This is about the book, ‘The Plague’, written shortly after World War II by Albert Camus. The allegorical work is narrated in five parts. The first part deals with a sudden infestation of dead rats, which is initially not taken note of by the people of Oran, as plague had been conquered long ago. The second part deals with the lockdown of Oran, blocking any interaction with the rest of the world, and imprisoning those inside. The third part deals with the devastation caused by plague, whereby basic decency and humanity come under stress, with bodies piled up, one on top of another, unceremoniously disposed off. The fourth part deals with the attempt of an outsider, a non-resident of Oran, to escape initially, as he does not belong to Oran. The devastation he is witness to, however, changes him, and he foregoes an opportunity to escape, and voluntarily stays back to help the people of Oran to deal with the devastation. The fifth part deals with the retreat of plague from Oran. The narrator reflects, “that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good”, that “the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again” to spread contagion and death into unsuspecting humanity who would have forgotten all about the calamity they just lived through.
‘The Plague’ is essentially a metaphor for the situation in France and other countries of Europe during the German occupation. Camus uses the novel as a vehicle to explore and explain his philosophical viewpoints on absurdism (the futility of search for meaning in human existence), existentialism (the rejection of absoluteness of reason) and humanism (the ethical approach to life free particularly from religious dogmas). The points of view are revealed through dialogues and arguments between a small set of individuals from different walks of life. The descriptors of the characters and the conversations between them create a mosaic for exploration of the thoughts and actions that govern human beings. The townspeople of Oran are portrayed as self-centred and ill-equipped to fight the plague. They initially believe the false propaganda of the authorities. As the scourge spreads and deaths mount, they and the authorities wake up to the need to take drastic measures to combat the plague. The realization dawns that even the exalted are not immune to the disease. By that time, it is too late.
‘The Plague’ is an uncanny narration of our response to coronavirus. China responded with the typical ostrich mentality of a dictatorial government of suppressing the inconvenient truth by silencing the doctor who was the first to raise the alarm. The WHO responded with inexplicable naivety when it failed to raise an alarm even after visiting China. The President of the most advanced and powerful democracy declared that the virus was a passing affliction and would magically disappear. After the contagion of the virus had been established, he traveled to the largest democracy in the world whose Supreme Leader with utter disregard for the danger posed by the virus organized gathering of tens of thousands of people in the three cities he visited to pander to his need to tweet about the size of the crowds that greeted him. Belated recognition finally saw most governments, India included, impose lockdowns and repeatedly extend them. We are in part two of ‘The Plague’. Must we follow on to the remaining parts of the story? No. We can still (and we must) choose to deviate from the rest of the script.
The lockdowns must be regarded as temporary measures. They buy us time by delaying the spread of the virus, so that the medical facilities are not overwhelmed. The borrowed time should be used to build medical facilities and to contain the spread of the virus through extensive testing, meticulous contacts tracing and quarantining. Thus far, we have failed to act with boldness in this regard, and instead have constrained testing to moderate the reported number of cases and deaths for political exigency. In addition, while under lockdown, we must prepare a sensible plan to reopen. The proposed approach for reopening through identification of red, orange and green zones defies logic as it fails to recognize that activities are inter-connected. An activity in the green zones cannot be undertaken if the preceding or the succeeding activities are to be performed in the red zones that are still under lockdown. Next to the government and the bureaucracy, the biggest failure has been that of the industry associations. By now they should have developed operational protocols and processes for all the economic activities, including the difficult ones such as operating restaurants, movie theatres, retail stores and salons. The virus has revealed the glaring inadequacy of the apex industry associations such as CII, FICCI and ASOCHAM that just subserviently parrot support for all government moves, no matter how mindless and ineffective they are, rather than proposing and following up on sensible measures that are good for the nation and their members.
After assigning the task of looking after the lives of people to the state governments, the government at the centre has also abdicated its other responsibility of looking after the livelihoods of people. Beyond a point, the advice blared out by the government: ‘Stay Home’ and ‘Observe Social Distancing’ border on the cruel for the homeless and the marginalized who share hundred square feet among six. The heaviest price of the monumental failure to act in time is being paid by the day wagers and the migrants who are in real danger of death from starvation as their livelihood is taken away by the lockdown. The people of India responded magnificently when asked to clang vessels and light lamps to banish the coronavirus. That having been done, they now deserve bold fiscal measures from the central government to pull the economy from the abyss it is staring at.