WHAT THE PANDEMIC TELLS US ABOUT THE STATE

Chanakya

Rarely has the Indian State been put to test as it is being now. The scale of the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing 54-day lockdown — albeit with relaxations that were announced on Friday for the period after May 3 — has been a test for the resilience, integrity, efficiency, decision-making processes and capabilities of the Indian State.

After 40 days of the lockdown, and over 35,000 cases of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19), how has the State fared? Here are the strengths.

One, the Indian State’s coercive arms are extraordinarily strong and efficient. Locking down an entire nation — of India’s population, size, complexity, diversity — was no easy task. But the fact that all the security arms of the State came together, from the Centre to the states, and enforced this lockdown is a testament to the fact that when the State wishes to implement something, on a large scale, curtailing the liberty of citizens for any purpose (in this case for the noble objective of preserving public health), it can do so.

In many cases, the enforcement has been overzealous, leading to the harassment of citizens who work in essential services. In other cases, there have been instances where the enforcement could have been more humane, taking into account the needs of more vulnerable segments. But the big picture that has emerged from the lockdown is this. If there is a clear directive from the Centre, and if the states are on board with it, then the police force can deliver.

This brings us to the second interrelated strength. The lockdown could not have been as successful without the cooperation and support of citizens. People themselves were apprehensive of Covid-19 and feared its spread. And, therefore, they complied with the directive — even when it so severely hurt their livelihoods. But this became possible because of the ability of the State to communicate its message well. In this case, credit has to be given to Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, a communicator par excellence.

The PM has spoken to the people regularly on the pandemic — he addressed the nation four times, and devoted two of his monthly radio addresses to the issue. He did not underplay the scale of the challenge; he told citizens that dealing with this was a difficult challenge for India, with its resources; he used everyday phrases which are easily understandable — such as do gaz ki doori (keeping a distance of two yards), jaan hai to jahaan hai (if there is life, there is a world) — to both convey the precautions that needed to be taken and the importance of saving lives. All of this ensured that the danger posed by the pandemic, and the steps which could minimise its spread, percolated down to the ground, in the remotest of corners.

The third strength of the State was in its decisiveness. Decision-making is difficult in a democracy, which has to contend with multiple interests and voices. Power is often fragmented. But the government remained alert. Despite its weaknesses (low testing in the initial stages, denial of community transmission, the slow pace at which it provided personal protective equipment for health workers), the State acted decisively, took a route that it knew would have high economic costs, and stayed the course — largely allowing scientific inputs and data to drive decision-making.

And the final strength of the State was reflected in the functioning of its federal structure. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which India managed this crisis as a unitary, centralised polity. The fact that there are state governments in place — many of them led by able chief ministers — who have their ear to the ground, who can deploy local administrative machinery quickly, and who can cater to hyper localised requirements has been a big asset in this battle.

But if coercion, communication, decisiveness, and federalism have helped, this crisis has also exposed weaknesses of the Indian State.

The first is the major gap between policy and implementation. The fact that the ministry of home affairs had to send repeated reminders to the state governments and Union territories to allow trucks is just one example of how the lower levels of the bureaucracy have just not been trained enough in the art of nuanced policy implementation. The fact that at many places, local police force used excessive force to crack down on the movement of people is yet another example of its tendency to go overboard. It can use a sledgehammer and enforce blanket orders. But it struggles when it has to make careful distinctions.

This challenge will become particularly acute in the next two weeks — in the backdrop of the Centre’s complex, graded plan for the end of the lockdown. For the local district authorities, and more crucially, the local policeman manning the crossings, to distinguish between what is allowed and what is prohibited and enable activity accordingly will be a major challenge.

The second, more crucial, gap is in the way the Indian State deals with its poorest citizens. Yes, there is now a semblance of a welfare architecture in place. And schemes such as the Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhaar, and Direct Benefits Transfer helped in the more efficient delivery of financial benefits in these times. But the plight of the migrant workers — and the government’s inexplicable delay in addressing their concerns and finally allowing their movement — will rank as a dark chapter in the history of the Indian State. The lockdown will have huge economic costs for all segments, but particularly for the poor — who will suffer a loss of livelihoods.

The third related gap in the Indian State’s record is economic management. Growth had slowed down even before the pandemic. But the lockdown has dealt a blow to all economic sectors; crippled supply chains; curtailed demand; sharpened unemployment; made businesses unviable; brought the entire micro, small and medium enterprises sector to a grinding halt; and made leading businesses — which are at the centre of innovation, contribute to the tax kitty and employ thousands of workers — rethink their entire operational plans. It was the government’s job to anticipate this — and provide measures to help. The fact that there has not yet been any fiscal stimulus package speaks poorly of the Indian State and makes it comes across as both insensitive and irresponsible.