calculated that the national community would undertake colossal personal sacrifice to preserve and protect themselves, their family and their nation.
It would be naïve to believe that India was fully prepared to meet this grave challenge. The magnitude of the lockdown left large numbers of people ranging from students to casual labourers, not to mention overseas visitors, in the lurch. It may be argued that some three to four days-notice for the lockdown may have reduced difficulties and allowed those who were stranded to make their way home. It probably would have, but the cost of such a rushed exercise would have led to the spread of the disease in a way that would have become uncontrollable.
The stories of individual distress of those stranded in the lockdown have been narrated in the media. Some of these tragic tales have prompted some Indians to ask whether the treatment is worse than the cure. This is more so because it is now understood that the overall economic costs of shutting down India is going to be very, very high. Many businesses will collapse, large numbers of people will lose their jobs and the short-term future of countless youngsters will be bleak. A generous stimulus package from the government will lessen the hardships and, maybe, if imaginatively designed, set the economy on the road to a future recovery. However, it will not remove the short-term difficulties.
What is remarkable is that despite the awareness of prolonged hardship, there has neither been any erosion in the trust reposed in the Prime Minister nor any apparent willingness to settle for some short-term comfort. On the contrary, there has been profound public anger at those small groups of people who have chosen to wilfully and recklessly defy the lockdown, sometimes as an act of political defiance or assertion. This has contributed to communal tensions and could lead to something far uglier once a semblance of normal life returns.
For the Opposition parties, these are very awkward days. The natural impulse to oppose everything a government does has to be kept in check. At the same time, there is natural inclination to deny any government — be it state or Central — a blank cheque. Matters are made easy by governments that allow politics to prevail over good sense — as has happened in West Bengal where the public mood has soured against the ruling party. However, in a state such as Odisha, the state government has acted with exceptional integrity and undercut all space for the opposition.
As the leading opposition party, the Congress has veered between acting with restraint and being outlandish. Its opposition to the pay cuts for government servants was a piece of short-term opportunism, but the conduct of its chief ministers has been responsible. At the national level, the party is still suffering from a lack of leadership and Rahul Gandhi’s attempts to inveigle his way back to the position of supreme leader has not met with any great success. In effect, the Congress is waiting for either Modi to make a big miscalculation or for the public mood to shift from restlessness to anger at the naturally slow pace of the war against a pandemic.
For the moment, India should thank its stars that in the midst of a fierce global turbulence, it has a captain who has the ability to keep the nation’s nerve and retain its trust.
The writer is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a presidential nominee to the Rajya Sabha.
