PPE बाजार और वैश्विक एकजुटता की सीमायें

by RK Ranjan (Phd Candidate at the Valand Academy of Gotheburg University, Sweden)

कोरोनावायरस के संदर्भ में अगर कोई बात बार-बार दोहराई गयी है तो वह यह कि इस लड़ाई से अगर हमें जीतना है तो हमें एक साथ आना होगा. इस संकट से उबरने के लिए आपसी सहयोग कितना महत्वपूर्ण है, इसको डब्लू एच वो सहित हमारे देश के राजनेताओं ने भी रेखांकित किया है. भारतीय दृष्टिकोण से इस वैश्विक एकजुटता का प्रमाण तब स्पष्ट रूप से सामने आया जब भारत ने दुनिया के कई देशों को हाइड्रोक्सी क्लोरोक्विन (एच सी क्यू ) की आपूर्ति कराई. इस कदम के लिए कई देशों ने भारत के प्रति अपना आभार भी प्रकट किया है. यहां तक कि ब्राज़ील ने अपने आभार में भारत की तुलना हनुमान से कर दी जो कि रामायण के संजीवनी बूटी संस्करण की याद दिलाता है. भारत एच सी क्यू के निर्माण में अग्रणी देशों में से एक है. एच सी क्यू एक सस्ती दवा है जो मलेरिया के इलाज में काफी काम आता है. भारत सरकार के एच सी क्यू को निर्यात करने के निर्णय की काफी आलोचना भी हुई लेकिन सरकार का कहना है के देश में इस दवाई की प्रयाप्त उपलब्धता है. जब कोई संसाधन व्यापक तौर पर उपलब्ध हो तो उसको साझा करने में और वैश्विक सहयोग के बारे में सोचने में अक्सर कोई समस्या नहीं आती है. लेकिन क्या ये उदारता उन संस्धानों के लिए भी संभव है जो प्रचुर मात्रा में उपलब्ध ना हो? 

भारत में कोरोनावायरस के संकट ने प्रवासी मजदूरों की पीड़ा को सामने लाया। इतना ही नहीं इस संकट ने यह भी साफ कर दिया कि आर्थिक और सामाजिक संसाधन के हिसाब से समाज के अलग-अलग वर्ग के लिए इस संकट के मायने भी अलग होंगे. इस तरह की असमानताएँ केवल देश के अंदर नहीं बल्कि विश्व स्तर पर भी है.  इसलिए जरुरी है कि हम इस पर भी ध्यान रखें कि ये वैश्विक असमानताएँ कोरोनावायरस के संदर्भ में किस प्रकार का रूप ले रही है. दुनिया के सभी 195 देश अपने स्वास्थ्य कर्मचारियों के लिए पर्सनल प्रोटेक्टिव इक्विपमेंट (पी पी ई) उपकरण खरीदने की होड़ में है. पी पी ई खरीदने की यह लड़ाई कहीं से भी बराबरी की लड़ाई नहीं है. भले ही वैश्विक एकजुटता और सहयोग सुनने में अच्छा लगे लेकिन जमीनी सच्चाई यही है की अब दरारें साफ दिखने लगी है. यहाँ तक की जर्मनी और नीदरलेंड जैसे अमीर देशों ने भी अपनी चिंताएं अभिव्यक्त करनी  शुरू कर दी है. पी पी ई के अमेरिकी डॉलर में खरीद-फरोख्त होने की वजह से अफ्रीका के कई देशों के लिए मुश्किलें और भी बढ़ गयी है. भारत को भी पी पी ई से जुड़ी सामग्री (जो कि प्रयाप्त मात्रा में भी और अपेक्षित गुणवत्ता वाली भी हो) हासिल करने में काफी दिक्कतें आ रही है. अमेरिका ने शिकायत की है कि उसकी कई कंपनियों को चीन में अपने कारखानों से निर्यात करने में कठिनाइयों का सामना करना पड़ रहा है। इन उभरते दरारों के बावजूद कुछ जगहों से अभी भी 'वैश्विक सहयोग' पर बल दिया जा रहा है. असमानतों की पृष्ठभूमि पर उपजी और सिंचित, सहयोग और साझाकरण की नीति हमारे अस्तित्व को खतरे में डाल सकती है. इसलिए बेहतर यही होगा की हम दुनिया के बाकी हिस्सों से अपनी उम्मीदें कम कर लें. 

