Lessons from a Pandemic, and beyond

They say that it is a heyday for conspiracy theorists when they perceive the world order to be in an anarchical state. COVID-19, primarily originating from the industrial town of Wuhan in China, has now captured the attention of the world’s best minds as much as the multitude alike. With a staggering count of over three million infected and over two hundred thousand fatalities, the act of discounting the threat from this invisible virus would be nothing short of imbecilic. Nature’s most social animal now needs to confine himself within the four walls of the home.

At this hour of adversity, outrageous claims have flooded the public domain, with opinions ranging from anything as grave as biowarfare to toned-down claims of divine punishment for humanity’s sins. Further complicating the matter are calls for cutting down on the WHO’s budget- thereby derailing efforts to provide aid where ever it is most necessary. Every single worker, corporation and institution has to bear the wrath of the rampage trail that the virus will leave behind. In the next few years, we may have to radically alter our lifestyle to stay off the radar of the disease. COVID-19’s impacts are anything beyond that of a petty trade war or an experiment gone astray; it holds immense sway and influence over the geopolitics of the land that is soon to follow once the situation subsides. This essay is an attempt to debunk such claims and examine each such observation on its merit.

Debunking Myths

The United States and the People’s Republic of China are engaged in a bitter trade battle ever since mid-2018. The American President grew increasingly distraught by the States’ growing trade imbalance with China, and accused Chinese officials of complicity in unfair trade practices and violation of intellectual property rights. In June 2018, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Chinese imports worth $34 billion and proclaimed a slew of cesses on other imports worth $16 billion. Till date, the US has slapped hefty import fees on Chinese goods totalling a sizeable $360 billion. In China, anti-US sentiments were quick to grow; they realised the move as an attempt to throttle the Chinese ambition for economic ascendancy. In retaliation, China imposed higher import duties on American goods worth $110 billion. As China delivers many key raw materials, a rise in import costs disrupts supply chains, thereby making products dearer. The US also hurt Chinese interests indirectly by blacklisting telecom major Huawei on flimsy grounds of national security and bullied allies into doing the same by threatening them with duties.

With China’s interests and fortunes swiftly heading south, many observers have remarked that the emergence of a novel coronavirus- that results in severe respiratory difficulties and in some cases, even death- is a ploy by China to halt the pressure tactics employed by the US. They remark that it is a diversionary tactic used by the Chinese administration to shift attention to domestic affairs, thereby providing China the necessary time to work upon its strategic interests. The fact that China has tamed the pandemic significantly quicker (critics being fully aware of the notoriety of Chinese data repression), and the US taking the hardest hit, have aroused the suspicion of foul play by many. The obvious futility of the claim stands out. The novel coronavirus has not discriminated its victims by race or nationality, or between the class divide of privileged and the poor; it has brought misery to the integrated world in unimaginable proportions equitably. If indeed the coronavirus was devised by the Chinese state, it would have been an economically suicidal move. Roughly five million people, by official estimates, lost their jobs in the first two months of the crisis. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit predicts that by the end of the year, livelihoods of around nine million people would be hanging by the dagger due to the financial implication on corporations. The outbreak has also renewed considerable interest in de-centralising manufacturing units from China into other parts of the world. So far, fifty-six global manufacturing behemoths have applied to shift their bases out of China into nearby East Asian economies. A country that wishes to have economic command over the global order cannot afford to drive out the very corporations that finance its growth.

At Stake: Credibility of Global Institutions

Of course, a few nations, mostly East Asian, combated the coronavirus in its early stages with proactive response to blunt the effectiveness. Others were not so lucky and thereby got caught in the crossfire of economic haemorrhage and rising deaths. India’s lockdown, although draconian and resulting in unending hardships to the populace at large, has somewhat managed to stem the surge of cases that was expected in a country as diverse and dynamic as itself. The United States has lost the battle not because the virus was explicitly ‘programmed’ to infect them, but because of widespread ignorance, foolhardiness on the part of the national administration, and most importantly, a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the natives themselves. A few days back, the mayor of Las Vegas- the supposed ‘entertainment capital of the world’- advocated the complete reopening of the casinos to pump the economy, utterly oblivious to the perils it carried.

