GANDHI’S TEACHINGS COULD GUIDE A RECOVERY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

GANDHI’S TEACHINGS COULD GUIDE A RECOVERY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

• The impact of any state decision on the weakest must be taken into account as a matter of principle
• In a world saturated with images, some of the most haunting sights in recent months have been photographs of hundreds if not thousands of poor people who worked in India’s large cities—waiting at tables, constructing high-rises, cleaning streets and homes, and making them hum—lifting their meagre belongings and walking long distances to return home after the nationwide lockdown was announced with only a few hours’ notice given to people. Many were reminded of the mass migrations during Partition.
• Strife forces people to leave the source of that strife. But, by all accounts, cities in India have better infrastructure and facilities than villages. There are more doctors, clinics and hospitals, and more pharmacies in cities. But people surmised, correctly, that the cities may not be able to cope, and they would be left without help, having to rely on private charity or individual acts of kindness. So, they left better-resourced cities for poorer towns and villages.
• People seek refuge when they fear persecution, leaving a dangerous place for another that offers some safety, even if the destination is not perfect. People also escape the imminent danger that natural disasters pose. Floods, famines and other catastrophes often force them to leave. Or people are compelled to leave by poverty, choosing instead to do back-breaking work in often-harsh environments overseas because work is not available at home.
• The lockdown did not fit any of those patterns. Some kind of shutdown was essential to prevent the covid pandemic from taking hold and to protect lives, which is an obligation for governments. But planning for it and ensuring that the vulnerable don’t feel helpless is also an important government obligation.
• India announced its lockdown several weeks after the first case was known. By this time, the world knew the gravity of the situation. The country could have had an orderly lockdown, so that those who suddenly lost their incomes would have some assurance that they would be looked after. But the lockdown offered no such promise, with people being told to stay where they were, even if they lived in congested slums, and there was no mention of other support.
• And so the poor did what they had to. They relied on their instinct and ingenuity, and chose to walk. That they did not trust the state or their employers is a telling indictment of what has become of India. The government initially denied that there were workers walking home; then pictures emerged of them being sprayed with chemicals as they crossed state borders; and then the government said it lacked data.
• Employers had closed operations, and many provided little information on compensatory pay or any other relief measures (though many companies understandably did not know what would happen next). This lack of trust in those holding power was a chastening moment for Indian society. It meant that the poor knew better than to trust the establishment. It suggested the unravelling of the social contract.
• Instead of compassion, people found themselves at the receiving end of the state’s force. This turned a public health emergency into a law and order one; notice the use of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes the disobedience of an order issued by a public servant. Those who had no choice but to step out of their homes were threatened with punishment.
• The said penal code, we must remember, is a colonial-era provision that treats Indian citizens as subjects, forcing their obedience to an all-powerful agent of the state.