Friday, January 27, 2023
HomeOpinionIndian states can absorb diverse Covid response models, but Modi govt using...

Indian states can absorb diverse Covid response models, but Modi govt using one size for all

Modi govt's command and control approach puts India at risk of losing the advantages gifted by its size and federal constitutional structure.

Text Size:

Under the federal structure of the Indian Constitution, healthcare belongs to the state list. Yet, India’s current response to the Covid-19 crisis appears to be disproportionately driven by the Narendra Modi-led Union government, which has been formulating nationwide policies such as lockdowns, transporting migrants and coronavirus testing criteria.

India is uniquely positioned to follow different models of Covid-19 response, but it is being pushed toward uniformity and standardisation.

The Modi government has in fact gone beyond recommending policies. It has asserted its control by reprimanding states that are viewed as being insufficiently compliant with its directives. It has sent inter-ministerial teams to West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Telangana to file compliance reports. It has even warned the government of Kerala, arguably a state that has performed better than most industrial countries in handling the coronavirus crisis, about premature relaxation of the centrally formulated lockdown criteria.


Also read: 4,000 rules in 4 months: Are civil servants creating chaos in India’s Covid-19 management?


Weakening federalism

This centralised approach is a mistake. Even more damagingly, the increasingly strident command and control stance taken by the Modi government puts at risk some of the natural advantages gifted to India by its size and its federal constitutional structure.

Dealing with a previously unknown problem inevitably requires making guesses, working on hunches and drawing from related experiences, while being guided by as much technical information as is available. It is natural in such situations for authorities to make mistakes in their initial responses simply because there is no certainty regarding the correct response.

The ongoing pandemic falls into precisely this situation. We don’t know the true infection and mortality rates from the coronavirus. The scientific community remains unsure whether the virus spreads mainly through large globules of mucosalivary droplets emitted through coughing, or through smaller particles that float through air like aerosols, or through contaminated surfaces. We don’t even know the minimum infectious dose that is needed to get infected. Without these crucial pieces of information, devising a response to the crisis is like shooting in the dark.


Also read: Lateral entry, biometric attendance won’t fix Modi’s bureaucracy issue. Reinvest in the state


Covid-hit world embraced variety

Not surprisingly, countries have adopted different approaches to fight the coronavirus. While India imposed a nationwide lockdown, and has twice extended it, some like Sweden placed restrictions on visiting old-age homes and some schools, but not much else. Belarus has no restrictions at all. The UK started the Swedish way but then switched to a lockdown where people could step out of their homes for “very limited purposes”. Other countries have adopted intermediate strategies of shutting down most inessential businesses and educational institutions but not a complete lockdown of people inside their homes.

The variety of policies on view are actually good from a global perspective because they increase the chances of uncovering the “best” approach. An example is the policy on face masks. Asian countries embraced face masks very early while in the US and other Western countries, there was advice against it, at least initially. The relative success of the Asian approach has now seen the world moving towards embracing face masks. Another example is the contrast between the limited social restrictions imposed by Sweden to the more stringent lockdowns imposed by its neighbours Denmark and Norway. The variation in outcomes in these countries will potentially provide us insights as to the more effective approach.

We are seeing multiple approaches to devising a cure as well. Different teams across the world are trying to develop a vaccine. Clinical trials of different drugs to treat the virus are currently underway in many countries. Multiple randomised controlled trials at the same time allow us to uncover the efficacy of alternative treatments in the shortest amount of time while exposing the least number of people to potentially ineffective treatments. The world as a whole will gain from whoever comes up with a treatment first.


Also read: India has social schemes for poor in crises like Covid. But it needs a ‘who to pay’ database


One size can’t fit all of India

Experimenting with different approaches within a country is often not possible due to limitations of size. However, in a large country like India, with a population equal to 130 Swedens combined, it is possible for different states to try different approaches. This has three advantages.

First, ground conditions in India differ massively across states. It is fanciful to imagine that a uniform containment policy will be simultaneously appropriate for Ladakh (population density of 4.6 persons/sq km), Arunachal Pradesh (density 14.9 persons/sq km) and Kerala (900 persons/sq km), not to mention the variations in their temperature, climate, topography and administrative capacity.

