📰 Coronavirus waves inevitable without appropriate protocol: experts
Preventive vaccination, data analysis, behavioural changes crucial, say epidemiologists
•Recurring waves of coronavirus infections are inevitable if existing practices such as expanding India's vaccination drive and following COVID protocol are not adhered to, say experts.
•Earlier last week, Principal Scientific Advisor K. VijayRaghavan had said, “A phase three is inevitable, given the higher levels of circulating virus.”
•“There is, however, no clear time-line on when this third phase will occur. We should be prepared for new waves and COVID appropriate behaviour and vaccine upgrades are the way forward,” he added.
•On Friday, however, he qualified his statement saying that such a wave wasn't a foregone conclusion. “If we take strong measures, the third COVID wave may not happen in all the places or indeed anywhere,” Dr. Vijay Raghavan said.
•After cases peaked and registered a steady decline since September and well into early March, life in India had gone back to normal with the inevitable crowds. While multiple serology surveys by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) had suggested that at most 21% of India had been exposed to the coronavirus, the subsequent decisions to have a staggered vaccine rollout that would cover only the most at-risk populations and to be entirely dependent on locally produced vaccines reflected the government's calculation that a devastating second wave was unlikely.
‘Unprepared’
•“I am angry,” said Dr Samiran Panda, who heads ICMR’s epidemiology division. “Not counting healthcare workers, effectively 75% of the country continued to be vulnerable in January. Social distancing, infrequent mask use and vaccine hesitancy have all played a role. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that a third and fourth wave is inevitable if these conditions continue.”
•Unlike in January and February when the limited vaccine rollout was yet to accelerate, there is currently a shortage in vaccine supply, with less than 2 million doses being administered a day, and supplies of both Covishield and Covaxin unlikely to significantly pick up before July.
•Dr. Panda adds that vaccines ought to be preventive and be administered before infections ravage a community and not after.
•“In future, we should consider a cut-off, say a 10% test positivity, and through a smart combination vaccinate people in districts with low infection spread as well as high spread. That's the essential lesson from our previous experience with HIV epidemic.” Test positivity refers to the number of samples that test positive for the coronavirus and a percentage above 15% indicates high prevalence of the infection in a community.
Policy response
•The Lancet Commission Task Force that has a range of public health and policy experts spanning the state universities and even those with the ICMR, has in two reports, in April and May, pointed out that there was no unique policy response to rein-in the pandemic.
•The group presented a “checklist” that highlights a range of actions needed for different places with varying disease burden.
•These include “credible and regular projections” of the trajectory of the pandemic that would help policy makers to evaluate the relative success of different approaches, putting in place a system to share anonymised microdata with a larger pool of researchers to understand more nuanced trends of hospitalizations, disease severity, long COVID-19 characteristics. This would help to better prepare the health system and the administration with the consequences of the surge and, ramping up genome sequencing to 5% of all tests on a monthly basis and ensure that the data on variants of concern (VoCs) from genomic surveillance was shared across to the districts.
‘Not inevitable’
•Gautam Menon, modeller and Professor, Ashoka University said he believed a 'third wave' wasn't inevitable.
•“Hopefully the powerful lessons of what is happening now will not be forgotten in a hurry. Social factors, more than even the biology of the virus, govern how epidemics proceed. Provided we can reconfigure our lives so that physical distancing, mask wearing, working from home where possible, reducing crowding in public places and paying careful attention to ventilation becomes a part of our daily life, we can be spared another wave. To do this until a substantial proportion of our population can be vaccinated, that is what should be our priority,” he told The Hindu. In the long run, dominant strains of the coronavirus would tend to be more transmissible and less virulent but when that would happen couldn't be calculated at present.
•Shahid Jameel, virologist and advisor to the Indian Scientists SARS-COV2 Genome Consortium (INSACOG), however, said waves would keep happening until actions were taken. “We know some variants are more transmissible. We should be testing the India variants against vaccines, in labs and in real world settings.”
What was the Supreme Court’s opinion on the debate around the 102nd Constitution Amendment?
•The story so far: In the judgment that declared the Maratha reservation unconstitutional, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with another issue. By a 3:2 majority, it ruled that after the passage of the 102nd Constitution Amendment Act in 2018, the States do not have any power to identify ‘socially and educationally backward’ (SEBC) classes. The Union government argued that it was never its intention to deprive State governments of their power to identify SEBCs, but the Court interpreted the bare text of the Amendment to the effect that only the President can publish a list of backward classes in relation to each State and that only Parliament can make inclusions or exclusions in it.
