The Friction and Tremor
generated by COVID-19
Experience from Nepal
- Amit
Tamang & Bina Rai
We
need to turn to the workings of representative democracy if we wish to get a
better purchase on the ways in which an inchoate sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’,
friend and enemy, may be hardened into the apparently implacable divisions of
community found across contemporary south Asia (Jonathan Spencer, 2007, p. 37).
The lives and economies have at the moment been
stagnated globally due to the pandemic caused by what was initially known as
novel coronavirus that appeared in Wuhan, China in December 2019, and the
disease later named as COVID-19. Scientists have not confirmed the source of
the virus to humans; however, researchers in Guangzhou, China, have suggested that the virus was transmitted to humans by pangolins
(long-snouted, ant-eating mammals often used in traditional Chinese medicine). There
are so far globally more than 1,59,000
death toll and 23,52,000 sick due to the pandemic.
In their attempts of containing the spread of virus, following
the Chinese tactic, the governments have imposed lockdown which some political
leaders are evaluating so costly that they wish to end it sooner than what health officials have advised. As of now, Trump
administration in the USA and Merkel administration in Germany are planning to
reactivate their economies, ending the weeks-long lockdown. While research,
investment and advancement in medical science, and revival of economies are becoming
prime concerns for the powerful leaders across the globe, there are flamboyant
and contentious threats, blames and clashes among the nations.
Until recently, Germany blamed the USA that they deceitfully
grabbed the medical supplies that Germany was in process of buying. Leaders
including the US President are blaming that China hid the number of death toll
and the severity of the disease, consequently failing the US prepare well for
it. More aggressive than this was Trump’s threat that the US would not
financially support World Health Organisation on the ground that it encouraged
China deceive the World by praising China’s false endeavours of tackling the
disease. Such political drifts within and among the nations indeed require
close assessment so that stability and trust among the nations, and among the
peoples remain intact, or at least not devastatingly contradictory.
Nepalese Context
In the initial phase, Government of Nepal (GoN) was in
a dilemma of choosing the effective and right response to save their citizens from this pandemic. At that
time the PM was still waiting to get discharged from the hospital after kidney
transplant (the PM was discharged on 13 March 2020), and the ministers were in
a huge dilemma whether for example, to conduct the Secondary Education
Examinations (SEE) which was about to kick off in a week or so. First, the GoN
restricted international flights, then it stopped operating domestic flights,
and long-tour bus facility, but allowing vehicles to ply only within the territory
of a district. During the first three four days of the third quarter of March, not
only people were bewildered and anxious, the GoN itself was unsure of their own
words and actions because they were unable to come to a solid decision and
plan.
The Discourse born with
Lockdown
At first, everybody undoubtedly welcomed lockdown
which was announced on 23 March to be effective from the next day. By then, 134
men and 41 women, mostly students were already evacuated from Wuhan (on 16
February), and were kept in quarantine following a hot discussion between the
government officials and local leaders, and local people of the place where the
GoN was planning to quarantine them. Since the lockdown was meant for a week;
things were looking simpler. However, as it prolonged, voices started to come
complaining the government for not sufficiently supporting the daily-wage-based
labourers in their relief package. Some leaders from opposition parties and experts complained that the relief
packages should have come along with the announcement of the lockdown. But this
was actually unexpected from the government so confused, and probably from any
government formed by any parties of the nation.
I will come to the political practice and discourse in
Nepal in a while. For now, let’s observe how writers, columnists and others
developed their ideas amidst government’s measures in tackling the health
challenge. There came the discussion on word-choice, violence against women,
making of new classes and even casteism
in the context of state of isolation and its socio-economic impacts. Some scholars, notably anthropologists offered
‘physical distancing’ instead of ‘social distancing’ and urged to reduce social
distancing at such critical moment when people might also require moral and
psychological support.
The lacuna between the Government and the People
What then came on the surface is seemingly a
competitive debate between the government and civil society (that includes
several university professors and activists). The major cause for this were/are
in relation to two issues. This was triggered when Nepalese working in India
somehow came to Nepal-India border, but were not allowed to enter Nepal as a
result of which some of them swam across the Mahakali River to come to their
homeland. The second factor was the issue of several families who, after the
budget exhausted, began leaving Kathmandu in the dark with the hope of reaching
their homes on foot, making arduous journey of days and weeks through forest or
less-trodden paths. The demand was/is – the GoN should arrange them food,
shelter or manage proper means of transportation. Toward the end of the second
week of lockdown, reports surfaced on social media that GoN is facilitating
transportation for those who were stuck and wanted to go back to their hometown.