The outbreak of the pandemic has also put the credibility of global institutions like the World Health Organisation (WHO) at stake. The WHO was accused of complacency and pliability to Chinese claims when concentrated pneumonic clusters were discovered initially in the Hubei province. The organisation indeed failed to independently test the veracity of cases, and thereby did not live up to its founding principles. It continued to vet until late January that the novel coronavirus was not a potent threat to humankind before strong evidence suggested the obverse. The United States, responsible for providing 15% of the WHO’s budget, has now stopped funding over claims of delayed action and misleading advisories. UN Secretary-General António Guterres was swift to condemn Trump’s move, saying the WHO “… must be supported, as it is absolutely critical to the world’s efforts to win the war against Covid-19.” Almost parallelly, economic and political institutions are also under severe duress during the lockdown period across the world. Rating agency Morgan Stanley expects a global recession in the first half of the fiscal year 2020-21. Fitch Ratings has slashed India’s GDP growth rate prediction to 0.8% after two stints of lockdown that have battered the economy. The political machinery is also under fire in several parts of the world, battling not just the crisis, but also negative publicity coverage detailing mishandling and inept administration. Brazilian President Jose Bolsenaro has also been heavily criticised for his reluctant stand on an emergency intervention to aid the crumbling economy, forcing provincial governors to act on their own accord. India has had considerably better instances of cooperative federalism as has always been seen in times of crises.

The Way Forward

There is not an iota of doubt that an international commission should be established to probe the outbreak of this virus. If Chinese officials are found guilty of misappropriation, they should be taken to task. However, there is no benefit to the mass hysteria surrounding such conspiracy theories at this moment. They hold no gravity unless verified and cardinally serve to promote hatred and racism towards people of Chinese genealogy. If we have integrated the world to a scale famously christened the ‘global village’, it should also be equally convenient to derive benefits of this connectivity at the lowest levels of the village. Several prominent Data and IT industry firms have already made their products open-access for a limited time to enrich and benefit whatever conclusive outcome can be derived via the use of appropriate technology. Stimulus packages need to be doled by governments across the world to kickstart their economies. As the famous American economist Paul Krugman said, it is best to “… maintain profligacy in depression, and austerity in good times“.

If the pandemic has provided us with a lesson at all, it is this- that the world is brutally unprepared to deal with catastrophes of such magnitudes. Leaders across the globe should pledge allegiance to nurture and spend on medical science and healthcare, cutting across party lines. In the twenty-first century, even an outbreak in the remotest corner of a deserted African village has the potential to bring chaos and wreak havoc on establishments across the world. The primed catchphrase of ‘Vasudeva Kutumbakam’ is what we need to recall now, allowing ourselves to heal the world and committing resources to fight the battle together- if nothing, almost as a requiem for Li Wienliang- who braved dreaded State institutions to blow the whistle on the horror that the world was soon to witness.

Healthcare 2.0: Road to Revamping India’s Health Sector

The COVID-19 pandemic has proved yet again why healthcare remains an integral ingredient for national advancement. With healthcare systems around the world having been pushed to their edge, often running with over-worked staff themselves, the fallout is discernible. In India, we are all set to hit the grim milestone of ten thousand cases of infections, a figure that has come by unimaginably quick. Could we have done better in our efforts against the pandemic raging the world? There is no denying that.

That, however, does not indicate that there remain no positives; the testing net is now being widened daily, and the treatise of ‘treat-test-track’ has been taken up on a war footing in most of the states where the virus has ravaged lives. Better preparedness is always a strategic advantage and never a burden. Our infrastructure today is woefully incompetent when juxtaposed against those in the West. In a nation of a billion people, effective implementation and planning are the two most essential components for any policy to meet its goal and find success. As the coronavirus threat surges over days, it is necessary to take stock of the challenges that lay ahead and imbibe amendments to the healthcare policy and planning in India. At this hour, our health sector presents itself as unsavoury conjunction of fledgeling infrastructure, negligence and a noticeable shortage of qualified doctors for medical practice. The government’s top-most reform agenda must now be to restructure the medical institutions in India and make it more resilient towards ghastly outbreaks as the present one.