What does the 102nd Amendment say?
•The Amendment established a National Commission for Backward Classes by adding Article 338B to the Constitution. The five-member Commission was tasked with monitoring safeguards provided for socially and educationally backward classes, giving advice on their socio-economic development, inquiring into complaints and making recommendations, among other functions. Significantly, it was laid down that the Centre and the States shall consult the Commission on all policy matters concerning the SEBCs.
•The Amendment also added Article 342A, under which the President shall notify a list of SEBCs in relation to each State and Union Territory, in consultation with Governors of the respective States. Once this ‘Central List’ is notified, only Parliament could make inclusions or exclusions in the list by law. This provision is drafted in exactly the same word as the one concerning the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Further, a definition of ‘SEBCs’ was added to the Constitution — ‘SEBC’ means “such backward classes as are so deemed under Article 342A for the purposes of this Constitution”.
Why did this Amendment come up for judicial interpretation?
•The reservation for the Maratha community was challenged in the Bombay High Court on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the Act creating the Maratha quota through a new category called ‘SEBC’ was unconstitutional because after the introduction of the 102nd Amendment, the State legislature had no power to identify any new backward class.
•Separately, a writ petition was also filed in the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Amendment as it violated the federal structure and deprived the States of their powers. In this context, the court had to examine the validity of the Amendment.
What were the rival contentions?
•The crux of the issue was whether the State government’s role in identifying backward classes had been denuded by the Amendment. The Union government said Parliament’s intent was only to create a Central List that would be applied only in the Central government and its institutions. It had nothing to do with the State Lists of backward classes or the State governments’ powers to declare a community backward.
•Those who questioned it contended that the effect of the Amendment was that only the President, or the Union government, was authorised to make a list in relation to each State, and thereafter, any change in it would be made only by Parliament.
How did the Supreme Court reach these conclusions?
•Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with two others concurring with him, adopted a literal interpretation of the 102nd Amendment, holding that there was no ambiguity in its drafting that warranted a “purposive interpretation”. Writing for them, Justice Bhat cited three main reasons.
•One, the text was clear that the President alone could notify the list, and subsequent changes could be made only by Parliament by law.
•Two, the text was identical to the provisions governing the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the procedure to identify SCs was exactly the same, which led to the conclusion that Parliament intended to “replicate” the same process for backward classes, too.
•Third, a definition clause was added to the effect that only a class found in the list notified by the President under Article 342A was an SEBC. Further, the definition was for “the purposes of the Constitution”, which meant that it was to apply to the Constitution as a whole, including Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), which enable special provisions for backward classes, including reservation in public services, and are also implemented by the States.
•The Supreme Court’s judgment also drew on deliberations before a Rajya Sabha Select Committee that showed that the Centre had rejected suggestions from members who demanded that a specific clause be added saying that States would continue to have the power to identify SEBCs.
•Justice Ashok Bhushan, with another judge agreeing with him and constituting the minority on this point, accepted the Union government’s position that it was never its intention to deprive the States of their powers. They held that the ‘Central List’ was only for use by the Centre in reservations for jobs and institutions under the Union government, and will not apply to States.
What next?
•The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to notify the list of SEBCs for each State and Union territory, and until it is done, the present State Lists may continue to be in use. The Centre may either comply with this or seek to further amend the Constitution to clarify the position that the 102nd Amendment was not intended to denude the States of their power to identify SEBCs.
📰 FCRA amendments crippling our work, say NGOs
Making it compulsory to open a bank account in Delhi among others acts an impediment, they say
•The amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) enacted last year that among others made it compulsory for NGOs to open a bank account in Delhi has crippled the work of many organisations who are unable to receive foreign funds.
•Registered NGOs can receive foreign contribution for five purposes — social, educational, religious, economic and cultural. An FCRA registration is mandatory for NGOs to receive foreign funds. There are 22,591 FCRA registered NGOs.
•An NGO has now moved the Delhi High Court seeking exemption from the Union Home Ministry’s March 31 deadline to open an FCRA account with the SBI branch at Parliament Street here.
•The petitioner argued that it applied to open the account before the March 31 deadline but the administrative delays on the part of the bank and the Ministry severely restricted its activities including providing COVID-19 related relief and paying of urgent salaries of staff and also affected its charitable and educational activities.
•The court in a hearing on May 7 issued notice to the Ministry.
