Before the last week of March 2020, there was sharp difference in life styles and living habits of different layers of Indian society. Opulent sections had everything in ample measures, the middle rungs were too busy in copying life style of opulent sections, backwards and deprived sections were forced to sustain life on low caloric intakes. But the lockdown and restrictions on movements of all, the opulent sections had to maintain their environments neat and clean with their own efforts, in most cases, no outside help could attend to duties to prepare three meals a days for the family. The women in rich homes had to prepare food and feed families. Fear of infection walking in with ordered foods prevented them from getting the ordered food from outside. The cleaner woman could not come due to non availability of transport facility at affordable fare as all public and private transport services stood suspended. After years, women in rich homes were forced to pick up brush and clean the entire house as well as iron clothes as the Dalit couple that did the service in the back lanes of every colony could not reach their work stations. Cobblers could not occupy their place in sides of roads as they could not hope to have customers. Even beggars vanished.

The environment became clean and pollution free as factories ceased to omit pollution. Roads were clean and free of vehicles to cleanse the environment even more. The hidden dimension ended the petty corruption of rupees fifty thousand crore a year that beat constables and municipal employees collect as their hapta from nearly forty million road side traders in the country. Thus the NaMo government had kept the promise of eliminating corruption.

Only cynical political minds saw disadvantages in the impact of the lockdown. They may argue that the Lockdown increased unemployment as three sectors, the construction, food joints and auto repairs that provide maximum employment to young without the need for specific skills were forced to close down. But no system can take care of all interests and some sections have to make sacrifices. Only few can claim that 60 per cent of Indian population was forced to make sacrifice for the sake of and for the cause of 40 percent that formulate the class with the economic comfort. Only class that depends on only means, their daily earning for survival of the family naturally had to pay the price. It is then fault of nature that created such inequality. The political party was merely attempting to eliminate poverty. It is misfortune of the class that it got pushed to the fringe of elimination. The government had neither planned nor desired such consequence but it came as offshoot to the plan. The Lockdown had achieved the political objective of economic equality and reduction of sharp social divide.

The government did not hesitate to tell people, particularly the class that depends on daily earnings that the government would keep its money bag open to provide five kg grains and one kg lentil per capita per month for three months to poor. It remained promise on paper as distribution became conditional. After all the administration had to ensure rightfully deserving individuals only benefited. The conditions deprived millions from getting the government assistance, thus promised benefit of free food. It was not intended but the administrative need stood in the path of delivery. The imposed restrictions on human movements also hindered the process but then providing protection to all was the main objective. The Lockdown was necessary to drastically reduce human contacts as the main strategy in combat with the pandemic corona infection. Intention of government was clear and aimed at providing the needed relief. Only cynic would argue that the rulers have to anticipate the possible impediments that may crop up. But it is too much of expectation.

Is the government also expected to explain the cause of and reason for the spread of infection in six economically advanced states and six major cities? There is no rational explanation for more victims among the socially higher class. They may have defied the imposed and needed curbs on public contacts and physical movements. But it also cannot explain why the public contacts on massive scale among eight million individuals who travelled on feet hundreds of miles to reach their states or travelled in buses provided were not infected on large scale?

More surprising was the provision of free bus facility by the state government and thus justify the defiance of the union government edict of the lockdown on grounds of the humanitarian response. The union government remained silent even though the defiance was obvious. It did encourage others also. The close seats in restaurants were perceived to be dangerous and more dangerous than eighty travelling in a free ride in bus with maximum capacity of forty and for more than three hours. Anxiety to get in bus would have had resulted in unruly rush was unavoidable and beyond control.

More intriguing aspect of the fight against the pandemic was in allowing hospitals to impose charges that were not and could not be affordable even for lower middle classes. Even the preliminary test to verify only whether or not a person is infected the charge was beyond capacity of poor. Of course it did not mean that the government did not care for them whether they survived or not the onslaught of the infection. But number of poor is so huge that the government could not afford to lock system down to them and deprive other classes who could help the government to cut its expenditure. The corona infection did expose the weak and vulnerable spots more on the government body than on the society.