While seeking to better our healthcare planning, it would be a beneficial exercise to take a peek into the two famed global models- that of the US (insurance-based) and the UK (NHS model). The United States spends around 18% of its GDP, a figure on the higher end when compared to global averages, on healthcare. A reputed journal calls the US system of healthcare a poorly framed “patchwork of fragmented systems and policies”. It is not universal by design, and medical treatment is often expensive. Hence, the merits of a highly educated workforce and scientific progress do not trickle down to those who require it the most. Several attempts were made to reconcile the system, but have often been overturned or disfigured beyond recognition- a classic case-in-point was that of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly christened ‘Obamacare’. The UK, on the contrary, has a state-sponsored model for providing primary healthcare to all its citizens. The National Health Service, institutionalised in 1948, was a prescient attempt at making healthcare accessible to all, irrespective of the social strata of those incoming. The NHS is allocated roughly around 8% of the UK’s GDP resources, but it has proven itself far beyond its Atlantic counterpart. The services of the NHS come to the aid of several people who can ill-afford otherwise expensive treatment costs. The funding comes entirely from tax collections paid for by the population. Several developmental economists agree in principle that the NHS model is superior to that of the United States’, wherein even by implanting a lesser burden on the exchequer, more people have access to quality healthcare.

A volley of committees has been established to analyse the state of health planning in India and suggest recommendations to improve upon the same. The earliest amongst these was the Bhore Committee report (1946). It was by far the most comprehensive report on streamlining the health sector, with multi-stage suggestions to act upon. The report suggested a complete integration of the preventive and curative segments of medical care at all administrative levels. It also laid its emphasis on the necessity to build a robust health infrastructure, with a particular focus on primary healthcare. The report also batted for accessible healthcare, and observed that “… no individual should fail to secure adequate medical care, because of inability to pay for it”- tiptoeing the line of the yet to be founded NHS. The Committee also displayed a remarkable sense of openness to innovative ideas, noting that sufficient provisions should be ensured to facilitate representatives from the medical, and other auxiliary fields, to contribute to the discourse and shape the public policy. It also looked at the possibility of revamping medical education and allied vocational training, to produce what it called “social physicians”.

In the era of early post-Independence, the government under Nehru fixated itself onto the cause for eradicating epidemics. Nationwide campaigns to exterminate such diseases as polio, tuberculosis, smallpox, et cetera were launched, emblematic of the colonial percept that the most effective way to combat diseases was to exterminate the germs themselves. Yet, the founding cause of all the diseases- cardinally social- was ignored. Such a singular and narrow vision concerning health policy also derailed the enactment of the recommendations made by the Bhore Committee. Recommendations made by several other committees as the Mudaliar Committee (1962), Chadha Committee (1963), Mukherjee Committee (1965, 66) and others- which echoed the sentiments of the Bhore Committee- were also neglected. The cost of such problematic prioritisation and disregard in the foundational years has reared its ugly head now. Presently, the Government of India spends a pitiable 1.29% towards healthcare, including investments on centrally-sponsored schemes. An OECD report pegged the total health spending (both out of pocket, and public expenditure) at 3.86% in India, also unabashedly low when contrasted with the OECD mean of 8.8% of the GDP.

There can remain no hitch in the mind that in a country as teeming and dynamic as India, the NHS model seems the way to look forward to. The present NDA government had framed the National Healthcare Policy (2017), which envisaged public spending worth 2.5% of the GDP. Of course, the first compulsion for the government must be to significantly prop up public health spending from the present measly allocation of 1.3%. The Kothari Commission (1966) also recommended spending 6% on education. World-class educational institutions, with a scientific bent of thought and with an innate knack for research-oriented studies, need to be cultivated. We are surely not short on merit. Public healthcare policy will triumph only when it successfully marries such talent with state-of-the-art infrastructure. This idea also resonates in complete sync with noted economist Robert Solow’s concept of ‘Total Factor Productivity’ – that human capital accumulation has a direct empirical relation with national growth. Paul Romer, with his theory of endogenous technological growth, also advocates the same- stressing on the need for self-reliance in medical science to contribute favourably to the economy in the long run.

