Tuesday, June 9, 2020

What is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Formula and Application
If, ∆x is the error in position measurement and ∆p is the error in the measurement of momentum, then

∆X  ×  ∆p  ≥  \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
 

Since momentum, p = mv, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle formula can be alternatively written as-

∆X  ×  ∆mv  ≥  \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
  or    ∆X  ×  ∆m × ∆v  ≥  \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
 

Where, ∆V is the error in the measurement of velocity and assuming mass remaining constant during the experiment,

∆X  ×  ∆V  ≥   \frac{h}{4\pi m} 
4πm
h
  .

Accurate measurement of position or momentum automatically indicates larger uncertainty (error) in the measurement of the other quantity.

Applying the Heisenberg principle to an electron in an orbit of an atom, with h = 6.626 ×10-34Js and m= 9.11 ×10-31Kg,

∆X ×  ∆V  ≥ \frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14\times 9.11\times {{10}^{-31}}} 
4×3.14×9.11×10 
−31
 
6.626×10 
−34
 
  = 10-4 m2 s-1.

If the position of the electron is measured accurately to its size (10-10m), then the error in the measurement of its velocity will be equal or larger than 106m or 1000Km.

Heisenberg principle applies to only dual-natured microscopic particles and not to a macroscopic particle whose wave nature is very small.

Also Read: de Broglie Equation

Explaining Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle With An Example
Electromagnetic radiations and microscopic matter waves exhibit a dual nature of mass/ momentum and wave character. Position and velocity/momentum of macroscopic matter waves can be determined accurately, simultaneously. For example, the location and speed of a moving car can be determined at the same time, with minimum error. But, in microscopic particles, it will not be possible to fix the position and measure the velocity/momentum of the particle simultaneously.

An electron in an atom has a mass of 9.91 × 10-31Kg. Naked eyes will not see such small particles. A powerful light may collide with the electron and illuminate it. Illumination helps in identifying and measuring the position of the electron. The collision of the powerful light source, while helping in identification increases the momentum of the electron and makes it move away from the initial position. Thus, when fixing the position, velocity /momentum of the particle would have changed from the original value. Hence when the position is exact, error occurs in the measurement of velocity or momentum. In the same way, the measurement of momentum accurately will change the position.

Hence, at any point in time, either position or momentum can only be measured accurately.

Simultaneous measurement of both of them will have an error in both position and momentum. Heisenberg quantified the error in the measurement of both position and momentum at the same time.

Heisenberg’s γ-ray Microscope
A striking thought experiment illustrating the uncertainty principle is Bohr’s / Heisenberg’s Gamma-ray microscope. To observe a particle, say an electron, we shine it with the light ray of wavelength λ and collect the Compton scattered light in a microscope objective whose diameter subtends an angle θ with the electron as shown in the figure below

Heisenberg’s γ-ray Microscope
The precision with which the electron can be located, Delta x, is defined by the resolving power of the microscope,

sin \theta =\frac{\lambda }{\Delta x}\Rightarrow \Delta x=\frac{\lambda }{sin \theta }sinθ= 
Δx
λ
 ⇒Δx= 
sinθ
λ
 

It appears that by making λ small, that is why we choose γ-ray, and by making sin θ large, Delta x can be made as small as desired. But, according to the uncertainty principle, we can do so only at the expense of our knowledge of x-component of electron momentum.

In order to record the Compton scattered photon by the microscope, the photon must stay in the cone of angle θ and hence its x-component of the momentum can vary within ±(h/λ) sin θ. This implies, the magnitude of the recoil momentum of the electron is uncertain by

\Delta p_{x}=\frac{2h}{\lambda }sin \thetaΔp 
x
 = 
λ
2h
 sinθ

The product of the uncertainty yields,

\Delta x\Delta p_{x}=\frac{\lambda }{sin \theta }\frac{2h}{\lambda }sin \theta =4\pi hΔxΔp 
x
 = 
sinθ
λ
  
λ
2h
 sinθ=4πh

Is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle Noticeable in All Matter Waves?
Heisenberg’s principle is applicable to all matter waves. The measurement error of any two conjugate properties, whose dimensions happen to be joule sec, like position-momentum, time-energy will be guided by the Heisenberg’s value.