पहले अपनी जरूरतों को पूरा करने का हवाला देते हुए कई देशों ने महत्वपूर्ण उपकरणों के निर्यात पर गंभीर प्रतिबंध लगाए हैं. वैश्विक एकजुटता को कम करने के साथ इन कदमों ने वैश्विक बाजार में उपकरणों के खरीद-फरोख्त पर भी काफी असर डाला है. ऐसे देश जिनके पास निर्माण की क्षमतायें सीमित हैं या तो वह वो बिलकुल ही निर्माण नहीं कर पर रहे या फिर जितना कर पा रहे हैं वो जरूरत के हिसाब से प्रयाप्त नहीं है. नतीजा ये है कि अपने जरूरतों को पूरा करने के लिए ऐसे सारे देश मुख्य  रूप से पूर्वी एशिया के कुछ देशों पर अब निर्भर हैं. न केवल इन देशों से आपूर्ति सीमित है, बल्कि अनिश्चित भी. अगर महामारी का संकट इन देशों में फिर से जोर पकड़ता है तो ये सीमित और अनिश्चित आपूर्ति भी तेजी से सिकुड़ जाएगी. 

माँग के दृष्टिकोण से देखा जाये तो जिन देशों में कोविड के मामले तेजी से बढ़ रहे हैं उन्हें इन उपकरणों की तत्काल जरूरत है. लेकिन अनिश्चितता के इस दौर में कमोबेश सारे देश इन उपकरणों को इक्कठा करने में जुड़े हैं. लॉकडाउन हमेशा के लिए नहीं रह सकता और इसलिए लॉकडाउन के पश्चात कोविड के मामले सब जगह बढ़ने का खतरा काफी सच है. आवश्यक उपकरणों की मात्रा का अनुमान लगाने में कठिनाई मामले को और भी बदतर बना देती है. ऐसी पृष्टभूमि में जहाँ इतनी अनिश्चिततायें हो ये स्वभाविक है कि सारे देश किसी भी तरीके से इन उपकरणों को इकठ्ठा करने में लग गए हैं. इस होड़ को होर्डिंग कहना कोई अतिश्योक्ति नहीं होगी.  

जरूरतों और अनिश्चितताओं से उपजी माँग और समवर्ती आपूर्ति की कमी ने चिकत्सा सम्बन्धी सामानों की खरीद-फरोख्त को एक जीरो-सम गेम बना दिया है. ऐसे खेल में एक खिलाड़ी के लिए जीतने का एकमात्र तरीका दूसरों को हराना होता है. परिकलपना कीजिये कि दो देशों में लोग मर रहे हैं, और दोनों के पास वे सभी पी पी ई नहीं हैं जिनकी उन्हें आवश्यकता है। ऐसे हालत में देश A में जाने वाला हर PPE जो देश B को नहीं जाता है, वह देश B के चिकित्सा कर्मचारियों को जोखिम में डालता है.   इसलिए, देश बी के लिए यही तर्कसंगत है कि  वह हर संभव प्रयास करे अधिक से अधिक मात्रा में  पी पी ई  जुटाने का. और वह ऐसा देश A की कीमत पर ही कर सकता है. 

उपकरणों को तेजी से खरीदने के लिए दुनिया भर में सरकारों पर दबाव है। ऐसे हालत में बाजार खरीदने और बेचने वालों का सामान रूप से नहीं होता। बाजार बेचने वालों के मुट्ठी में हो जाता है. बोली लगाने के इस युद्ध में, खरीदार जो ज्यादा से ज्यादा कीमत देने की पेशकश कर सकते हैं, वो सभी के लिए बाजार की कीमतों को बढ़ा  देते हैं. यदि प्रत्येक देश और राज्य के पास सामान आर्थिक संसाधनों की मौजूदगी होती तो अलग बात थी. लेकिन मामला वह नहीं है। भारत जैसे देश के लिए, और जिस मात्रा में PPE की जरुरत है, कैलिफोर्निया या न्यूयॉर्क जैसे अमेरिकी राज्यों के खिलाफ लगातार बोली लगाने और जीतने के लिए संघर्ष करेगी, जो एक दूसरे के खिलाफ बोली भी लगा रहे हैं। नतीजन, कई देश या तो आवश्यक मात्रा से कम या अवांछित गुणवत्ता वाली PPE ही प्राप्त कर पायेगी. 

