In Support Of The Lockdown: A Guest Column

I have been noting the condemnation of the decision to impose a nationwide lockdown in response to the Corona virus pandemic on various fora. I felt compelled to share my reasoning as to why I think such condemnations are premature and irresponsible, and therefore warrant a strong rebuttal.

It is always easy to use hindsight to dissect the shortcomings of a decision. I do not believe that the decision taken at the time that it was, could have used the benefit of sufficient analysis and planning. The PM was facing an impossible choice: “Damned if he acts, damned if he doesn’t.” When the decision was taken based on recommendations from WHO and ICMR, most states had already declared lockdowns, or were in the process of doing so. In a sense therefore, it was the least bad time to decide. The decision was unprecedented in its ramifications, and in my opinion was not amenable to the usual prerequisites of an executive decision such as trade-off analysis and risk assessment. It was akin to a split-second decision to be taken on a battlefield.

Consider the realities of our situation as a country: we have a fund-starved healthcare system whose ability to deliver is stifled by reservation and an insensitive bureaucracy. A significant proportion of our labour force, which earns it livelihood through daily wages, does not have proper housing and sanitation facilities. We have the world’s highest proportion of voluntarily internally displaced population. Most of our systems function, not because of institutional capabilities, but because of a few people’s dedication. We are a nation of 1.3 billion people where it is computationally impossible to model the complexity of social interactions preventing any solution from being scaled up. We are not a particularly disciplined people. Planning and strategic depth in thinking is an anathema to our way of operating as a nation. We need to be realistic in our criticisms. The way the situation is turning out is anybody’s guess in that it’s too early to predict how it will unfold. I think the PM has had the conviction and courage to not succumb to political expediency and to invest the substantial goodwill he enjoys and his political capital despite the certainty that his leadership would be strongly challenged. This is laudatory and deserves our collective commendation. He has also had the humility to acknowledge the undesirable albeit unavoidable collateral consequences of his decision and seek forgiveness. I think it we owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizenry to refrain from comments about what could have been done differently and lend support by any means possible to navigate through this crisis. Dissemination of such comments now undermines our capability to marshal the collective efforts and respond effectively.

I also find it noteworthy and a testament to our resilience as a nation that by and large order has prevailed, and no regions of the country have descended into anarchy despite the tough situation. Hopefully this state of affairs will sustain, and there will come a time when we will have the luxury to perform a pragmatic and responsible post-mortem to identify gaps and reform our systems to ensure a better response to future crises.

Jai Hind.

Aniket Bhattacharya

[Aniket Bhattacharya is the first guest columnist to feature on this blog. He loves all things related to Embedded Systems, his family, fast-paced novels, and self-composed songs with completely incomprehensible lyrics, though not necessarily in that order.]

x

Street Fighter

Q1. Do you think Mamata Banerjee's latest dharna act is suicidal?
Q2. Who do you think poses the biggest threat to #Modi in the upcoming #LS2019 elections?

If you think that the answer to the first question is "Yes" and the answer to the second question is "raga", well, then you don't know Mamata Banerjee very well.

In his 1991 blockbuster HUM, Amitabh Bachchan tells Rajinikanth: "You have learned about crime from the books of law. I have learned about crime, and how to fight it, from having lived my entire life among criminals." In many ways, this applies to Mamata. She is a street fighter of the highest order, one who, despite appearances to the contrary, uses her brain as much as she uses brawn. By declaring open war against Modi and the "Modi-led" CBI, she has effectively positioned herself as the mahagathbandhan's main PM candidate. If her "crusade against Modi" affects the election results in the MGB's favour, then Mamata, and not raga, Kejriwal, Akhilesh, Mayawati, or anyone else, will lay the biggest claim to the PM's seat. Every single person knows that raga thinks through his rectum; he is a laughing stock of the biggest order and his "EVM EVM Rafale Rafale" cries have no substance. Hell, the moment he opened his mouth in the Parliament about having "Rafale tapes", Jaitley shut him up. Not one single member of the opposition, including raga, has so far been brave enough to declare open war against Modi, thanks to his immaculate statesman image. Mamata is the only one to have done so. It's a brilliant tactical move, which is actually going to hurt raga more than Modi. Even if the MGB loses this time, as they are sure to, post-election it will reunite not under raga, but under Mamata. Once the polls are over, irrespective of the results, she is going to emerge as the opposition's foremost leader.

Also remember one other thing. Even today, despite everything, Mamata enjoys an incredibly enormous fan base in WB, and not just among rural or muslim voters, but among the urban educated Hindu voters too. She defeated the seemingly invincible CPM on their own turf and on their terms barely 8 years ago, and the people of the state have still not forgotten that. It wasn't an overnight thing: she planned it carefully over a period of 12 years, beginning in 1999. So strong was her image even back then that that mighty thug, Jyoti Basu, literally ran away from the CM's post in 2000, leaving an inexperienced and vulnerable Buddhadeb Bhattacharya to face the Mamata juggernaut in the 2001 elections. Mamata would most likely have made CM in 2001 itself, but that sudden decision to quit the ABV ministry didn't go down well with the state's voters. However, it gave her one full decade to plan CPM's demise better.

Another thing is that Mamata enjoys immense support among members of the opposition, which is why soga has always seen her and few others - nobody else, in fact - as the biggest threat to raga's chances of making PM. This support extends to the interiors of the CONg camp as well; remember her statement: "Even though I have left the Congress party, I can lay down my life for Rajivji even today"?

A third factor of Mamata's wile is that she hardly ever goes to Delhi, but spends almost all her time in Bengal. This puts her in greater touch with her voters than any other leader of the opposition. Even w/o the utter lawlessness that her cadres are going to unleash upon voters in May, Mamata is likely to remain least unaffected (among all the major opposition leaders) by the Modi wave.

So, no, I for one definitely do not think Mamata's anarchist acts are random, idiotic and suicidal. On the contrary, they are much better planned, targeted and orchestrated than anyone else in that camp can execute. I see her as Modi's biggest rival and threat in the entire country today, someone who knows when to strike, where to strike, and how to strike.

And that, for me, is a matter of grave concern.

P.S.: I don't think priyanka gandhi-vadra is going to have any effect on voters at all. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this time, Amethi will go to Smriti Irani.