But, it will be noticeable and of significance only for small particles like an electron with very low mass. A bigger particle with heavy mass will show the error to be very small and negligible.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Equations
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be considered as a very precise mathematical statement that describes the nature of quantum systems. As such, we often consider two common equations related to the uncertainty principle. They are;

Equation 1: ∆X ⋅ ∆p ~ ħ

Equation 2:  ∆E ⋅ ∆t ~ ħ

Where,

ħ = value of the Planck’s constant divided by 2*pi
∆X = uncertainty in the position
∆p = uncertainty in momentum
∆E = uncertainty in the energy
∆t = uncertainty in time measurement

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Problems With Solutions
1. If the position of the electron is measured within an accuracy of + 0.002 nm, calculate the uncertainty in the momentum of the electron. Suppose the momentum of the electron is h / 4pm × 0.05 nm, is there any problem in defining this value.

a) ∆x = 2×10-12m; ∆X  ×  ∆mV  ≥  \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
  = \frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14} 
4×3.14
6.626×10 
−34
 
 

⸪    ∆mV  ≥   \frac{h}{4\pi \Delta x} 
4πΔx
h
  ≥ \frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14\times 2\times {{10}^{-12}}}\, 
4×3.14×2×10 
−12
 
6.626×10 
−34
 
  = 2.64 × 10-23 Kg m s-1

b) Momentum mv = \,\frac{h\times 5\times {{10}^{-11}}}{4\times {{10}^{-12}}}=\frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}\times 5\times {{10}^{-11}}}{4\times {{10}^{-12}}}\,\, 
4×10 
−12
 
h×5×10 
−11
 
 = 
4×10 
−12
 
6.626×10 
−34
 ×5×10 
−11
 
  = 28 × 10-33

Error in momentum measurement is 1010 times larger than the actual momentum. The given momentum will not be acceptable.

2. Position of a chloride ion on a material can be determined to a maximum error of 1μm. If the mass of the chloride ion is 5.86 × 10-26Kg, what will be the error in its velocity measurement?

∆x =  10-6 m; ∆X  ×  ∆mV  ≥ \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
  = \,\frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14} 
4×3.14
6.626×10 
−34
 
    = 5.28×10-35Js

⸪    ∆V ≥ \,\frac{h}{4\pi m\Delta x}\ge \frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14\times 5.86\times {{10}^{-26}}\times {{10}^{-6}}}\, 
4πmΔx
h
 ≥ 
4×3.14×5.86×10 
−26
 ×10 
−6
 
6.626×10 
−34
 
  = 9  × 10-4m s-1

3. The lifetime of an excited state of an atom is 3 × 10-3s. What is the minimum uncertainty in its energy in eV?

Time and energy are conjugate pairs with Js unit. The product of measurement error is given by Heisenberg’s principle.

∆t  ×  ∆E  ≥   \frac{h}{4\pi } 
h
  =   \,\frac{6.626\times {{10}^{-34}}}{4\times 3.14} 
4×3.14
6.626×10 
−34
 
  = 5.28×10-35Js

Assuming a maximum error in the measurement of lifetime equal to that of lifetime = 3 ×10-3s

∆E  ≥   \,\frac{h}{4\pi m\Delta x}=\frac{1}{3\times {{10}^{-3}}}\,\, 
4πmΔx
h
 = 
3×10 
−3
 
1
   × 5.28×10-35J

⸪ 1 Joule = 6.242 × 1018ev,

Uncertainty in the determination of energy of the atom = ∆E = 6.22 × 1018 ×  \frac{1}{3\times {{10}^{-3}}}\, 
3×10 
−3
 
1
  × 5.28 ×10-35

= 1.1×10-13

Thursday, May 21, 2020

2-metre distance may not be enough:Sir Riko Mahato


Droplets of saliva can travel as far as six metres even in low wind speeds of 4kmph, a new study has found, indicating that current social distancing guidelines of two metres may be insufficient to stop a Covid-19 patient from transmitting the disease.