कीमत पर प्रतिस्पर्धा एकमात्र समस्या नहीं है जो हाल के दिनों में सामने आई है. जिन देशों के पास नगद में भुगतान करने की क्षमता है या फिर शक्तिशाली हैं वो सारी आपूर्ति अपनी तरफ कर लें यह एक वास्तविक और निरंतर खतरा बन रहेगा. अंतरराष्ट्रीय अनुबंधों को लागू करना, जो कि सबसे अच्छे समय में मुश्किल है, वैश्विक संकट के बीच में लगभग असंभव हो जाता है। यदि स्पैनिश फ्लू की तरह कोविड लंबे समय तक रहता है, तो यह संभव है कि जिन देशों में अधिकांश आपूर्तिकर्ता आधारित हैं, वो चुनेंगे की दुनिया के कौन से देश कोविड की लड़ाई में जीतेंगे और कौन से देश हारेंगे. 

भारत जैसे देश के जरुरी है की वो तेज़ी से बदलते बाजार को पहचाने और समझे. हमें यह स्वीकार करना होगा कि कम समय में उच्च गुणवत्ता वाले उपकरण प्राप्त करने का एकमात्र तरीका यह है कि हम अमीर देशों द्वारा पेश की जा रही कीमत को मैच करें. लेकिन सरकार के सीमित संसाधनों को देखते हुए यह कहना उचित होगा कि हम  यह बहुत लंबे समय तक नहीं कर सकते. इसलिए, चिकित्सा उपकरणों के घरेलू उत्पादन को रफ़्तार देने की तत्काल आवश्यकता है. इस संदर्भ  में परमिट प्रदान करने की प्रक्रिया को तेज करना एक अहम कदम होगा. पंजाब जैसे कुछ राज्यों ने इस संबंध में कुछ अच्छे कदम लिए हैं और अन्य राज्यों को इस पर अमल करना चाहिए. गुणवत्ता की चिंता इस बात से दूर हो सकती ही कि ऐसे हालत में जब अंतर्राष्ट्रीय शिपमेंट पर प्रतिबन्ध है, घरेलू बाजार में राज्य सरकारें बड़े खरीददार के रूप में उभरेंगी जो ये सुनिश्चित करेगा कि बाजार स्वरुप  विक्रेता से ज्यादा ख़रीददार तय करे. खैर किसी भी परिस्तिथि में गुणवत्ता की चिंता परमिट देने के रास्ते में नहीं आनी चाहिए. इस दिशा में लिए गए  ठोस प्रयासों से मौजूदा कमी तो दूर होगी ही, साथ ही साथ इससे देश को फिस्कल इस्टीमुलुस भी मिलेगा. 

बढ़ती मांग और सीमित आपूर्ति से होने वाली परेशानियां वैश्विक एकजुटता के लिए एक बड़ी चुनौती बानी रहेगी. इसका अर्थ यही नहीं है को किसी भी तरह का वैश्विक सहयोग नहीं होगा लेकिन हमारी सभी समस्याओं के समाधान के लिए वैश्विक एकजुटता पर निर्भर होना नासमझी होगी। एक पुरानी कहावत के अनुसार, मदद करने वाले हाथ को खोजने का सबसे अच्छा स्थान आपके खुद की बांह है।

Can global solidarity survive the zero-sum game in the market for PPEs?