Beset by logistical challenges and grappling with the outbreak of a pandemic, India’s healthcare system is in the midst of a reality check. Joseph Stiglitz wrote in his book, ‘People, Power and Profits’ that those stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty often fail to make it out of the trap in their lifetimes. This provides us, and the civil society at large, to become crusaders of the cause for responsible healthcare on the part of the government- a system wherein even the poorest and the most downtrodden have access to quality healthcare. While the results of increased attention on healthcare may not bear fruit immediately in the short term, it will bless the society with its bountiful harvests over the years- and ultimately add to India’s economic ascendancy by reaping the benefits of our yet untapped, rich demographic dividend.

Bloodbath on the Baishakhi

Jallianwala Bagh memorial — The Jallianwala Bagh Memorial

As we step onto the 101st year of commemorating the horror that was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, it is worthwhile to discuss and debate the multitude of layers that surround the butchery by the bloodthirsty fighters under General Reginald Dyer, on that fateful day of 13th April 1919. The popular and widely accepted notion that the act was perpetrated in response to the murder and rampage trail left by the natives is only superficial at best. The Jallianwala Bagh lives on today as a grim reminder of the discord that prevailed during the British Raj and has been hailed by many as the single-most definitive moment in India’s quest for freedom. Notable historian A.J.P Taylor recalled the incident as “the decisive moment when Indians were alienated from the British Rule”. By standing up to an act as violative and wrongful as the Jallianwala Bagh, the British had lost the moral authority to reign India- and united millions in India with a strong fervent of patriotic passion. The brute display of might may as well be thought of a planned act of genocide; an act intended to impress terror upon the minds of defiant rebels who dared to question the authority of the Crown.

India’s immense contribution to the British war efforts in the First World War had inspired hope among certain sections of the society that their benefaction would not go unnoticed; many aspired for the remuneration to be some form of local self-governance. Such hopes were quickly dashed by the Montague-Chelmsford ‘Reforms’ and the punitive Rowlatt Act- which designated competent authority with impunity, and upon their whims, to search, arrest, harass or even kill civilians suspected of crimes against the empire- all without the necessity of a trial. On 6th April, Gandhi had called for a nation-wide hartal to condemn the malicious design of the Britishers. In Amritsar, too, the call for strike was religiously obeyed- and there were no reported incidents of violence. Yet, in an unprecedented act of undue aggression, the Provincial Government of Punjab arrested Dr Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal on 9 April- both of whom held sway and considerable influence over the masses. This triggered protests all over Amritsar, and in the ensuing anarchy, ten demonstrators were fired upon. The crowd, maddened by a taste of vengeance, reacted by killing five Englishmen and assaulting a woman missionary (who was later rescued and carried to safety by Indians themselves).

The British wasted no time and sent troops to cordon the holy city of Amritsar. By 11 April, over 600 fully armed troops had been stationed under the command of General Reginald Dyer. He made several arrests to stamp his mark of authority, and on the 13th, issued prohibitory orders that forbade people to leave the city, engage in demonstrations, or even meet in groups larger than three. Oblivious to such orders, some ten to fifteen thousand people from outlying districts gathered in the city to celebrate the auspicious occasion of Baisakhi- ushering in the new year. They had assembled at the confines of the Jallianwala Bagh, an enclosed walled garden that lay at the heart of the city. The spot was accessible only through five narrow passageways. When Dyer learnt of this development, without caring to know whether the attendees were indeed in defiance of his orders, he did not hesitate to park vehicles mounted with artillery outside the complex. He ordered his troops to open fire, and in a span of a mere ten minutes, the vivacious crowd was silenced by the stench of death and sorrow. 1650 rounds of bullet fire had been unleashed on those present, and by official reports, 379 were killed in the heinous act of cold-blooded mass murder!