•Abishek Jebaraj, the NGO’s lawyer, said there were many NGOs who were affected by this order and the new regulations were hampering charitable work during the ongoing pandemic.
•“There is also severe inconvenience involved in submitting copies of all the necessary papers and personal documents, such as Aadhaar card copies and the KYCs of trustees and other members of the NGO. The trustees and members live in different parts of the country, and getting documents together poses immense challenges due to COVID-19 restriction,” Mr. Jebaraj said.
•The NGOs continue to face problems even as the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) on May 6 wrote to all States to involve NGOs, faith-based organisations, religious and social trusts at local level to handle the “unprecedented COVID-19 crisis”. The NDMA held a virtual meeting with 1,000 NGOs on May 5. NDMA member secretary Sanjeeva Kumar said in a letter to States that an NGO coordination centre shall should be set up at the local level and office and other logistics be provided by the State government. The letter said the NGOs could offer their services in containment zones and other areas where curfew is imposed and special passes could be given to them.
•Anil Hebbar, who runs the Bombay Sarvodaya Friendship Centre in Mumbai, said even the NGOs that had complied with the March 31 deadline were unable to receive funds as the Ministry had failed to authorise a form sent by the SBI making the NGO eligible to receive foreign funds.
•“The FCRA amendments made it compulsory for all trustees to register their Aadhaar card, many do not have it, so an account could not be opened by March 31. Now the Ministry has asked NGOs to re-register by May 31 when they are already registered….how are we going to pay salaries to people and continue with humanitarian work in the face of such administrative requirements,” Mr. Hebbar said.
•The FCRA, first enacted in 1976, was amended in 2010 when a slew of new measures were taken by the Ministry to regulate foreign donations. It was again amended in September last year. The latest amendment to the Act inserted a new provision that makes it mandatory for all NGOs to receive foreign funds in a designated bank account at the SBI’s New Delhi branch and the accounts were to be opened by March 31. Any other bank account can be linked to the main account but all foreign donations should be received in the SBI account. The Act also made Aadhaar a mandatory identification document for all the office bearers, directors and other key functionaries of an NGO and capped the administrative expenses at 20% of the foreign funds received, earlier the upper limit was 50%. The amendment also barred sub-granting by NGOs to smaller NGOs who work at the grassroots.
📰 Green panel allows Great Nicobar plan to advance
Environment Appraisal Committee which flagged concerns over project has now ‘recommended’ it ‘for grant of terms of reference’ for EIA studies
•The Environment Appraisal Committee (EAC) - Infrastructure I of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has flagged serious concerns about NITI Aayog’s ambitious project for Great Nicobar Island (‘NITI Aayog vision for Great Nicobar ignores tribal, ecological concerns’, The Hindu, March 21, 2021). The committee has, however, removed the first hurdle faced by the project. It has “recommended” it “for grant of terms of reference (TOR)” for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies, which in the first instance will include baseline studies over three months.
•Documents uploaded recently on the MoEFCC’s Parivesh portal show that the 15-member committee headed by marine biologist and former director, Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), Deepak Apte, made the decision following two meetings held on March 17 and 18 and April 5 and 6. The EAC was responding to the 126 page ‘pre-feasibility’ report, ‘Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island at Andaman and Nicobar Islands’, prepared for the NITI Aayog by the Gurugram-based consulting agency Aecom India Private Limited. The proposal includes an international container transshipment terminal, a greenfield international airport, a power plant and a township complex spread over 166 sq. km. (mainly pristine coastal systems and tropical forests), and is estimated to cost ₹75,000 crore.
Concerns on site
•The committee’s concerns were both procedural and substantive. A discussion on the proposal in the March meeting was deferred because of delayed and incomplete submission of documents. The missing information included the minutes of the meeting note, details of the township to be developed over 149 sq. km., a note on seismic and tsunami hazards, freshwater requirement details (6.5 lakh people are envisaged to finally inhabit the island when the present population is only 8,500; the current total population of the entire island chain is less than 4.5 lakh), and details of the impact on the Giant Leatherback turtle.
•The committee also noted that there were no details of the trees to be felled — a number that could run into millions since 130 sq. km. of the project area has some of the finest tropical forests in India. A point-wise response to concerns was submitted by the project proponent, the Andaman and Nicobar Island Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO), on April 5, the very day the committee convened for its next meeting. Yet, the proposal was taken up for consideration and even recommended for grant of ToR to go ahead.