The study, published in the Physics of Fluids journal under the American Institute of Physics, used a three-dimensional model to investigate the transport, dispersion, and evaporation of saliva particles from human cough.

The scientists found that when the wind speed is approximately zero, the saliva droplets did not travel 2 metres, which is well within the social distancing recommendations.

“Even with a slight breeze of 4 km/h, saliva travels 6 metres in five seconds. Therefore, depending on the environmental conditions, the 2 m social distance may not be sufficient, so crowed places will be affected,” said Dimitris Drikakis, co-author of the study, in an email to HT. If the wind speed is 15kmph, the droplet travelled 6 metres in 1.6 seconds.

To study how saliva moves through air, the scientists created a computational fluid dynamics simulation that examined the state of every saliva droplet moving through the air in front of a coughing person.

Their simulation considered the effects of humidity, dispersion force, interactions of molecules of saliva and air, and how the droplets change from liquid to vapour and evaporate.

“The purpose of the mathematical modelling and simulation is to take into account all the interaction mechanisms that may take place between the main bulk fluid flow and the saliva droplets, and between the saliva droplets themselves,” said Talib Dbouk, co-author of the paper.

The scientists considered an environment of 20 °C for the fluid, 50% relative humidity, 15 °C at the ground, and 34 °C for the human mouth.

The scientists agreed that more studies needed to be done to understand the behaviour of fluid droplets in indoor environments, where air conditioning significantly affects the particle movement through air.

“It is worth investigating the behaviour of saliva in indoor environments, where air conditioning systems may have significant effects on the movement of particles through the air,” Drikakis said.

Transmission of the coronavirus through speech and cough droplets, especially in public spaces and crowded environments, has been a major area of concern for policy makers and governments. Globally, research has shown that the virus spreads easily in an aerosol form, and even through speech.

As a consequence, governments across the world have increasingly mandated the usage of masks to help stop the spread of the infection.

Covid-19: The science behind India’s trajectoryThe predominantly asymptomatic course of the disease and limited number of critical cases merit more scrutiny

In the history of mankind, there have been several pandemics from the Justinian Plague in the 6th century to the Spanish Flu (HINI influenza) in 1918. The 21st century remarkably has already seen three coronavirus-related outbreaks — the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) in 2002 which claimed 800 lives, the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (Mers) in 2012 (862 deaths), and now the coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Despite advancements in medical sciences, it is impossible to predict when the next infectious disease outbreak will take place. So, we need to be on full alert.

With India surpassing China in the overall number of infections, a comparison between the two in terms of infection trajectories is interesting. Compared to the more gradual increase of infections in India since mid-March, China witnessed a steep rise in January and February, forcing the administration to impose a strict lockdown in Wuhan on January 23 — two months earlier than India — lasting for over 70 days by which time the curve was flattened and has remained, by and large, static till date. The United States (US) and Europe have shown a trajectory similar to that of China, which makes India something of an outlier.

Noticeably, India recorded nearly 45% fewer fatalities than China, although active cases remain over 60% of the total number of persons infected, as against nearly zero in China. India’s over 38% recoveries are higher than those of many nations at the same level of infection, although still lower than hotspot European nations such as Germany, Spain and Italy. Further, while the disease remained primarily confined in China to the Hubei province in general, and Wuhan in particular, India witnessed a more widespread infection with the four states of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Delhi accounting for two-thirds of India’s total cases.

Higher recovery rates are indicative of effective adaptive immunity developing against the pathogen. On the other hand, the largely inherent immunity of the Indian population might explain the comparative lower fatality/severity rates so far observed. At this point of time, the important question is whether people who clear a SARS-CoV-2 infection can ward off the virus in the future? An answer to this will have implications for creating better vaccines.