Salman Rushdie suggests that the immediate trigger to the genocide was the assault of a lady missionary. He wrote, “the calumny… that frail English roses were in constant sexual danger from lust-crazed wogs” may also have played a part in Dyer’s mind. In retrospect, it was much more than that. No other punishment meted out by the Empire was as barbarous as the Jallianwala Bagh. The Peterloo massacre had claimed only eleven lives. Across the Atlantic, British soldiers who had fired upon the Boston Commons had killed five men- and had been accused of deliberate massacre. In contrast, figures established by an independent fact-finding committee appointed by the Congress for the Jallianwala Bagh pegged the dead at nearly a thousand, with countless many bruised beyond recovery. This was no ordinary act of retribution, but also an unabashed display of egoistic assertiveness. The establishment was up in arms to suppress the news of Dyer’s notorious act and effectively contained it for six months before all hell broke loose and the news spread like wildfire.

The British, who advocated themselves as crusaders of human rights and democracy, were now in a desperate bid to cleanse themselves of the unholy taint. An official commission was established to enquire into the misdeeds of General Dyer, popularly called the Hunter Commission. While deposing before the commission, Dyer had not the slightest of remorse or guilt for his actions. He claimed that the congregation was a ‘rebel meeting’, a direct challenge to his authority which had to be responded to in kind. He noted with satisfaction that it was him that had ordered the troops to fire towards the exits, where the crowd was swelled in an attempt to escape. He described with absolute iniquity, ‘… the targets [innocent civilians], were good’. When they had exhausted their ammunition and innumerable people lay writhing in pain on that harrowed compound, Dyer forbade his soldiers to provide aid to any of the injured. He consequently ordered all natives to stay off the roads for twenty-four hours, thereby denying help to even those who watched their life chipping away under the obstinacy of the General’s whims. It was perhaps not a surprise that the commission only found him guilty of ‘grave error’, and refused to accept the outrageous violation of life that had been carefully orchestrated under Dyer’s sadistic watch. This made it quite discernible that the commission was set up as an eyewash- and that homicide of the hapless was at best inconsequential to those placed comfortably away in the High Command.

When public distrust and anger against the Hunter Commission unfolded, Jawaharlal Nehru was deputed to ascertain the facts. He found several more ignominies hurled at Indians, all of which he meticulously noted. He described with a sense of utter repugnance, that Indians using the street where the missionary was assaulted were condemned to crawl on their bellies, in ‘the manner of snakes and worms’. Perhaps the greatest surprise of all lay not in the ruthless killing itself, but the reaction of the British public to such a despicable act. While being dismissed from service later, he continued to enjoy stately privileges and lapped up a handsome pension granted to him. Rudyard Kipling- who is a favourite among bibliophiles- hailed Dyer as ‘The Man who Saved India’. The Britons, in full complicity, ran a crowdfunding campaign for Dyer, and presented to him a princely sum of £26,317 – equivalent to almost a quarter of a million pounds today! In stark contrast, the kith and kin of the deceased in the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy were compensated a poorly £37. Nehru later penned, “… the cold-blooded approval of that deed shocked me greatly. I realised then, more vividly than I had ever before, how immoral imperialism had eaten into the souls of the British upper classes.”

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre hit the last nail in the coffin which reinforced the construct that the British Raj did not value Indian lives. It was not a mere exercise in saving the honour of British women or responding to defiance of authority. Rather, it was an exhibition of brute power by bloodthirsty hoodlums who donned the garb of mannered diplomats. In 1928, Sir William Hicks- Home Minister under the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Baldwin- made it amply clear: “We went with a yardstick in one hand and a sword in the other, and with the latter we continue to hold them helpless while we force the former down their throats.” The tragedy was nothing but a clear-cut case of egregious racism solidified by the British intractability and authoritative obstinance, and shoved upon helpless civilians who would go on to be framed forever in the annals of contemporary Indian history.