"We are all in it together" – is a common refrain in these troubled times. From local politicians to national leaders to the WHO all have pointed out that we can only overcome this crisis if we all cooperate. From an Indian perspective, nowhere has this sense of global solidarity been more obvious than when shipments of Hydroxy Chloro-Quinine (HCQ) were sent across the world. Many countries conveyed their gratitude with the government of Brazil even invoking the Ramayana, with India playing Hanuman bringing sanjeevani when it was needed most. HCQ is a cheap drug used often in malaria-stricken countries like India. Its widespread availability is why, despite some criticism, the Indian government has maintained that it has sufficient reserves. When supply is not a limiting factor, cooperation and sharing of resources are rarely of major concern. But can this bonhomie extend to resources that are not in abundant supply?

The suffering of great masses of migrant labour across India brought the vulnerability of marginalized groups into sharp focus. As we grapple with the enormity of our domestic problems, we must not be blind-sighted by the potential fallouts of asymmetry in endowments across countries, both economic and otherwise. All of the 195 countries in the world are in competition to procure equipment, particularly Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), to equip their health workers and it is not a fair fight. Fractures in inter-country cooperation are beginning to show up, with even rich countries like Germany and the Netherlands voicing their concerns. Countries in Africa are struggling to source from an international market where prices are denominated in US dollars. India has also faced problems with sourcing materials in the required quantity and of expected quality. The USA has complained that many of its firms are facing difficulties in exporting out of their factories in China. In the face of the emerging acrimony, some have continued to rally global cooperation. But in a situation where cooperation and sharing can jeopardize one's prospect of survival, we would do well to temper our expectations from the rest of the world.

Many any countries have placed severe restrictions on exports of critical equipment citing the need to take care of their own first. These moves, along with undermining global solidarity, have also served to severely restrict supply in the global market. Parts of the world with limited manufacturing capabilities cannot manufacture the required equipment, and even among those who can there are few, if any, that can produce all they need. This has led almost all of them to rely on supplies from a few countries, mostly in East Asia. Not only is the supply from these countries limited, it is also precarious. Any indication of another outbreak in these countries and the supply would shrink very rapidly. 

On the demand side, countries that are facing a surge in COVID cases need medical equipment urgently. But the urgency of stocking up before the surge hits is not lost on the other countries. Lockdowns cannot last forever and the inevitability of the spread of the virus in its aftermath means that the urgency of the latter group of countries is not less than the former. The difficulty in predicting the quantity of equipment required makes matter worse. This uncertainty drives countries to build as large a stockpile as they can. The buying patterns that emerge in a situation like this is akin to hoarding.  

The urgency and uncertainty that is driving demand and the concurrent lack of supply have made the procurement of essential medical supplies a zero-sum game between states. In such a game the only way for a player to win is for the others to lose. There are no win-win scenarios. If people are dying in two countries, and both of them cannot have all the PPE they need. Then, every PPE that goes to country A, doesn't go to Country B putting country B's medical staff at risk. It would, therefore, make sense for country B to try and get as many PPEs as possible and it can only do that that by denying country A. 

Government's across the world are under intense pressure to buy equipment and buy them fast. With a few sellers and many, many desperate buyers, this is a seller's market. In the ensuing bidding war, buyers who can afford to will offer to pay higher and higher prices, driving market prices up for everyone. If every country and state had the same amount of resources, higher willingness to pay would simply signal relative urgency. But that is not the case. An economy the size of India, given the quantity it needs, will struggle to bid and win consistently against US states like California or New York, which are also bidding against each other. Consequently, many of the countries will either end up with less quantity than required or worse, with equipment that will not be of the desired quality. 

The competition on price is not the only problem that has emerged in recent times. The ability of some countries to wrest away supplies by either paying in cash, or by abuse of power remains a constant threat. Allegations of international piracy is already showing that enforcing international contracts, which is difficult in the best of times, might turn out to be almost impossible in the middle of a global crisis. If the pandemic lasts for as long as the Spanish Flu did, it is not inconceivable that the countries in which most of the suppliers are based will increasingly get to choose winners and losers. 

