Alina Khan | 26 May 2021, 11:29 PM IST
Image Source: The Economic Times
The second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the potholes in the healthcare system in India. Despite several reforms, the country has been unable to tackle the unprecedented crisis which underlines India’s need to increase investments in the healthcare sector. Even though the official cases seem to have plateaued over time, the crisis faced by the medical infrastructure highlights the fact that the country is not prepared to deal with such a catastrophe.
What’s more alarming is the devastating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rural population. The second wave of the pandemic seems to have affected the poor much worse. The spread is disproportionately more in districts comprising densely populated rural areas with lower access to healthcare facilities. But given the stress that the rural economy has been under since the lockdown imposed in March 2020, the real test will begin when the infections are finally brought under control.
Moving past the first COVID-19 wave
Ever since the lockdown was imposed in March last year, the rural population of the country has been in distress. From the sudden migrant crisis to the loss of income, livelihood, and opportunities across villages and households, the effect on rural India is startling. Still struggling to cope with the effects of the pandemic, the major concerns of rural communities revolve around the availability of drinking water and food, loss of income and livelihood, and the impact on education on their children.
Even though the government introduced a Rs 1.7 lakh crore relief package for the poor, workers, and those in immediate help during the lockdown, it seemed to have little effect on the rural areas. A study conducted by IIMPACT, an NGO, and the Indian School of Development Management (ISDM), reported that only about 17% of the people were able to retain their primary source of income during the lockdown. While at least 15% of the surveyed households mentioned reverse migration as the cause of impact, 96% of households were unable to sustain themselves beyond 4 months.
In addition, the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Scheme, which promised to secure 80 crore people with food security and cash transfers, did not reach every household. The results were evident when two migrant women from the villages of Chhatarpur, MP, and Delhi were interviewed. Kamla Devi, a 40-year-old woman currently residing in a shack in Sector 52, Gurugram, said that her family did not receive any help from the authorities. "They are for themselves and not for us”, she added.
Another interviewee, Pushpa, residing in Wazirabad Village, Gurgaon, said that the lockdown was particularly tough for her family as both Pushpa and her husband lost their jobs.
“In grave circumstances, I even dialled 100 to look out for help but no help of any sort was received”.
The two women (where Kamla is a daily wager, Pushpa works as a house cleaner) unanimously agreed that their income post the first lockdown has reduced considerably, being barely sufficient to fill their bellies.
The second wave of COVID-19
The first wave of COVID-19 was destructive. Several migrant workers returned back to their hometown; some on foot, others on whatever conveyance was available during the lockdown. As the numbers started declining in early January, most of these workers migrated back to the towns and cities in search of rural employment. But this time, the migration was silent, unlike what happened during the initial months of lockdown in 2020.
What went unnoticed though, is the fact that this triggered virus transmission amongst the rural population in India. Where urban India faced an acute shortage of oxygen supply despite the countless private and public healthcare facilities available, one can only imagine the plight of rural India.
Another concerning factor is the rapidly increasing unemployment rate amongst the rural population. Data from CMIE, the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, indicated that the rural unemployment rate witnessed a sharp increase from less than 6% in March 2021 to more than 14% in the third week of May 2021. Moreover, a number of private surveys have confirmed that most households have been unable to recover the income lost during the first wave of COVID-19.
Earlier, in 2020, the government had taken quick steps and had introduced three sufficiently large packages to help revive the informal sector. But this time, the situation is worrying. There has been no announcement of fiscal packages or income transfers for vulnerable groups except the delivery of free foodgrain for two months. Regardless of the surge in demand for work under the rural employment guarantee scheme, the government hasn’t enhanced the allotted budget.
Is mass vaccination the solution?
Most industry veterans argue that the only solution to deal with the current wave is to increase the rate of vaccination in rural India. Considering the fact that urban India got severely affected by the virus in the first and second waves, they will develop high levels of herd immunity. As far as rural India is concerned, vaccination seems to be the key. Despite the problems in supply and scepticism amongst people about its effects, mass vaccination drives need to be deployed to prevent a potential third wave.
But this sounds like a far-fetched dream for the rural population. Recent data suggests that the rate of vaccination in the urban metropolitan areas is much higher than in the rural districts. Thus, to contain the pandemic, innovation must scale up on two fronts. First, we must improve the availability of jabs and ensure equitable distribution of the vaccine, and second, we must bust the underlying myths and educate people about the need to get vaccinated.
India’s rural economy has been under stress for more than a year, and the lack of financial support from the government has only made the situation worse. Loss of income and jobs along with increasing healthcare expenditure has depleted their wealth, leaving the rural hinterland in aggravating pain. In the absence of support from the state, it will be difficult to revive discretionary spending in rural areas. To curb the impact, concerned authorities must take immediate actions and replenish the rural economy, without which a broad economic revival will be difficult.
Comments