Bilal Margo
Asking people to stay at home and shutting down their movement is buying time and reducing the pressure on health system, yet these measures on their own will not extinguish pandemics. WHO said that “Lockdown alone won’t be enough, how many more is decided on the basis of decision we make and action we take”. If we want to remove Lockdown in gradual way, restrictions need to be lifted slowly and strategically in order to successfully re-enter a new normal life. If the measures are not enough to slow down the spread of virus after uplifting Lockdown, we might face the harsh reality of pandemic and its consequences much more than we can possibly imagine. In a nutshell surveillance, case finding, contact tracing campaign to inform affected population solidarity is needed now more than ever to defeat COVID-19. A lockdown can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China, and spread across almost 204 countries, the term has been used for varying limits on movement, function and activities of communities. It isn’t a technical public health term, and ranges from mandatory quarantines to non-mandatory recommendations to stay at home, close certain types of businesses or avoid events and gatherings. There have been several discussions around the COVID-19 infection and its potential to cause fatality, India’s preparedness and the lessons learnt. This analysis attempts to understand what a lockdown means in the context of public health in India. In countries with poverty and high population, the stay-at-home orders and other restrictions used may not be practical because residents living in crowded quarters, need to work daily in order to survive and receive meals in regular interval. Serious socio-economical lock down have a detrimental effect on daily life of people. With no source of education and no savings for future, majority of people of high labor induced countries depend upon the daily wages they receive at the end of the day after hard labor. Therefore to protect lives and livelihood of these people, a slow steady and lifting of lock down is key to sustain their economy and lifestyle. The lockdown according to a few other countries. Different countries have interpreted and implemented lockdown differently. The most significant intervention by China was the quarantine imposed on January 23, 2020. Along with this, the country also restricted public access to information, including that shared by Dr Li Wenliang, who was detained for posting online about the virus and who later died of the infection himself. In February 2020, two journalists disappeared after continuously reporting stories about the outbreak. In an attempt to create a good online atmosphere, many social media apps and accounts were removed because of ‘harmful content’. The media had to cover only positive stories about the relief work being done by Chinese authorities. The government’s agenda seemed to stretch beyond virus control and into social control.
It is important to understand that China has suffered socially and economically not just because of the virus but because of government policies as well. Though China followed a high-end surveillance system, it was not done with people’s participation or even understanding. The state’s self-promotion took precedence over access to information. One reason for the Chinese lockdown was damage control, as the infection had reached a point where global opinion had to be urgently addressed. Taiwan, because of political pressure from China, is excluded from the WHO but unlike China focused itself on making information available to the people. The Taiwanese government has been preparing since late December 2019 and also set up a Central Epidemic Command Centre. State officials have been holding press conferences every day to announce the latest policies and updates on the epidemic, and to clarify rumours on social media. Many Taiwanese officials used their official social media accounts to share even small details with the public. Civil society worked with the government to fill gaps, publish real-time maps and create fact-check centres. Such initiative allowed its people to actively participate in the implementation of government policy. Taiwan followed the logic of a democratic state as opposed to China’s authoritarian state. The Russian parliament passed laws to impose harsh punishments for rule-breakers; those breaking quarantine or spreading misinformation faced up to five years in prison. ‘Misinformation’ in the time of COVID-19 could also mean criticism of the government. The pitfalls of this are obvious. New Zealand entered a month-long national lockdown on March 25 as the number of cases in the country rose by nearly 50% in a short span of time. The lockdown is expected to be eased partially if the case increase rate slows. At the time of announcing the lockdown, New Zealand’s prime minister said, “I say to all New Zealanders: the government will do all it can to protect you. Now I’m asking you to do everything you can to protect all of us. Kiwis – go home.” Contrast this with the Indian government which, going by its actions since the lockdown, seems to say that it absolves itself of all responsibility and leaves to its citizens the responsibility of handling the situation, and failing which they will be punished even if it means losing jobs, rights, livelihood, dignity, food, and education. The scenarios in New Zealand and India are both lockdowns, but in the first, the government takes primary responsibility to help its citizens tide over a difficult period.
An authoritarian lockdown thus could prioritise the ends over the means. The graph becomes everything – like a man burning his house down to keep the candle alight.