The need of the hour for a country like India is to recognize the dynamics of this fast-evolving market. We will have to concede that in the short run, the only way to get high-quality equipment will be to match the price being offered by richer countries. But given the limited resources at the government's disposal, this cannot be sustained for too long. Therefore, there is an urgent need to ramp up the domestic capability to produce medical equipment. Hastening the process of providing permits will go a long way in improving domestic manufacturing capabilities. Some states like Punjab, have taken the lead in this regard and others should follow suit. Concerns around quality should be mitigated by the fact that with international shipment severely restricted, the domestic market will have a few large buyers in the form of state governments, creating more of a buyer’s market. In any case, concerns about the quality of the final output should not hinder granting of permissions to firms that are willing to produce the required equipment. Not only will concerted efforts in this direction alleviate the current shortages, it will also create a mechanism for the government to provide some fiscal stimulus to the domestic industry. 

The troubles that emanate from the frantic demand and limited supplies will make global solidarity more difficult to sustain. There will still be cooperation: more shipments of medicines, sharing findings on the vaccine and leading countries might even come together to create a new version of the Bretton Woods. The world will rally in our collective fight against the virus but to expect solidarity to be a solution to all our problems will be unwise. As an old saying goes, the best place to find a helping hand is at the end of your own arm.

On Clarity and Credibility in dealing with a Global Pandemic

India is in a government-enforced lockdown that is harsher than in many other countries. Our streets are being patrolled by the police with instructions to take strict action against people violating protocol. Some chief ministers have threatened to give orders to shoot at sight, others have promised to send violators to jail. Yet, very few are clear on what constitutes a violation and what does not. The list of essential services expands and contracts in response to every crisis that emerges. Kerala recently allowed the sale of alcohol to those with a doctors prescription, Haryana, on the other hand, closed down liquor shops 2 days into the lockdown. These revisions and re-revisions of government guidelines circulate as Whatsapp forwards with varying degrees of accuracy, adding to the confusion, fomenting fear and panic. The lack of clarity among the administration and the public alike is likely to be a most formidable hurdle in India's struggle against the coronavirus.

In the weeks to come, the people of India will be more reliant than ever on the state in its role as coordinator and enforcer. Any loss in the credibility of the government can prove devastating to India's hopes of successfully combating the threat of coronavirus. At its core, the credibility of the state rests on being able to limit opportunistic behavior by any individual or group of individuals. In that regard, the Indian state has not been very effective, even in the best of times. The long record of inefficiency and poor implementation aside, the officials used to making arbitrary decisions while presiding over their fiefdoms, will now be responsible for keeping the country functioning. The few institutional checks and balances and the largely informal private enterprise that helped paper over the cracks will no longer be able to do so as effectively. 

As we wade deeper into the crisis precipitated by the SARS-COV 2 virus, the immediate urgency of fighting the virus will give way to the urgency of getting on with our lives, fatigue will set in, tempers will fray and the number of infractions will mount. Our health infrastructure is certainly not equipped for the surge in numbers that is predicted for the next few months, but maybe we can build and buy our way out of it, with some help from the international community. But if our governance structure falters, there will be very few remedies available. To give ourselves a fighting chance, it is imperative to acknowledge the importance of clarity, wherein all actors, government enforcers, and citizens, know what is expected of them in the days to come. 

Clarity precedes Credibility

These are unprecedented times and nobody can draw on past experiences to form their expectations of the coming days. This creates a clarity problem that can destabilize any system of governance; the people who are expected to comply are not on the same page as the people who are expected to enforce. The purpose of the big stick of enforcement available to any government is to get people to comply with rules and regulations. But if people do not know what it is that they have to comply with, the stick cannot accomplish much. In fact, it can lead to a situation where any act of enforcement might seem to be arbitrary and therefore erode the trust between people and the government that it is critical in times like these. Which would then lead to even minimal levels of compliance requiring stricter enforcement, creating a vicious cycle which will be tough to break out of.

The spread in the perception of arbitrariness is going to be expedited if the enforcers themselves are unaware of what it is that they are meant to enforce. It took a day too many before the decision of allowing food delivery services to ply in the lockdown made it to local law enforcement. In the meanwhile, delivery boys were harassed, and in some extreme cases, even beaten up. Allegations of these actions being taken to extort money aside, it is not difficult to imagine that the local policemen were merely trying to enforce the lockdown the best they could.  With a limited force charged policing millions, sporadic cases of highhandedness may be inevitable, but the lag between the formulation of policy and change in enforcement strategy can make the situation worse than it has to be. Not only will it very likely affect the morale of the people policing our streets, but it would also make it difficult for conscientious members of society to file complaints with the police.    

