Messy border lockdowns ought to be avoided
On a day when the Haryana government announced that it would permit all inter-state movement from June 1 in compliance with the Centre’s ‘Unlock-1’ guideline to allow uninterrupted movement of people and goods, the Delhi government ordered a one-week closure of its borders. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said the move was aimed at preventing patients from other states from coming to the national capital to avail its medical services at the expense of the people of the city as the number of Covid-19 cases was not abating and there was a possibility of the capital falling short of hospital beds.
While the move may have had a protectionist intent, it ended up inconveniencing lakhs of people who live in neighbouring cities but work in Delhi and vice versa. Gurugram, Noida and Faridabad abut Delhi and seamless travel between its people is a daily occurrence. The closure resulted in massive traffic jams in the borders, with many unable to make it to their workplaces.
This is not the first time that a state government has acted unilaterally, without seemingly thinking of the consequences of its actions. Just a day before domestic flight operations resumed on May 25, the West Bengal government said it would not allow flights as it was still dealing with the aftermath of Cyclone Amphan. Several other states either restricted the number of flights or decided to quarantine incoming flyers although Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Puri had categorically said this was not necessary.
The last-minute announcements and divergent steps by the states only ended up harassing the common man, with thousands of flights being cancelled on the first day. There was similar confusion among states on Shramik trains to take migrant workers home. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar put conditions on the return of migrants from Maharashtra and Gujarat, delaying and even stalling the movement of the poor people. Given that the pandemic has disrupted lives and pushed up stress levels cutting across class, borders and communities, such thoughtless unilateralism could have been avoided. The executive should always put the interests of the governed before anything else.