•This, despite the fact that the committee raised a number of additional issues, including about Galathea Bay, the site of the port and the centrepiece of the NITI Aayog proposal. Galathea Bay is an iconic nesting site in India of the enigmatic Giant Leatherback, the world’s largest marine turtle — borne out by surveys done over three decades by the island’s Forest Department and research agencies like the Andaman and Nicobar Environment Team, Dakshin Foundation and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) (‘Leatherback nesting sites could be overrun by Andamans projects’, The Hindu, February 15, 2021).
•The committee noted that the site selection for the port had been done mainly on technical and financial criteria, ignoring the environmental aspects. It has now asked for “an independent study/ evaluation for the suitability of the proposed port site with specific focus on Leatherback Turtle, Nicobar Magapod (sic) and Dugong”.
Action points
•This, in fact, is only one of over a 100 specific points of action listed out by the committee. They include, among others, the need for an independent assessment of terrestrial and marine biodiversity, a study on the impact of dredging, reclamation and port operations, including oil spills (to be carried out by nationally recognised institutions such as the Wildlife Institute of India, IISc or the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History), the need for studies of alternative sites for the port with a focus on environmental and ecological impact, especially on turtles, analysis of risk-handling capabilities, a seismic and tsunami hazard map, a disaster management plan, details of labour, labour camps and their requirements, an assessment of the cumulative impact, and a hydro-geological study to assess impact on round and surface water regimes.
Corporate policy
•The committee has also asked for details of the corporate environment policy of the implementing agency — whether the company has an environment policy, a prescribed standard operating procedure to deal with environmental and forest violations, and a compliance management system.
•ANIIDCO, the Port Blair project proponent, is a government undertaking involved in activities such as tourism, trading (iron and steel, milk, petroleum products, and liquor) and infrastructure development for tourism and fisheries. Its annual turnover for 2018-19 was ₹379 crore, and handling a mega infrastructure project estimated to cost ₹75,000 crore appears way beyond its capacity.
•AECOM’s pre-feasibility report has proposed 2022-23 for the commencement of work on the site. “How is that possible,” asks an island expert, requesting anonymity. “One year is simply not enough if the government and project proponents follow the EAC’s recommendations in letter and spirit. And how can extensive baseline studies be carried out in just three months?”
•Ecological surveys in the last few years have reported a number of new species, many restricted to just the Galathea region. These include the critically endangered Nicobar shrew, the Great Nicobar crake, the Nicobar frog, the Nicobar cat snake, a new skink (Lipinia sp), a new lizard (Dibamus sp,) and a snake of the Lycodon sp that is yet to be described.
•“None of these are even mentioned in AECOM’s pre-feasibility report or the EAC’s observations,” he notes. “We don’t even fully know what exists here, leave alone understanding the many fragile inter-linkages of the Great Nicobar’s complex systems.”
📰 China rocket debris falls in Indian Ocean near Maldives
Most of the debris had been burned during re-entry and that a fall into international waters was most likely, says China
•Debris from the last stage of China’s Long March rocket that had last month carried a key component of its under-construction space station fell into the waters of the Indian Ocean west of the Maldives on Sunday.
•The re-entry of the rocket, described by astrophysicists as the fourth-largest uncontrolled reentry in history, had evoked concerns in recent days about possible damage should it have fallen on land, and had been criticised by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the U.S. for “failing to meet responsible standards”. China had rejected those concerns, saying most of the debris had been burned during re-entry and that a fall into international waters was most likely.
•The China Manned Space Agency (CSMA) said on Sunday “the vast majority of the device burned up during the reentry, and the rest of the debris fell into a sea area with the centre at 2.65 degrees north latitude and 72.47 degrees east longitude,” placing it west of the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.
•The Maldives National Defence Force said on Sunday its Coastguard Squadron “is active after receiving reports of rocket debris fallen in Maldivian waters”.
•NASA Administrator Bill Nelson in a statement called on “spacefaring nations” to "minimise the risks to people and property on Earth of re-entries of space objects and maximise transparency regarding those operations.” “It is clear that China is failing to meet responsible standards regarding their space debris,” he said.
•Chinese experts rejected the criticism over the uncontrolled entry, saying authorities had been tracking the course, although they did not have any control over where the debris would fall.