Epidemiological and nutritional factors have been discussed to explain the population-specific differential susceptibility, progression and severity/mortality of Covid-19 across the globe. Nevertheless, deciphering genetic polymorphism of the immunologically-relevant genes that influence host immunity could reveal population-specific correlates of protection and/or vulnerability to the Covid-19 challenge.

The two most important of these are those encompassing the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) system and the Killer-cell Immunoglobulin-like Receptor (KIR) genes, both of which have evolved in humans to maintain a robust immune challenge to invading microbes. Substantial data exists on the genetic propensity of HLA and KIR systems in autoimmune and infectious diseases including HIV/AIDS.

The highly polymorphic nature of the two genetic systems signifies their functional importance acquired during the course of evolution. They functionally regulate the body’s immune warriors, namely, the cytotoxic T-cells on one hand, and the natural killer cells on the other, both of which directly target the virus and help to eliminate it. A deep understanding of these in Covid-19 will be vital in developing effective screening tools for predicting prognosis and response to therapy, including designing individualised therapeutic strategies.

In the Indian context, scientists must find answers to two critical observations. First, the observed predominantly asymptomatic clinical course of the disease, and second, the rather limited number of severe and critical cases in India so far. All efforts must be made to discover measurable immunological biomarkers that are predictive of severe disease and favourable treatment outcomes. Despite limitations in understanding the mechanistic aspects of Covid-19 pathology, the challenge is to develop strategies for recruiting innate and adaptive arms of the immune system against the virus. A recent study found that some people who have never been infected with SARS-CoV-2 harbour T-cells that target this virus, indicating that they might have previously been infected with other coronaviruses sharing sequence similarities. Again, this is encouraging data for designing therapies.

The question is how long does it take to develop reasonably effective treatments for contagious diseases? Historically, while smallpox and polio took thousands of years to get an effective vaccine, HIV/AIDS took a mere 15 years before antiviral drug therapy was developed although an effective vaccine has still not been found. For Covid-19, the rapidity with which the world scientific community has got together, sharing knowledge and information in the singular task of defeating the novel coronavirus, is indeed unprecedented.

Currently, all eyes are on the World Health Organization-sponsored solidarity trial that tests, in addition to the standard care, four different lines of treatment regimens to save lives in the short-term. The trial involving thousands of patients worldwide from genetically disparate population groups will test the efficacy of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopanavir/ritonavir combination with or without interferon-beta. Analysing the population-specific influence of genetic systems could provide valuable information on possible differential response to treatment and long-term protection. Identifying HLA variants in infected people can help predict the severity of infection and determine who would eventually benefit from a vaccine.

Science alone can motivate tomorrow’s health care providers to rise to their fullest potential and deliver life-saving devices to prevent and treat this and future viral pandemics. In this context, innovative technologies to tackle global emergencies are urgent necessities

In its approach to the IBC, the government got it right

An impending suspension of India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was being widely reported till recently. For businesses pushed into default by the nationwide lockdown, such a suspension made ample sense, but speculation about a blanket suspension of all IBC insolvency admissions fuelled concern in global insolvency circles.

Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s announcements are thus being met with relief, though some ambiguity remains. Her IBC-related statements centred on (i) the impact of the pandemic and lockdown on businesses, and (ii) a revision of the definition of “default” under IBC to suspend the “fresh initiation” of insolvency proceedings based on coronavirus disease (Covid-19)-related defaults. The government’s intent appears to be a limited suspension of “fresh” insolvency cases, disallowing admission based on defaults related to the pandemic. This will avoid potential pitfalls of a blanket suspension, and underscores India’s commitment to credit reforms.