The authoritarian lockdown, Some predictable fallouts of an authoritarian lockdown include:
1. Suppression of data at all levels because of the culture of shaming those who show ‘poor outcomes’ and rewarding those who show ‘good outcomes’. Officials in India have already mastered the art of reducing the incidence of diseases of concern, and there is no reason to believe they won’t draw from these skills in the context of COVID-19 as well. In India, there is evidence that target setting, punitive action and hierarchical structures lead to magical drops in numbers. We have seen this with family planning, institutional deliveries, maternal/infant deaths, tuberculosis, HIV, malnutrition, dengue, malaria, manual scavenging, lynchings, domestic violence and dowry deaths. There is a difference between a government that wants to genuinely provide healthcare and government that simply wants to look good.
2. The government has failed to proactively publicise major decisions, whether demonetisation, the reading down of Section 370 or the ongoing lockdown. The idea of people being participating stakeholders is being actively eroded, leading to a corrosion of trust and avoidable delays in response. If an authoritarian government announces that community spread is imminent, it is almost certain that the spread already occurred sometime back. In disasters like earthquakes, the authoritarian state may be able to provide disaster relief but this doesn’t work in the case of a pandemic. To track and control the spread of a virus, there is a need for information to flow freely and without being linked to punitive action.
3. Under an authoritarian state, people may function like coerced subjects rather than informed stakeholders, doing only as much as they have to and often tending to breaking boundaries and rules. The relationship of civil society and media to the government will resemble that between a cat and mouse, with attempts to thwart each other, rather than to work together towards shared goals. This is the crucial difference between how epidemics are controlled by authoritarian governments and by democratic governments.
4. To maintain the image of success, the government is likely to be even more authoritarian than is acceptable under normal circumstances but uphold its measures as ‘necessary’ – the so-called ‘cruel to be kind’ intervention. Less than a month ago, state officials slapped sedition charges on mothers and teachers for a children’s play enacted in Karnataka. It is unlikely for the government to now suddenly turn benevolent because of COVID-19.
5. The people of India have already largely been polarised into two groups: those who believe the government can do no wrong and those who demand that the right to a COVID-19-free world doesn’t automatically trample on rights and civil liberty. The lockdown shows that while the rights of some become limited, for others like the labourers it is an existential right connected to their food, dignity and livelihoods. Additionally, people who have moved out of cities have also increased the virus’s geographic spread.
6. Guidelines in other countries allow ‘essential’ travel. In India, this means a large part of the country will continue to travel as their income depends on it. The sheer numbers would itself mean that a lockdown is not possible. Seen differently, a lockdown where essential travel is curbed is bound to impinge, often adversely, on several human rights.
7. The lockdown can lead to health issues that can render people more vulnerable to COVID-19 and related complications once the lockdown is lifted. India has a high burden of diabetes and hypertension, both conditions exacerbated by cereal-heavy diets. With the lockdown, the food insecurity of a large number of people has been endangered, and they are unable to procure medicines or access screening tests. Those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension and heart disease are at high risk for the complications of COVID-19 infection. In effect, a poorly planned lockdown makes vulnerable communities more susceptible to complications and increased mortality.
8. Many norms of confidentiality and privacy of patients and their contacts are being violated on the pretext of a lockdown. These norms have been laid down to protect against stigma and discrimination which can potentially lead – among other things – t0 harassment, denial of care, negligence and loss of employment, particularly among those with leprosy, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. There is no reason to believe these ethical concerns should be set aside in a pandemic and there is no known benefit of community policing of individuals. With the information about COVID-19 trickling in, people and communities are already being evicted and bullied. The criminalisation has also meant people are afraid to get tested. In a Pandemic, Moral Preparedness Is Also Important. India Might Not Have It. India already has a history of discrimination based on gender, caste, class, ability and sexual orientation.There is no reason to believe society will become automatically inclusive in the wake of COVID-19. These barriers will continue to make it difficult for everyone to access health services and avail of testing, therefore efforts need to be made to ensure that there is no further discrimination.
9. The communal nature of the government and its supporters comes out even in a pandemic. Even as the government issued a notice that false information about COVID-19 will be strictly punished, communalised misinformation and hate continues unchallenged. Fake news about Muslims is being spread rapidly leading to social and economic boycott of Muslims across the country. It is of concern that a pandemic has put the lives and livelihood of Muslims in India at risk.
Conclusion: An authoritarian lockdown thus could prioritise the ends over the means. The graph becomes everything – like a man burning his house down to keep the candle alight.
(Author is a content wrotes and frequently writes for “ Kashmir Horizon” . Views are his own) [email protected]