•"It only refers to the loss of propulsion, but in no way means that China has lost track of its flying trajectory and real-time location," Song Zhongping, an aerospace commentator and former instructor at a PLA Rocket Force affiliated university, told the Global Times, saying that debris from the U.S. SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket that fell on a farm in Washington State did not attract similar criticism and showed Western “double standards”.
•Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said the uncontrolled reentry of the Chinese rocket was “the equal fourth-biggest” among uncontrolled reentries, on a par with the first Long March rocket that last year fell in the Ivory Coast where there were reports of debris damaging homes in villages. "An ocean reentry was always statistically the most likely,” he said on Twitter. "It appears China won its gamble (unless we get news of debris in the Maldives). But it was still reckless."
•The Long March-5B Y2 rocket was carrying the Tianhe, or Heavenly Harmony, module, which is the first of three key components for the construction of China’s space station, which will be completed by the end of next year.
•Tianhe will act “the management and control hub of the space station” which is called Tiangong, or Heavenly Palace, Chinese authorities said after the April 29 launch of the rocket from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site on the island province of Hainan.
•The space station, which will be only the second after the International Space Station (ISS), has been designed with a lifespan of 10 years but could last 15 years, or until 2037. The life of the ISS, experts say, could be extended until 2030, by when one of its members, Russia, has said it would launch its own space station.
📰 Outreach and overreach: On judicial intervention during COVID-19 crisis
As long as the court does not usurp executive’s role, action to mitigate a crisis is welcome
•Judicial intervention in response to the Union government’s flailing response to the health crisis has reached its apotheosis with the Supreme Court order forming a 12-member national task force for the effective and transparent allocation of medical oxygen to the States and Union Territories “on a scientific, rational and equitable basis”. Making recommendations on augmenting the supply based on present and projected demands and facilitating audits by sub-groups within each State and UT is also part of its remit. The Court has also mandated it to review and suggest measures for ensuring the availability of essential drugs and remedial measures to meet future emergencies during the pandemic. In other words, the national task force has become a judicially empowered group that may significantly guide the handling of the health crisis set off by the second pandemic wave. Faced with proceedings in High Courts relating to the allocation and availability of oxygen, the Centre submitted that an expert committee may be constituted, consisting of persons drawn from public and private health-care institutions, to facilitate a fresh assessment of the basis for the allocation.
•When the Karnataka High Court ordered last week that the Centre should supply 1,200 tonnes of medical oxygen daily to the State, the Centre rushed with a challenge to the apex court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that if every High Court started entertaining petitions on equitable allocation of oxygen, pandemic management would become unworkable. The Supreme Court declined to stay the order, describing it as a careful and calibrated one. Several High Courts and the Supreme Court are examining different aspects of the pandemic response, including availability of beds and oxygen. The trend did raise concerns about the judiciary encroaching on the executive domain. There is some merit in the argument that allocation of resources based on a formula related to the present and projected requirements of each State is indeed an executive function. However, as the daily infection numbers and death toll have acquired frightening levels, the constitutional courts felt obliged to take it upon themselves to protect the right to life and good health of the population. It cannot be forgotten that the judiciary drew much flak last year for its initial failure to mitigate the crisis set off by the lack of succour to millions of migrant workers. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who heads the Bench hearing the suo motu proceedings, has clarified that the Court was not usurping the executive’s role, but only wanted to facilitate a dialogue among stakeholders. As long as this position is clear, the present intervention need not be seen as a dangerous overreach.
📰 Lockdown gains: On need to augment health system
State shutdowns are inevitable, but they must be used to augment the health system
•Several States have done the inevitable, going into a strict lockdown for a fortnight to arrest India’s calamitous descent into COVID-19 hell since mid-March. The horror of sweeping infections, severe disease and staggering death rates has made a lockdown a popular measure, unlike last year’s imposition on an ill-prepared nation. Public acceptance of restrictions comes with the realisation that the threat to life from a mutating virus has aggravated manifold, although the spread of the scourge, from about 9,000 new daily cases in early February this year to over 4,00,000 in May, was brought about mainly by wrong messaging, massive political rallies and large religious events. After having been failed, what people now look forward to are measures that draw insights not from crude policing, but public health research. Unlike in 2020, the evidence is also stronger: WHO explains that SARS-CoV-2 spreads primarily through respiratory droplets and aerosols produced when people cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe, are within one metre of each other and also in crowded, poorly ventilated settings. Contact with contaminated surfaces poses another risk. Insistence on wearing good masks, distancing and a prohibition on risky gatherings, such as in restaurants, malls, religious sites, auditoria and on public transport are, therefore, essential. It is welcome that lessons have been learnt, and people were given time to prepare this time. Moreover, rather than shut out employment and services completely, home delivery services and some vending have been permitted. Tamil Nadu, which has commendably announced a relief of ₹4,000 for COVID-19, part of it to be disbursed during the lockdown, should avoid big gatherings at ration shops, opting instead for e-payments or doorstep disbursement. States should prevent crowding at shops open for limited hours by allowing door deliveries of all consumer goods and not just food, using online services. Travel for emergencies must be facilitated without harassment.