So as not to derail the progress of the reforms, the criteria for suspension of new admissions should not be open to interpretation, or manipulation by debtors. Since an existing default is the central criterion for insolvency admissions under IBC, and given the lockdown’s impact, the government may be contemplating suspension of insolvency admissions based on defaults occurring after the lockdown had been put in place. Such a clear and practicable delineation would keep IBC admissions in check, and yet permit admission based on pre-lockdown defaults.

The announcements also referred to the suspension being for up to one year. Such a fixed-duration waiver is reassuring. It will allow borrowers hurt by the pandemic a chance to recover, or to attempt to restructure outside the unsuitably prescriptive confines of the present IBC process. It will also ease the burden on capacity-constrained insolvency tribunals, and provide an opportunity to refine the Code or regulations to best serve the changing needs of the day.

Meeting the aspirations of Indians — two-thirds of them are below 35 years — requires sustained, and high, economic growth. This hinges crucially on the consistent, and appropriately priced, supply of credit. Since 2015, a series of inspired reform measures have transformed India’s reputation as a credit jurisdiction. Nearly every key player in the effort — the government, the Bankruptcy Law Reform Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Committee for IBC, the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board, the National Company Law Tribunals, and very notably the Supreme Court — has come through remarkably in remaking India’s pariah credit regime of the past. We now take for granted outcomes that were unthinkable a mere three years ago, such as the IBC transfers of goliaths like Bhushan Steel and Essar Steel.

Notably, though, India’s credit regime transformation is still a victory-in-the-making. Much remains to be done to achieve better insolvency outcomes, including wider participation, and market-driven bids in the insolvency process. In this context, the nuanced approach the government appears to have chosen will bolster India’s reputation as a jurisdiction that takes creditor and investor rights seriously. It will also reinforce the high ground Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has gained through its resolute and intelligent reforms.

There are four reasons why the calibrated suspension of IBC, rather than a blanket, across-the-board suspension, is positive.

First, a blanket suspension would have thwarted the battle for better insolvency outcomes. With the new law and courts in place, decades-worth of jurisprudence has been created over the past three years. The system is only now evolving to restructure companies with the participation of new management teams, turnaround experts and capital providers. Distressed investors’ are also trying to help modulate inflexible resolution practices, and adapting to idiosyncrasies of historical banking regulation. A blanket suspension would have dealt a blow to the new insolvency regime readying for take-off.

Second, maintaining a reasonable flow of new cases based on pre-Covid-19 defaults will avoid destabilising a nascent insolvency ecosystem, which incorporates law, finance and business . If new IBC activity were to stall, investors, lawyers, restructuring advisers, etc., who have chosen to specialise in insolvency may redirect their efforts, leaving system capacity dissipated.

Third, a blanket suspension would have re-energised errant borrowers. To equate such defaulters with hitherto performing borrowers pushed into default by the pandemic is inimical to logic. Enabling insolvency transfers from such borrowers has taken great resolve and responsiveness, as evidenced by Section 29A bid eligibility restrictions which prioritise system-wide, long-term benefits while sacrificing higher immediate recoveries.

Finally, for investors, the limited suspension underscores the political will, vision, and grit that brought IBC to life, rather than invoking fears of the credit regime that IBC’s enactment banished. A blanket suspension of such a landmark law would have been a hark back to the whimsy-cum-grand larceny that defined Indian credit for decades. Investors are paid to worry, and would have found therein reason to doubt India’s commitment to creditor rights, property rights and the rule of law just as they are finding a surfeit of distressed opportunities elsewhere.

In this time of economic distress, the answer lies not in brushing IBC aside, but in actively encouraging its application, development and evolution. Just as the world may be shifting towards government-led solutions in the post-Covid-19 era, it may help India to find faith in market-led solutions to gain a march on other jurisdictions, and create superior insolvency outcomes.

