Opinion | The lockdown and our crisis of interstate migrants

People in India have by and large welcomed the lockdown for 21 days, given the gravity of the situation and the daily tolls being reported in countries that have a much higher level of economic well-being. The implications of the lockdown at community level, however, are unclear even to the implementing agencies.

Does this mean everyone remains captive, not stepping out of the premises even for purchase of medicine, food and other essential items, household emergency or constitutional walk? If so, has a system of doorstep delivery and safety in transaction at the door been operationalised? Alternately, if the lockdown permits people to be out of the house or the colony within the city for genuine purposes, how its misuse will be detected and penalized? In case permission for travel beyond the city or state limits has to be allowed in exceptional cases, its modus operandi needs to be institutionalized.

Twenty-one days is a long period for 300 million-plus households for assuming no grave exigency requiring them to step out. Relaxations, however, would open up the possibility of vested interest playing foul in our hierarchical society.

It is important to stipulate maintenance of the thin line between precaution and panic but difficult to observe in practice. One is noticing the line being broken and the distinction getting blurred in the policy pronouncements, administrative orders, and ground-level management in dealing with Covid-19, affecting production and movement of essential commodities and services and of people. The most important requirement for this is availability of information and transparency of the management system, which unfortunately is a casualty.

The country is united in asking and supporting the central and state governments including the district administration to take strong actions against the violators. This, however, does not mean that at community level, all groups endorse a complete ban on human mobility. A large number would endorse this and even be willing to survive on stored ration of cereals for three weeks. However, for another group, there are medical emergencies, other than corona, that would require transportation. And, there are others who do not have enough rations at home and many do not even have the means to buy these. For them, it is important to go out and earn money for the family.

Has the home-delivery system or giving cash to these people, mostly in informal sector, been operationalised? Different groups have different capabilities and priorities. It would be impossible to implement total lockdown for three weeks without exceptions being made for a segment of the unorganized sector without whose engagement even distribution of essentials will be in jeopardy. Thus, it would be optimistic to expect that there will be no transmission of virus from an affected to a healthy person during the period and that the state will simply have the responsibility of treating and curing a couple of thousands already affected.

Panic reactions like the ones during demonetization brought serious problems but different groups with complementary interests mutually cooperated, exchanged goods based on trust, relationship etc. and saved the vulnerable from extreme misery. This is unlikely to happen in the present crisis. The state can’t take care of the issues linked with the lockdown single-handedly without community help.

Even helping nine poor families every day during the Navaratra, as proposed, would mean exposing the households to unsafe interactions, unless it is institutionalised. The implications of all these must be worked out and addressed. Unless the logistic issues are sorted out immediately and communicated to the lowest level of administration and common people, there will be serious management issues, besides protest and intra-group violence at the community level.

Involving the community or civil society in big way would be a challenge since this may compromise the safety concerns. One must, however, realize that the civil society has already become active in implementing the lockdown, the way the majority understands it.

Without any administrative control, this is leading to targeting people of certain region, belonging to certain profession and slum population. Also, this results in ignoring the concerns of the people who have special needs or are trapped in an exigency like daily-wage workers, those taking care of the sick/disabled and those separated accidentally from family.

For certain specific problems, a partnership between the government, private sector and civil society can be effective and in fact bring down the security risks. A major problem of movement in the period of lockdown is that of about 65 million interstate migrants, 33% of them being workers. By conservative estimates, 30% of them are casual workers and another 30% work on a regular basis but in the informal sector. This would mean about 12 million people, who are at the risk of losing employment, are residing in states other than that of their origin.

The street vendors amounting to about 8 million can also be placed in this vulnerable category. Many among them have lost the means of their subsistence and started leaving their place of residence and have been stranded in different cities. The government, which is rightly bringing back Indians from the Corona-affected countries, could have easily provided safe transportation to the migrants who desperately wanted to go back to their homes, rather than leaving them to travel in jam-packed vehicles or to fend for themselves.

The state governments must work with the private corporate sector and non-governmental organizations including those of the workers, to ensure that there is no massive loss of employment. Central funds could be used along with those of the state and private companies for this purpose while civil society organizations can be engaged in provisioning of travel, food, stay and medical checkup for the period required, under the safety supervision of state authorities. Attempts must be made to ensure that a large majority of these people remain at their present place and are taken care of.

Uttar Pradesh and Bihar account for 25% and 14% of the total interstate migrants, followed by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, recording figures over 5% each. It would be very difficult to control the pandemic when they return home after all their travails. They will be just another unemployed in the household. Taking care of them at their current locations would be a major step in ensuring that the Covid-19 does not make inroads into the interiors of the backward regions of the county where provisioning of adequate medical assistance would not be challenging. It would be impossible.

The author is Distinguished Fellow, Research and Information System for Developing countries