But their happiness did not last long because it was labelled as hoax or
unconfirmed information.
Nevertheless, the crucial part is the analysis of how
the GoN and its ministers responded to such voices, and in what context some poor families thrived to go back to
home. And, what it has resulted now, and how destructive will its impacts be
for the political parties and the society in the long run. Many of the Nepalese
cabinet members and ministers, in their interviews, are heard haranguing in
James Scott’s term state-evading people,
that they should have informed the local leaders, that they would be provided
ration and shelter, and as such. Their anger and frustration regarding these
people premise on the speculation that the opposition parties or those collectively working to fail the
government are decisively on their toes to predispose these populations. Most
of the leaders from the ruling parties thus did not attack the opposition
forces with their scathing, insensible and irresponsible remarks but their own
citizens, who might or might not have voted the ruling parties. The rudeness
and ‘who cares’ kind of comments, for instance, one leader in a radio interview
said ‘Are they going to māmā ghar for Dasain?’, are the main factors that have
been so counter-productive that government’s positive and hard endeavours are
all curtained.
Truly, every citizen must follow the norms of lockdown;
there are no alternatives. Then the question arises why Nepalese did not communicate with the government and instead headed
to homes on foot, breaching the lockdown? It should be seen in reference to
the political practice of Nepal.
I’d like to highlight three factors: First, the
communication between the political leaders and the public rarely takes place, except
around election; second, corruption is so prevalent that all look for short-cut
ways; and third, people do not trust the system - our government and our
bureaucracy. Actually, all three
dimensions are intertwined. The situation
in question is indeed aggravated by the parochial approach of the government.
The government has failed to persuade the stranded
citizens, and home seekers that they are with them. The government has rather
intensified their disenchantment, through their aggressive and indecent
remarks. It is well accepted that the government has been clumsy in tackling
with the situations created in light with the global spread of the disease. It
naturally happens in such a situation. But the state apparatus should not have
been so complicated, torturous and vicious that the peoples try to avoid them. We
all, however, have felt that they lack not intelligence but common sense. And
probably the state interprets its peoples in a similar fashion.
Nevertheless, it is equally convincing that the
peoples should approach the local leaders, or government mechanism. We can be
critical but we should also listen to the government because a simple fault of
an individual can endanger lives of several thousands of population. But the
political parties (both ruling and the Opposition) failed to acknowledge that
they have not yet trained their citizens to bargain with the government; they
have not created environments that their citizens believe them and go closer;
they have not permitted their citizens feel that the state apparatus is for
their ease, not complication.
There are several empirical incidences that show that
there is a structural problem in it, and people in general do not believe that
the state does it for them.
In the context of lockdown itself, the patrolling police
and municipality officials announced that everyone should follow the lockdown
strictly; they are all the time with us for support. The definition and
understanding of ‘emergency situation’ (people were permitted to come out in
emergency cases) contradicted between, for example, the police on duty in the
street and locals who came out for genuine cause of emergency. All ordinary
citizens have more or less experienced the police and the entire bodies of
government responding to people’s concerns in a ham-fisted manner. The Singh-Durbar
has not yet been shifted to villages, and frankly, the access to Sing-Durbar is
not yet so easy for the public.
Even if we assume that things have been made easier
for the public, the information has not been relayed to the public. Just go
back to the reference in the preceding paragraph; no announcements were made
regarding the terms and conditions of lockdown, the body of the government for
contact, the means of accessing the facilities offered and as such. Ridiculous
it is, but just today morning (20th April), I heard the announcement
being made in the street that appealed the dwellers to contact health officials
or local representative if anyone has come from abroad in the last month.
Conclusion
Since the situation was aggravated when the leaders
from ruling parties treated their peoples like the retune of opposition party
leaders, the schisms are becoming broader and costlier for the parties in the
government. The dream of and hope for prosperity
can be achieved when the effective communication between the government and the
citizens take place; when the government succeeds in endorsing the rules and
regulations among the citizens and when we-feeling prevails among all. It is definitely
tragic that the analysts have to draw attention of the government to advance
agricultural economy while many other nations are investing huge amount on medical
research. For the present moment, the ruling parties can begin this by not
using harsh, rude, and callous phrases and tones in dealing with home seekers
and stranded peoples.