Second, India also has the gift of a federal constitution. One of the greatest strengths of a federal system is that it encourages policy experimentation by constituent states. This generates faster learning since we gain knowledge simultaneously from a variety of experiments rather than from only one experiment at a time. This principle applies to economic policies as much as it does to health policies. The United States is an example of the benefits of a federal structure. Best practices are recognised quickly and spread widely as states compete for people and businesses.

Third, giving states the freedom to devise their own policies would also mean that state governments, and not the Centre, will be judged by the outcomes. At the moment, policies are being devised at the Centre and implemented by the states. This leaves plenty of room for finger-pointing, which is never a good outcome in democracies.


Also read: Covid fight will leave states exhausted. India needs to re-think its funds transfer system


Centre, decentralise

For decentralisation to work, however, states need adequate financial resources. The banning of alcohol sales during the ongoing lockdown has deprived most of them of a key source of revenue. It is indicative of the loss that several states such as DelhiAndhra Pradesh and Haryana quickly decided to levy additional tax on alcohol the moment the Modi government relaxed its sale last week. While the states’ share of GST revenues are already in arrears for the period since December 2019, the finance ministry also reportedly slashed their share in central taxes by nearly 18 per cent in April.

In addition, the Centre’s financial package of Rs 15,000 crore for states and Union Territories has been ridiculously small to be of any help to them. Lastly, corporate social responsibility (CSR) benefits given to the PM CARES fund have not been extended to contributions to the state and chief minister’s relief funds. All of these disadvantages need to be redressed quickly.

The coronavirus pandemic is a cooperative fight. India needs to let those who are closest to the battle decide on policies on lockdowns, determination of restriction zones, testing criteria and contact tracing. The Modi government should focus more on coordination problems across states. The size of India and its federalist Constitution are strengths. The current centrist approach is threatening to waste both.

Amartya Lahiri is Royal Bank Faculty Research Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

8 COMMENTS

  1. This what Professor says: Quote Sweden placed restrictions on visiting old-age homes and some schools, but not much else. Belarus has no restrictions at all. The UK started the Swedish way but then switched to a lockdown where people could step out of their homes for “very limited purposes”. Unquote
    Each country has adopted their own strategy based on Health requirements and there are enough evidence to show that MODI govt has done enough consultations before adopting strategies. The decisions are periodically reviewed based on experience . If States have totally different views they are at liberty to give suggestions and Union Govt has not prevented them from dissenting.{Sweden and Belarus are smaller than many States in India and cannot be taken a models}. What advice Professor has given to USA where the death toll is mounting.

  2. ‘The Print’ team should do something about this please. ‘The Views’ are not visible as a default, and so we are forced to write something for it to become visible.

  3. Indian Central Govt or Modi will be judged by the effectiveness of controlling the COVID 19 deaths.In a country where opposition -of whichever party it may be of-demands resignation of PM even for a minor incident in a remote area of a country, it will be political suicide for Modi to let things go by at its own pace.Modi Know this.He has burden of expectations.The Opposition in India weakened federalism when some states refused to implement the Acts (CAA NPR etc) passed by the Indian Parliament under the same Schedules and its parts of the Indian Constitution.Now Its Modis’ or centres’ turn. Now Modi has moral justification and pretext.

  4. It is a covid infection genius. What more does one want to know? That it spreads by all the three ways is already known. So what more does he want to know? Different countries have adopted different methods to control this infection, and the results are there for us see. Very high death rates. Does he want us to experiment in the same way and incur deaths in their millions? And then we have migrants criss crossing the country in their millions, which requires a very careful and calibrated approach.
    Ultimately we could not decipher what this person wanted to convey, on how to deal with the infection in a different way.
    I request Sekhar Gupta not to entertain such free loaders precious space. They only spew some familiar words, without conveying anything worthwhile.

  5. This article is more about politics than the suggestions to fight Covid. The author is forgetting that WB was fudging the data on deaths and Maharashtra is unable to keep the spread intact. Perhaps there will be another time to shed your crocodile tears on weakening of the federal structure in India.

Comments are closed.