•For an exhausted medical community, staggering under the weight of over 37 lakh active COVID-19 cases and a severe shortage of medical oxygen and drugs, the pause in activity comes as a life saver. The lockdown window can help it manage existing patients while governments augment critical supplies; a slowing infection curve will give everyone breathing space in coming weeks, although the heart-rending death rate may take time to decline due to the lag effect. A drop in the vaccination rate poses a serious challenge, and it is incumbent on the Centre to arrange for vaccine imports or augment domestic production to scale it up. Testing access must also be dramatically increased by May-end to assess the true scale of the pandemic. Without such progress, the lockdowns may yield only small gains, since the opportunity to build the systems to handle another surge would have been frittered away, again.
📰 Back in the shortage economy
India has recovered from extremely trying crises in the past, with sincere and competent leadership
•We have been witnessing shortages of almost everything needed to treat COVID-19 patients: hospital beds, drugs, ventilators and, above all, oxygen. The world has taken note, and offers of help have come in from the U.S., the U.K., the European Union, and even China. India is once again the focus of global attention, as it was in the mid-1960s when two consecutive years of drought resulted in a severe shortage of food. Then, India had to turn to the U.S. for assistance. This did arrive, but grudgingly, for India had not supported the West during the Cold War. The lore is that President Lyndon Johnson had directed: “Send food to India by the shipload, so that she is kept on a short lease”.
•Though that moment in our history is not a happy memory, that of the response of the country’s then leadership is inspiring. Prime Ministers Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi and their cabinet colleagues had stirred the scientific and bureaucratic communities to bring about a quantum leap in food production. This was achieved within a few years. No one imagined that India, a byword for a basket case, would be able to feed itself. The Green Revolution stands out in Indian history as a display of extraordinary accountability by the political leadership, combining resolve, humility and intelligence. We crucially miss this today.
Lessons from the sixties
•Unlike the two years of drought that tipped the country into food shortages in the mid-sixties, the need for ramping up the health infrastructure could have been anticipated in March 2020 when a lockdown was announced at very short notice. In fact, the medical case for a lockdown was that it would slow the spread of the disease thus avoiding overwhelming the health system and giving time to strengthen the capacity of the health system.
•The lesson from the Green Revolution is that India has recovered from extremely trying crises, under the most adverse of circumstances, in the past. It is entirely possible to replicate this now, but we need sincere and competent leadership.
•In many ways the task is far easier today. Now India has something that it lacked in the mid-sixties, namely, industrial muscle. It should not be too difficult to ramp up hospital beds, ventilators and oxygen supply within a reasonable time. That certain parts of the country actually have a surplus of oxygen should give confidence on this score. An additional feature today, again in contrast to the mid-sixties, is the considerable foreign exchange reserve. Therefore, some crucial medical inputs can be imported, especially vaccines. But it is important to recognise that these measures are absolutely necessary. We should not adopt an ostrich-like posture denying shortage, which the Central government is displaying on the issue of vaccines in particular.
Health spending
•The inter-State variation in the death rate in India is directly related to the extent of health spending in relation to the state domestic product. It is also related to health infrastructure, but less strongly. This is also true for COVID-19-related deaths across South Asia. So, to avert a health crisis in the future the States would have to raise the level of spending on health very substantially. On average, States spend only around 5% of their total expenditure on health. Should we be surprised at the shortages we are facing now?
•Finally, even as we struggle against the health emergency, a shortage that we should do everything to avoid is with respect to food. Food prices shot up from April 2020 suggesting that there may have been a disruption of supply due to the lockdown. It would be advisable to anticipate a similar disruption following State-level lockdowns now, and take all possible measures to assure the supply chain. The kharif operations are set to commence. As agricultural activity takes place at the level of the States, Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to interact closely with their leaders and the farming community. This is the abiding lesson from the mid-sixties when we as a nation were in a similar place.