An Anti-Climax to Socialistic Justice

Representative image of the Supreme Court

The recent interim ruling of the apex court to make COVID-19 testing free of cost in private labs across India, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before it, is strongly disconcerting. In an almost unprecedented, unabashed display of judicial socialism, the judges in their best of merits felt that the private labs should extend “philanthropic” cooperation in the “hour of national crisis”- by doling out expensive tests at no cost. In all, it is deplorable that the judgement failed to harp beyond the obvious lines of thought; what now remains is a poignant amalgamation of regulatory confusion, a certainty of reduced testing, and economic haemorrhage for the already stressed private medical facilities.

On the surface, this moral grandstanding presents itself as a necessary measure to protect those who can ill-afford any diagnostic tests. However, when put under the scanner, it becomes incredulously convenient to point out how irrational and impractical this order is. Medical facilities, both government and private, are already grappling with a shortage of raw materials and equipment. Consequently, testing kits and requisite raw materials come at enhanced, premium rates now. Unlike the government, which has an almost unlimited amount of money to diagnose and detect COVID-19 patients, the private labs have been perenially dependent on regular cash flow to keep their services up and running. With near-zero cash reserves, quickly emptying buffer stocks, and skyrocketing prices of available kits, conducting tests without any remuneration is the equivalent of a financial suicide for such firms. Where the court could have put the onus of compensation upon the government, it lousily pushed away the responsibility of fixing such a package under the garb of a well-knitted line- “… the question as to whether the private laboratories carrying free of cost COVID-19 tests are entitled for any reimbursement of expenses incurred, shall be considered later on.”

The unintended ramification of this order would be a drastic fall in testing rates at a time we need it the most. It is not difficult to prognosticate why. If there are no incentives for a firm running such expensive tests (earlier capped at ₹4,500 a test), it does not make sense to continue with such a monetary bleed. Hence, private institutions may outrightly reject patients from getting tested, or may directly go under, as they will then be left with no options. This will severely handicap the current efforts underway to prop up testing rates, and secure public-private partnership in dealing with the pandemic situation. Left fending for itself, the government will not be able to ensure widespread testing, having only a minuscule number of facilities for a population as humongous as 1.3 billion.

A Way Forward

Not all is lost, however, in this quagmire of confusion. A few potential solutions are worth visiting. Firstly, the obvious way is to seek governmental compensation for every test conducted. This option seems highly improbable as the government would be least interested to shoulder the additional financial burden on the exchequer. A much better and viable alternative for the government is to fix a testing rate for each individual private lab, depending on their revenue generation and accounting figures- to make the labs operational at break-even. This would ensure that while the facilities do not drown under debt and chart negative territories, they also do not engage in profiteering from a humanitarian challenge. Lastly, a long term objective for the government should be to incorporate a ‘Right to Health’ under the existing charter of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has of late considered the provision de facto, it has had no constitutional backing. Furthermore, sectoral reallocation decided as per priority, should be immediately worked upon to ensure higher funding to healthcare and allied medical services. It would certainly not hurt the Defence Establishment to have a proportionate cut to re-align spending and meet with immediate objectives. Likewise, subsidies on fertilisers and other products should also be reconsidered for the time being, which would free up a lot of monetary resources. The money saved should be immediately spun into developing world-class infrastructure to deal with pandemoniums that only a pandemic of this scale can bring with it.

Unless the government acts decisively to intervene and shed clarity on the order, crucial time would be lost in the war against SARS-CoV-2. It is important to understand that both the private facilities and the government institutions hold equal stake in their concerted effort; derailing one under the guise of the common good would be nothing more than an anti-climax to socialistic justice, an apathy of the highest order, and an act of the imbecile.