Ensuring a steady supply of credit at appropriate interest rates is a pre-requisite for India’s continued economic growth and the prosperity of the next generation. In keeping its faith in IBC with only a limited suspension, the Indian government appears to have chosen wisely in letting a winner ru

Build back, with an eye on the environment

The first peer-reviewed analysis of the coronavirus pandemic’s impact on global carbon emissions has reported that daily emissions of the greenhouse gas plunged 17% by early April compared to 2019 levels. However, the annual decline is likely to be only about 7%, if some restrictions to halt the spread of the coronavirus remain in place. If they are lifted in mid-June, the fall for the year is likely to be 4%. That would still be the biggest annual drop in emissions since World War II. While the steep drop is good news, it will make little dent in the larger battle against global warming. A UN Environment Programme report last year found that emissions must fall by 7.6% every year this decade to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of checking warming at 1.5°C.

In an interview to The Guardian, one of the scientists involved in the new study said that experience of the crisis has shown that changes in behaviour by individuals — such as not flying, working from home and driving less — can help cut emissions partly. But the bulk of emission sources remain intact, which suggests that the world needs structural changes in the economy and industry. That’s why the coronavirus-induced slowdown must be used as a moment to build more sustainable, resilient and inclusive economies. Otherwise, the climate crisis will not just have its own set of effects but also lead to more health scares, environmental degradation, natural disasters, and inequality, with vulnerable communities most affected. Every crisis now has a strong environment dimension. Use the dip in emissions to imagine a new, more eco-friendly, world.

PM Modi can learn from CM ModiIn 2001, Gujarat was hit by a devastating disaster. Its economic reconstruction is worth emulating

Riko Mahato

Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, in his address to the nation on May 12, said that ~20 lakh crore for 2020 will be the size of India’s coronavirus disease (Covid-19) economic recovery package. It was evident that he liked how the 20s rhymed neatly. Finance minister (FM) Nirmala Sitharaman, in a daily show over the next five days, attempted to provide the details of this package. By the end of the fifth day, it was clear that the FM realised there was a huge trust deficit in the package and mounted a pugilistic public defence, in the style of her previous avatar as a party spokesperson in a cacophonous television debate.

It also sparked an analysis frenzy on the gap between the PM’s “20s” and the FM’s numbers. Was the true fiscal size of the package, ~1 lakh crore or ~1.68 lakh crore or ~86,000 crore? Is this fiscal or monetary, an expenditure or liquidity, a demand-side or supply-side measure? This was the debate among economists, analysts, commentators and even political news anchors.

The PM’s farcical ~20 lakh crore for 2020 claim became the focal point for all discussions on what was supposed to be a serious recovery plan to help the nation bounce back from arguably the greatest economic devastation in independent India. Millions of migrants walking home, shuttered businesses and jobless Indians do not care two hoots if the package were ~20 lakh or ~2 lakh crores, as long as they get assistance immediately to survive. Alas, India’s Covid-19 economic recovery plan has descended into a struggle for media headlines more than helping a struggling economy. But, India’s political leaders and government administrators have a successful history of the reconstruction of the economy and society after a natural disaster. One example that will resonate best today is the story of Gujarat’s reconstruction after the devastating 2001 earthquake.

As the nation was celebrating its 51st Republic Day in 2001, Gujarat was hit by its worst-ever natural disaster — a 6.9 earthquake on the Richter scale. Around 20,000 people died, and 200,000 injured. A million homes, 12,000 schools, 1,200 clinics and 5,000 small businesses were destroyed. The economic impact was 3% of Gujarat’s GDP, even though the epicentre was not a major contributor to Gujarat’s economy. The Gujarat Disaster Management Authority was set up and tasked with rebuilding lives and livelihoods. An amount equivalent to 6.5% of Gujarat’s GDP and one-fifth of overall budget expenditure was immediately allocated for relief and rehabilitation. This was over the budgeted expenditure, for which money was borrowed. Gujarat’s fiscal deficit went from a budgeted 5.1% to 7.5% in FY 2001 and from 5.8% to 9.1% in FY 2002. (source: ADB) Food supplies, medical relief and cash compensation were paid immediately to the affected people. Livelihoods were restored through reconstruction activities which provided a stimulus to other sectors in the economy. This is what economists term as deficit spending in the wake of a crisis. In two years, Gujarat’s economy was back on track. No one knows this better than the then chief minister of Gujarat, who is now the prime minister.

