The Friction and Tremor generated by COVID-19: Experience from Nepal

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 (20^th 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.