By Naba Bhattacharjee
We were attending a COVID-19 relief operation of our organization recently in collaboration with another socially active trust. At the end of the programme, members of both groups decided to take a photograph. When the photo was put up on our social media site, one of the members rightly pointed out that all in the frame had forgotten the social distancing protocol when the picture was taken. A feeling of remorse provoked serious self analysis on this lapse. In the course of the relief distribution, we insisted on the recipients to confine themselves within the “circle” drawn on the ground at intervals of specified distance. Yet when it came to ourselves social distancing was conveniently given a go by. In what way were “we” better insulated than “them”?
This incident activated serious introspection with a question on whether social distancing is just that “six feet divide”, which although fully justified as a safety net against COVID 19, may also be widening the existing social divides. In India, “social distancing” brings into focus social histories of safeguarding respective social strata to which one belongs. Social distancing in a deeply fragmented society like India is both vertical – along class, caste, religious, insider, outsider and many more such profile, while there also exists the horizontal which entail the separation of people within the same vertical group. Vertical social distancing was easier to achieve with the onset of the pandemic in India while the horizontal divide posed a much bigger problem.
Even in a non-crisis situation, the underprivileged sections in India have limited access to the basic means of survival and are at a much higher health risk, often living in densely populated slums in urban India or areas in rural India which are segregated by caste, religion, ethnicity et al. This makes social distancing, a luxury to adopt for millions of poor in India, although a compulsory civic duty to counter the pandemic. Compliance level in the hill states and regions of NE including other Himalayan states are much higher due to better self discipline and innate homogeneity. Rising cases of non-compliance with government advice and protocols clearly reflect how our basic inequalities, including women engaging more in social distancing compared to men, influence effectiveness of different COVID 19 protocols. Underprivileged population, who bear the heaviest burden of the pandemic, are found more compliant as a matter of protection.
In the lockdown concept too, there is an inherent classism. Both caste and class are hierarchy systems, based on the exploitation of marginalised groups in most Indian societies. Lockdown has essentially followed these established divisions. The practice of untouchability has been a fundamental aspect of the caste system. The lockdown has served to worsen the already gaping inequalities. Intolerance and lack of minimum support and empathy for migrant workers, bias towards the “own”, even in extending relief, has shown the ugly face of inequity. The sudden announcement of the lockdown and the suspension of all public transport, left thousands of migrant informal sector workers in mainland cities without any means of basic survival. The long and arduous homeward journey was the only alternative for survival as in a matter of days they became unwanted and almost as contagious as the virus itself. It became “we” against “them.” With the lockdown, the more privileged groups in Indian society have quickly established greater social distance between themselves and others around them. It simply required a widening of existing pecking order in society, which is often based on class and caste, affluence and influence. Lockdown also saw Indian elites maintain distance from the general populace. The tribal society has been by and large free from such divide till now. A majority of workers in India are engaged in unorganized sectors as daily wage earners, wherein affluent employers have no long-term legal obligations for their welfare. With the coronavirus crisis, many of them lost their jobs. The situation is particularly difficult for migrant workers who live in congested slum areas or roadsides often with no access to clean drinking water or toilets. The fault lines of social divide stands fully exposed.
So, while social distancing, in theory and practice, operates equally applicable to the entire population rather than groups, it also operates within deep inequalities and ways that are intensely unequal. Moreover, many people forced to take shelter in a place are vulnerable or historically disadvantaged, including the elderly, those with chronic conditions, undocumented immigrants, and communities not domicile to the place. In other words, burdens of all COVID-19 protocols and orders are far from being fairly distributed. The workers suffering financially are more willing to sacrifice for the health of the nation as they may be more worried about the economic effects of getting sick in absence of social security and health care benefits. Hence these people are found to be more supportive of steps that would limit the disease’s spread.
Historically, racism, stigma, and discrimination resulted in grossly inequitable application of disease containment measures in our country. COVID-19 situation is no different The current crisis has shown the needs for more investment in public sector institutions, especially in public health, for the most marginalised people to survive during and post lockdown. Further, there are fears that with burden of quarantine measures many workers will be forced to choose between destitution and defying restrictions. It is indeed a tight rope walk even with quarantine and isolation, albeit to a lesser degree. All these measures need to be justified and made morally mandatory; highlighting the expected benefits to society, beyond social division, that offset costs of legal compulsion in the form of COVID-19 protocols, SOPs et al.