A State and its dereliction of duty

IN PERSPECTIVE

The curative and welfarist role of the Indian State is indispensable like never before during this pandemic. Bestowed with the responsibility of securing the life and livelihood of millions languishing in abject deprivation, the conduct of a democratic Indian State becomes more crucial. Even more so when India has a stable government led by a popular leader at the national level, aided by resilient institutional structures and relatively better economic prowess at its disposal than ever before.

The crisis has revealed an uncanny State character emblematic of its ignorance, inaction, apathy and deceptive demeanour. The indictment against its performance is not to discount its commendable efforts to impose a prolonged lockdown, especially in a country of India’s size and complexity. Rather, it is an assessment of its failure to rise up to the occasion to minimise the unimaginable human suffering due to the lockdown. The weakness of the Indian State in tackling this crisis is manifest in three significant dimensions -- the leadership’s proclivity towards symbolism over substance, its duty-demanding approach over rights-recognising approach, and its strategy of invoking the past and the future to boost the nation’s morale over the requirements of the present.

Political symbolism undeniably does have a crucial function in these times. It mobilises, inspires and, most importantly, tries to unify a nation to withstand a catastrophe. Tokenism deployed by the Indian leadership, epitomised by the Prime Minister, exhorted the people to clap and light candles and diyas as a tribute to health workers. However, the substantive policy prerequisites and required actions found limited mention in the government’s pronouncements. This came on the back of a substantial loss of preparation time since India’s first detected case of Covid-19 in January. A necessary but hurriedly declared national lockdown was announced from the last week of March. The unplanned political decision caught the people and the state governments unprepared to deal with a prolonged lockdown.

While the onus of tackling the real policy challenges rested on the state governments, local self-governments and the various NGOs, the lack of commensurate financial capacity and equal decision-making power stood in the way of these agencies being able to adequately rise up to the occasion and channelise the resources. This is not to suggest that the administrative inefficiency and political opportunism of the state leaders did not make matters worse with time. Moreover, mobilisation of medical resources on a war footing continues to evade the fulcrum of the crisis communication amidst a humongous health challenge already ailing due to a fragile infrastructure

This lack of substance and the inability to protect the most vulnerable sections has been coated with an insistence on people’s duty to serve the nation’s cause. In this tactical abdication of State responsibility, people have become both active participants and helpless subjects. Instead of securing the fundamental rights of the people and fulfilling its responsibility as a welfare state, it has rather looked away from the people, seen the sufferings of the people as fait accompli or a sacrifice for the larger cause. Prime Minister Modi’s overtures in apologising and appreciating the “sacrifice” of the hungry, insecure, harassed, neglected and dying migrant workers has been blended with repeated tokenistic tributes to the health fraternity.

The much-vaunted Rs 20 lakh crore economic relief package invoked inspiration as well as hope. It has two visible aspects of India’s proven resilience against disasters in the past and its aspirations in the future of attaining economic prominence to claim its rightful place in the world order. The pressing needs of the present are, however, absent. Largely, the package has enumerated long-term, often unfeasible, loan-based measures, along with repackaging of existing policies. A clear blueprint of addressing the economic plight and destitution of the poor was missing. This should have been ensured by adequate direct transfer of grants and universalised food security measures as well as steps to facilitate their safe and immediate return to their native places. Even worse, the uncompromising need for a speedy structural overhaul of the Indian health sector appeared as a secondary priority, receiving a paltry share of the government’s ostensible Covid-19 relief package.

The worst victims of these three manifestations of State behaviour have been the millions of migrant workers losing their livelihoods in the urban conglomerations, unable to return to their native homes for weeks and months. The lack of substance over symbolism kept them staring at starvation and health insecurity. The onus on national duty, as required by the political leadership, further marginalised their already precarious existence of rights. The mantra of self –reliance and economic recovery normalised their struggle and transformed their agency as another cog in the web.

The crisis communication of the national leadership reveals a blatant, substantial and systematic dereliction of duty to safeguard its most vulnerable. Despite doing decently well in implementing a disciplined nationwide lockdown, crucial questions regarding the evolving State behaviour continue to linger on. Has the State’s constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable been substituted with a mere play of semantics, evasion of responsibility and reluctance to address the crisis head on? Does a ‘strong’ and stable government not necessarily produce strength and stability for its populace?

(Ghosh is Researcher, Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata; Das is Assistant Professor, St. Xavier's College, Kolkata)