By Joe Lyngdoh
In view of the recent debates regarding the recent government order allowing only businesses with vaccinated staff to be open, there are a few points highlighted here for the perusal of the general public, and the officials involved in the decisions centred around this matter:
The recent observations on the matter by the High Court of Meghalaya is welcome for the clarity it has provided vis a vis the mode of operation of businesses as part of the post-lockdown easing of restrictions. [All shops/establishments/local taxis/auto-rickshaws/maxi cabs and buses should display prominently at a conspicuous place, a sign with “VACCINATED” or “NOT VACCINATED”.] This reflects the opinion prevalent amongst certain citizens that a requirement of mandatory vaccination for people operating businesses involves the suppression of the fundamental right to life – by suppressing the right to livelihood as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution. It is the argument of this writer that this supposed interpretation of a ‘suppression’ is correct only within the condition- “the status quo is that businesses are allowed to open by default and only some people are deprived of their rights to a livelihood if they choose not to be vaccinated”. But this is not true. The status quo at this point is not at all one of “normalcy”, It is a tentative economic environment with the constant possibility of lockdowns and restrictions on most or all businesses. Without mass vaccination and with the continued spread of the covid virus, the default scenario instead is one of, “No business being allowed to operate due to covid induced restrictions.”
Hence, it may be argued instead that the segment of people who are choosing not to get vaccinated are directly contributing to further economic and individual restrictions for ALL citizens, not just themselves. If we are to consider that full vaccination of the population would lead to relative normalcy (i.e No further covid related lockdowns or restrictions), then the wilful act of not accepting the vaccine would directly contribute to a significantly higher chance of future restrictions. Consequently, the segment of non-vaccinators within the populace is bound to indirectly cause the prolonged suppression of several fundamental rights for the entire population – including those who are vaccinated – for the coming months (or maybe years). It is a catch 22 situation for the government. On one hand, they cannot freely open restrictions with a large proportion of the population still being unvaccinated. On the other hand, the restrictions are causing severe hardship and duress to citizens especially due to the prolonged and uncertain nature of the restrictions. To ensure that the general population is free to live their lives within the ambit of the constitutionally guaranteed rights, the citizens and the economy must soon be allowed the same pre-pandemic freedoms to operate – especially under the context that mass vaccination is accepted by governments across the world as an available mechanism to end the uncontained spread and mortality due to the covid virus. If the government is legally disallowed from enforcing the order for “vaccinated staff being a prerequisite for operating businesses”, then it must plan for a phased policy of “ending all restrictions” within the next few months – at the earliest.
A well-planned vaccination drive which at least offers the possibility of a vaccine to all citizens is the only condition necessary for this decision. The vaccination arrangements can be accompanied by general awareness measures for the population regarding the much higher probability of covid induced hospitalisation/death for non-vaccinated people. The government can publish and disseminate data on hospitalisations and death ratios for vaccinated vs unvaccinated covid patients. If some people still choose to remain unvaccinated, it would be their choice as per the interpretation of the law – however they should make this choice whilst accepting the potential consequences and without blaming the government or the healthcare system later. I hope they also accept that they will be the reason for an expected extension of any lockdown and/or restrictions for everyone.
Hence, their decision to not vaccinate may be legal, but it is not at all noble. As an analogy – tobacco is likely to cause cancer but people are legally free to smoke – just not in public where they risk other people with their choice. The critical difference here is that cancer is not contagious, but covid is. Vaccination is proven to greatly reduce the contagious nature of the virus. Thus, a choice to not vaccinate involves a risk of higher spread across the state- putting at risk the lives of children who cannot be vaccinated at present. If someone wants to avoid vaccination, let them do so with the knowledge that their supposed “rights” may contribute to the death of a child in the near future.I congratulate all the healthcare workers and government officials who are contributing towards the ongoing vaccination drive. I am grateful to all fellow citizens who have taken the vaccine and are perhaps advocating for mass vaccination for all. Mass vaccination is the only end game for the covid pandemic. To state otherwise is to go against a mountain of scientific evidence. To supplement the vaccination efforts however, the citizens should continually and strongly advocate for urgency on an end date to the restrictions. With the vaccine set to be available for all in the next 2-3 months as per news reports, the government needs to have a plan in place for transitioning the economy and the covid restrictions back into the way of life from the pre-pandemic period.
With a vaccine already available for the general public, it is indeed a matter of bewilderment that the government has not yet committed to a time-bound plan to remove all covid related restrictions. I would urge the government to make a plan (with dates) on vaccination coverage and restriction removals – and to deliver on this plan. The government is also encouraged to pursue the legality of any potential restrictions solely for unvaccinated people in the coming months. Times of crisis call for decisive measures, not reactionary ones.
Additionally, all citizens have had their rights suppressed for a continued period of 16 months and counting due to the pandemic. We do not want the state to continually subsume our individual fundamental rights via lockdowns and restrictions. It lays the precedence for potential abuse by future governments, threatening the democratic foundations of our constitution – especially on the subject of individual rights and freedoms.