Fiscal and Monetary Measures to combat COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across the world, not only with its sheer magnitude of suffering and loss, but also has successfully managed to bring otherwise resilient economies to a grinding halt. This has had widespread ramifications on the workforce in general, and has been amply magnified for the neglected strata of the society. The CMIE’s estimates on unemployment shot up from 8.4% in mid-March to a whopping 23.4% in the present day. Thus, ameliorative steps, both fiscal and monetary in nature, are the need of the hour.

At this critical juncture, it is essentially a gamble on predictions and forecast. But to sit idle is not an option at all. Fiscal policies are clearly more effective in dealing with a pandemic situation. On the fiscal front, the government has a smorgasbord of options available on its platter. Most advanced economies have adopted a relief package worth 10% of their GDP. In contrast, the GoI has drawn up a plan that expends ₹2 lakh crores for immediate relief only, estimated at 1% of the GDP. An urgent need is to increase the transferred sum to a more sustainable figure, around ₹7000-8000. This may have the effect of inflating the fiscal deficit, but a deficit should be the least of worries in times of crises. KPMG’s report on the impact of COVID-19 in India suggests consumption figures will be the worst hit. Hence, an effort may be made to reduce the personal income tax rates for the time being, so that people have money in their hands to spend on once the situation improves. This will also have a stimulating effect on the economy, by creating a demand surge. The Centre can also further slash the corporate tax, thus aligning it with the East Asian models, which will propel a tendency to invest on part of the corporates. Further, the government can also extend the deposit date for advance tax by a period of six months, which will help crucial sectors as MSMEs to deal with reduced operating margins.

Inflationary worries, particularly on foodgrains, can be curbed by utilising the surplus stockpile available with the FCI. Naturally, greater supply of basic food items through the PDS system, therefore, should also be a focal point. A massive prop in healthcare allocation is also necessary on an immediate front. The Centre’s own National Healthcare Policy envisages a spending of 2.5% of the GDP on health infrastructure, but the present allocation of around 1% of the GDP considerably languishes behind the objective. The Centre now has the added responsibilty of identifying critical sectors, such as auto, pharma and telecom with reliance on global supply chains, and work strategically to bring down foreign dependence by building alternative options. An extension on payment of AGR dues by the government may also be filed for the consideration of the Supreme Court, to assuage the telecom industry’s valid concerns for the time being.

On the monetary front, the RBI’s intervention to dramatically slash rates by 75 bps will have a positive effect on credit availability in the market. However, it is to be noted that monetary policy will have a very little impact on anchoring the economy. While a monetary policy is hugely influential in addressing demand shocks, it appears quite blunt while dealing with supply-side shocks. Thus, a rate cut can have at best a transient effect on market sentiments, but guarantee nothing in permanence. Not all is lost, however: a three month moratorium period extended by the RBI to all EMI debtors will have a beneficial impact on driving consumption higher. Similarly, a slash in CRR requirements and reverse repo rates will ensure that banks have more money to lend with them, and ensure that expansionary tendencies are not curtailed due to a lack of credit.

The COVID-19 crisis brings with it an opportunity to reflect and bring about structural changes in the economy. It solidifies the belief that dependence on China as the global manufacturing hub can no longer be relief upon. Resilience from external supply shocks can only be compensated if localisation of key sectors is worked upon. The lockdown has also brought about a massive adoption of digital technologies, which is a welcome development. Furtherance of Digital India-centric policy can help aid recuperating businesses and industries. It has also proven how important it remains for the corporate to be financially prudent and conserve cash – as a buffer measure- to effectively steer itself out of unpredictable times as these. India can present itself as a viable alternative for the hub of global manufacturing. Can our policies step upto it?

Compare and Contrast: The Indian Approach v/s the East Asian Approach in dealing with the COVID-19 crisis

The coronavirus threat has led most nations to take preemptive measures and isolate themselves from the world at large. While lockdowns and cordoning off places have become the norm, the economic tradeoff- that of the cost to the national economy in exchange for “flattening the curve”- is humongous. While India and the world grapple with an exponential progression in the number of COVID-19 cases, we could perhaps take a leaf out of the book of South Korea and China, both of whom have had incredible success in containing the virus within manageable proportions.