Yet, it is befuddling that Modi is being diffident about deficit spending to cushion the economic shock of the Covid-19 pandemic. Perhaps, the PM fears a potential downgrade of India’s sovereign ratings by international rating agencies if the fiscal deficit is allowed to balloon like it did in Gujarat. When the rating agency Moody’s upgraded India’s ratings in November 2017, the Modi government read it as an endorsement to pursue fiscal prudence. In which case, it is important to remind the PM that the fiscal deficit is measured as a percentage of GDP, and GDP could decline precipitously if bold and appropriate measures are not taken now. So, if GDP declines much more than it should, then the fiscal deficit is going to look bad anyway, even if the government does not indulge in additional spending.

The need of the hour is to put a large chunk of money directly into the hands of the vulnerable. There is consensus among Indian industry too, some voiced publicly and most privately, that it is in their own interests to revive demand by putting money into people’s hands. It is reasonable if the government’s position is that since it is just the beginning of the financial year and the crisis still has a long way to go, one can calibrate the need for deficit spending as the situation evolves. Regardless, the timidity of the government’s response to today’s needs of the suffering millions is inexplicable and unjustifiable.

India’s Covid-19 lockdown is the harshest and the longest among all countries in the world. It is then only logical that the adverse economic impact would also be the most severe in India.

Just as we have now realised that Indian genes or soil cannot escape the laws of science and prevent the spread of coronavirus, it is also important to recognise there is no escape from the laws of economics of the adverse impact of a lockdown. Infantile claims such as ~20 lakh crores for 2020 or that the coronavirus chain of infection will be broken in 21 days are not worth discussing seriously, in this grave fight against the coronavirus and its calamitous impact.

Supporting the unemployed

India was in the middle of an economic slowdown before the pandemic. With the coronavirus, and the national lockdown imposed to curb its spread, the slowdown has potentially turned into a recession. The government’s announcement of ₹20 lakh crore package is an acknowledgment of the crisis at hand.

One key way in which this crisis is getting reflected is in the unemployment figures. Even before the pandemic, India was staring at relatively high unemployment — an official report indicated a 6% unemployment rate in 2017-18, the highest in 45 years. Over 12 million people enter the workforce every year, and India has struggled to create new jobs. This trend has now got accelerated. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), the unemployment rate was 24% in the week ending May 17. Its April data shows that it was predominantly small traders and labourers, followed by entrepreneurs, and then salaried employees who lost their jobs. This is not surprising. If factories and shops are closed, if daily wage labourers and street vendors can’t work, if companies begin losing revenues drastically, there will be job losses. The problem is that the easing of the lockdown will not immediately restore these jobs.

That is why a key component of any relief package has to take into account this rising unemployment. By pumping in an additional ₹40,000 crore into the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), the government is hoping to create a financial buffer for those who have returned home to their villages. And by unveiling structural reforms, it hopes to get the economy kickstarted. But this will not solve the immediate crisis — where people, in the absence of jobs, don’t have incomes, which, in turn, makes basic livelihood difficult. The poor will get most severely affected, but so will large sections of the middle class who are staring at salary cuts or job losses, which will reduce their purchasing power and ability to take and pay loans sharply. This, in turn, will have an impact across a range of sectors. Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said that she is open to suggestions and, as the year progresses, there will be more measures. India will have to look more carefully at both the United States, which is offering a generous unemployment allowance, and the United Kingdom, which has offered wage support to workers. There will be issues of resources, and identifying and targeting beneficiaries. But India may, sooner than later, need to introduce an unemployment allowance to help citizens overcome this crisis.

Finding funds: On COP28 and the ‘loss and damage’ fund....

A healthy loss and damage (L&D) fund, a three-decade-old demand, is a fundamental expression of climate justice. The L&D fund is a c...