Imagine: a thief breaks into your house and steals your belongings. To file a complaint, you visit the police station. The officer on duty, instead of reassuring you, argues that no one can set foot in your property if it is locked. Puzzled, you respond that the house is kept bolted all the time. The quality of the locks then must not have met the safety standards; or probably your residence invites more criminals than your next-door neighbor, the reason why that dwelling stays safe. He instructs: you should not make your house more conspicuous or fancier than others. Self-indulgence is a sin and modesty a virtue.
Reiterating also that there are safety guidelines for homeowners and everyone needs to abide by them, he refuses to lodge a complaint. If people follow these protocols there will be no robberies, if however, they don’t then responsibility lies with the citizens, not with his department. Police cannot help those who do not help themselves.
At a time of crisis, every state needs a leader that unites the nation, not Donald Trump
Now expand this example to the entire country and apply it on every possible crime. Robbery: you did not take adequate precautions. Murder: you instigated a fight. Bomb blast death: you did not need to be in the market. Rape: you exposed yourself too much. Contrary to the basic principle of not blaming the victim for the crime, the authorities can stand upside down and assign guilt to people.
A similar argument we now hear from federal and Punjab governments after they eased up the lockdown restrictions during Eid. The failure to maintain social distancing has led to the sudden rise in the number of coronavirus cases in a matter of weeks. The projections suggest that it may hit a million soon. The hospitals are already choked with the load of new cases. Because of the intensity of work, lack of personal protective equipment or support from the department, health care workers feel exhausted, afraid and dejected. Many of them have already lost the battle after catching the disease; others are recovering from illness, many more are avoiding contact with the patients even when they are on duty. All of it can lead to thousands of more deaths.
The medical community warned the government about it who either did not (or could not) comprehend what Epidemiologists meant when they said flattening of the curve. It suggests that the whole nation should not get sick together-which it is now- instead we should stretch the timeline longer to avoid suffocating the health care system.
How?
By slowing the transmission through implementing a physical lockdown.
But, the prime minister thought the Pakistani elite just wanted to copy the West, thus he divided people into pro-strong-lockdown, pro elite group and pro-smart-lockdown, pro poor group. His cabinet member then called the former as the mental slaves of Europe. At a time of crisis, every state needs a leader that unites the nation, not Donald Trump, but what Pakistan can do as it got a Donald Trump of its own.
Not that I am suggesting people are not to be blamed. They did not keep their doors locked, so to speak. Few months ago, when Italy and Spain got hit with the virus, Pakistanis continued saying that with hot weather, coronavirus would die down the same way ice melts in summers, and Pakistan would not see a surge of COVID 19. That theory failed. Then they proposed that Pakistanis have a better immune system since they are exposed to more infections during their lifetime, particularly Tuberculosis and its vaccine BCG. That hypothesis fell flat on the ground too. Now they rely upon Islamic Medicine, Unani Medicine, Homeopathy, particular types of oils obtained from endangered species of birds, animal organs like the tongue, kidneys, testicles of the rodents, special prayers, recitations, enchantments, animal sacrifices and pilgrimages to the Sufi shrines-to name a few.
Coming back, tell me what does the term smart lockdown even mean? Is there a standard, universally acceptable definition of it? The Centre for Economic Research in Pakistan, coined the term ‘smart lockdown’ for the first. The independent body recommended keeping the higher risk individuals at home while the lower risk people allowed to have increased mobility and permission to work. The idea was to prevent a blanket lock down and thus shutting down the economy. It was coupled with smart testing and smart contact tracing. What was the evidence behind it? Was there any research to support this concept? Did any other country follow that principle? In the absence of data, the Prime Minister ran with it promoting it almost as the word of God. Maybe he did not want the daily laborers to lose their livelihood, a perfectly reasonable concern. But that concern did not have to come by maligning everyone who differed from one’s opinion, yet the Handsome Leader of the House insisted on it. I therefore propose to change the name of smart lockdown to handsome lockdown, pretty lockdown or stylish lockdown.
The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at [email protected]