Even indication of surrender in love, life and politics invites only defeat and disaster. There are several instances to prove it. The Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did not overcome his bewilderment at the betrayal by China in October 1962. He could not overcome it and resorted to consolidation of his political base indicating his surrender to the mundane politics that made his end came near.

Indira Gandhi sought desperately to step out of her folly of imposing the emergency rule. Her seeking election was construed as her surrender to invite defeat. She stood upright even in face of political atrocities including twice arrest, confrontation in the Shah Commission and expulsion from the Lok Sabha, and was given no second opportunity. Charan Singh perpetrated in 1978 her torture but went to her with folded hands a year later to seek her support to be in power. She came back to power and Charan Singh ended with only six seats.

Viswanath Pratap Singh sought consolidation in unusual political game and lost power. Above all the Congress leadership could not hide its terror of street shouters in 2012. The Congress president Sonia Gandhi directed her party to satisfy Anna Hazare and invited a debacle that turned into a virtual annihilation of the party in the 2014 elections.
Even the Bharatiya Janata Party cooperated in surrender to endorse the legislation to meet demand of Anna Hazare in the Lok Sabha and pushed the legislation in the Upper House also but a lone courageous voice questioned the surrender. He did ask what will be relevance in future of Parliament if it surrendered to every group shouting from streets loudly. The shocked house postponed vote and never sought to bring back the move.

The heavy cost of yielding to demands of outsiders was paid by the Congress in getting only 44 seats, 162 seats less than its previous tally. Narendra Modi leading the BJP in the 2014 election made the party subordinate but also promised not to yield or add to lures by offering free lunch to poor. It was new kind of politics that offered dignity even to Indians struggling below poverty line. He won a clear mandate after 25 years and seven elections of fractured verdicts.

He remained silent rather than surrender to forces demanding his return to politics of yielding to invisible entities. He won a clearer mandate in 2019 without any achievements on his slate to impress masses only because he refused to yield though his survival appeared under the threat. Yet he was made to surrender to the pandemic corona virus after he imposed the lock down on all activities. He did not offer free lunch to any section though the adverse impact of his clamp on 60 per cent part of Indian population surviving on daily earnings was not, or could not have been, away from his cognizance. He apparently did not want to hurt their sense of pride and dignity but his finance minister rushed within 44 hours to offer free food for three months to the affected all. Yet enticement of free lunch did not deter them from walking on their feet to seek dignified end to their woes in their home village. They strode for hundreds of miles in groups instead of staying in their places in towns in other states and waiting for free food to be delivered. Obviously they refused to be converted into fodder for the group standing behind the ruling party and directing. The Prime Minister was again stranded alone in the power corridor but he refused to yield. The interesting scenario would emerge after the last victim of the new pandemic breathes again and safely.

The intriguing question is as to why the Prime Minister did not include measures of welfare for more affected part of population in his original declaration of the lock down. He is not a naive politician or even a heartless human being. His scheme for social security to non-organized sections of society in 2015 provides sufficient evidence of his concern for them. It would mean he did not want to hurt their sentiments by asking them to throw away coverlet of dignity that he gave them in 2014.

The immediate interpretation of the missing scheme to provide relief to daily earners in his announcement for the lock down was that he is stone hearted and could not think of millions who would lose their daily earnings. The net impact on masses was different. Despite the scheme to reach poor families with per capita five kilo grain per month and for three months, most families preferred to walk back to places of their origins. They were not so naïve not to realize that return to their home village was not the solution. They would get neither employment nor food. Did they consider dying of hunger would be more dignified than being caught by the corona virus? Their tracking down hundreds of miles to uncertain future was intriguing, but no social organization seems to have undertaken study to understand implications of their unexplained reasons for their return to a decidedly uncertain future. Neither state governments nor the Central government attempted to persuade them to return to their work locations. Provision of buses for them to reach their home states was considered to be humanitarian response though the state chief minister might have been worried of the travelers leaving behind the infectious germs. The provision of bus service with habitual overcrowding in bus with close human contacts and open mouths and heavy breathing due to hungry bellies was nothing but invitation to certain mass deaths. Such possibility makes one to hesitate to call it a humanitarian gesture. On the contrary it was a misjudgment though it could also be motivated by the deep concern for people in the state of passage.

The question that would linger on is whose surrender it can be taken in and therefore who pays for it? The omission of the charity offer from the announcement and subsequent public statements by the Prime Minister would be matter of concern for powerful quarters seeking to bend him. The obvious indication suggests that power play would be initiated as soon as the scare of the pandemic corona virus subsides. It will be interesting political struggle as the party cannot win without him and the mentors cannot withstand him. Indian people would have to deliver their vote in the next elections, if they come at all, without the struggle to have one.