India’s draconian lockdown, for twenty-one days and extending to all citizens barring the essential services, is a move inspired by China’s dramatic lockdown of the industrial town on Wuhan- widely considered as the epicentre of the crisis. The lockdown on Wuhan and other provinces in the vicinity ensured that the virus could not spread beyond marked geographical areas. From there on, China flexed its monetary muscle and manpower to construct dedicated hospitals in record time, provide relief materials to all affected residents, and ensuring strict compliance with the defined laws. While India has been able to replicate the imposition of a national lockdown, it is clearly found lagging in other sectors. It did not take into account the spiralling discomfort of the informal sector- which employs 94% of the workforce and accounts for 45% of the national output. The Chinese response to the pandemic in economic terms was to unleash a $394 billion-dollar (2.77% of GDP) stimulus package for reviving domestic growth affected by the outbreak. India has announced a measly $22.5b revival plan – worth approximately 0.77% of India’s GDP. Furthermore, while China has 4.3 beds per 1000 people, India has much less, approximately a 1:1000 ratio when it comes to bed availability.

Perhaps the wiser route could have been finding the middle ground between the Chinese version of lockdown and South Korea’s rapid test-and-treat model. By avoiding closure of industries, Seoul managed to escape the economic cost of flattening the curve- as described in the introduction- and it did a pretty good job at that. Its highly disciplined workforce, led by a proactive government had embarked upon the model of high testing rates to detect and isolate all affected individuals. It is an important lesson for India to partake. Transparency in data, especially in challenging times as these, is essential to making a quick recovery. Any delay in data coordination or a deliberate attempt to veil the actual number of cases may prove to be costly as time advances. States like West Bengal share data once every three days, thereby hampering smooth coordination. Further, the Central government should step in and mandatorily fix a testing rate per million of the population; varying testing rates across states will bring with it varied success outcomes. While South Korea had a testing rate of around nine thousand per million, India’s figures reflect poorly at only ninety-three per million. By opting for a complete lockdown, India also has inflicted upon itself a great economic cost which it has to bear once the crisis resides.

Early action was another boat that the Indian government failed to hop onto. The South Korean government was instrumental in detecting the early cases, and immediately got in contact with pharmaceutical companies and asked them to ramp up production of testing kits. Today, South Korea produces around 100,000 kits per day- and now is in talks with other countries to export it. India had maintained a lackadaisical attitude in the initial stages – with religious congregations and expos in full swing – until it occurred to administrators that it was time to take action. Thus, it missed the boat to ensure a quick solution to the puzzle at hand. South Korea also immensely benefited from enlisting the help of the citizens to ward off the threat as a collective society. Due credits should be accorded to India in this regard. The government was prudent to create and distribute an app, called ‘Aarogya Setu’, which relies on self-declaration and via GPS technology, makes aware a person who has crossed paths with a potential victim of coronavirus.

Yet, positive mends are being made. Several politicians have stepped beyond their party lines to tackle the pandemic. Shashi Tharoor spent his MPLAD fund to procure 1000 rapid-testing kits for use in his constituency and beyond. The Odisha government, under Naveen Patnaik, was instrumental in getting mining giants to spend on dedicated COVID-19 hospitals with a combined capacity of a thousand beds. Perhaps the most commendable of all is the Delhi government’s, led by Arvind Kejriwal, model of ‘5T’- which encompasses testing, tracing, treatment, teamwork and tracking and monitoring. It is in the interest of the people at large that after several years of neglect and ignored recommendations of a large number of specialised committees, the government acts of its own accord and prepares to strengthen the health infrastructure in India now. But mindless spending will not help the process. It should also be followed up with the establishment of high-quality, government sponsored medical institutions and colleges that seek to promote a research-oriented approach to learning, rather than the conventional syllabi over the decades. Such training will also help bridge the discord between a large number of hospitals being set up and the stark deficiency of doctors on duty. It is time the government does its bit to thank the countless health workers putting their lives at stake- not by instances of moral support alone- but by fundamentally bettering the faltering public health system in India.