Lack of Clarity Within

Any government is comprised of many individuals constituted in departments, organizations, and committees. One of the key tasks of administration, particularly in a crisis is to ensure that its constituent elements of the government move in sync. Even in these uncertain times, it would be reasonable to expect that plans to cope with the outbreak were made, with detailed instructions for all concerned and that these plans were shared with the responsible authorities. This is particularly true as India was not in the initial line of fire of the virus and the government had some weeks in which these plans should have been put in place. But it does not seem that governments had a detailed plan in place, even for its own branches where it would have been easier to anticipate problems.

Consider the case of the measure where the central government asked public sector banks and undertakings to work with 50% of staff, while still providing all essential services. The trouble with this requirement, besides the extremely short notice in which it was to be carried out, is that not all of these firms need 50% of their staff to provide basic services, some need less, some need more. If they need less, the person in charge of making these decisions in the organization would have to either risk putting more colleagues in harm's way than required or being hauled up for not enforcing orders. If they need more, the problem is even more severe. In either case, the person in charge will have to make harsh decisions, which, might risk insubordination in the not too distant future.

It is unclear if the 50% mandate was meant to avoid confusion, a manifestation of the lack of trust in the decision-making capabilities of the top leadership of these organizations or merely a result of the lack of willingness to give up authority by people at the center of the decision-making matrix. Whatever be the reasons for which the decision was made, it ended up reducing clarity by having two requirements that were not necessarily compatible with each other.

Lack of Clarity Without

The lack of clarity that seems to be dogging the government's machinery from within also extends to the public at large. In the lockdown that has been in force since 23rd March, a common refrain has been that essential goods and services will be available. The big problem has been with the term essential. There was an original list of services that every state government released, but each of those lists has been amended many many times since. The trouble of keeping track of these changes is compounded by the increasing divergence in the positions taken by different state governments. This not only creates problems in identifying what activities people should and should not engage in a particular state but also the possibility of disaffection with people in state A not able to access somethings that people in state B can.

Decentralization has often been touted as a panacea to India's governance problems. We are a diverse country and it is very difficult to come up with one size fits all solution. However, in the present crisis, while de-facto decentralization in implementation decisions is unavoidable, it is very much desirable that 720 districts or 36 states (& UTs) do not make policy independent of each other.  A stark example of the problems that arise from the lack of coordination across the country is the migrant labor crisis. It is difficult to ascertain if the trigger for large scale movement of people was any specific policy or lack thereof, but it is almost certain that greater coordination across states would have enabled quicker remedial measures. For now, the problem has been dealt with the sealing of borders and providing food and shelter. But sustained lack of clarity on what these people stuck in no man's land can expect from the coming weeks, will lead another round of attempted exodus. Consistency in policy across states, facilitated by the central government, with minor local changes will not only reduce the strain of keeping up with the policy changes in this rapidly evolving environment but also help state governments coordinate better.

The Way Forward

The basis of an ideal governance structure is the clarity that emanates from classifying actions into good and bad. The people being governed know of this classification. Some of them take good actions due to innate preferences, others follow due to the threat of being caught by the police and still others follow due to the threat of the other people complaining to the police. The police follow their own classification of actions in identifying deviants and punishing them. More than a week into the lockdown these classifications are still not clear.

Should I take food and rations to the nearby slum, would that be a violation of the lockdown? Would my actions increase the danger of the virus spreading? What should the police do? Should they ask me to go home? Should they take the food from me? Should they let me be? If the endgame of the lockdown, as the WHO seems to suggest, is to test more people, should go get tested in a private facility, if I can afford it? Or will I be tested by government officials when the time comes? If making toothpaste is not an essential service, will we not run out of toothpaste soon?

This is an evolving situation and not all measures, counter-measures and their outcomes could have been foreseen by even the most astute observers. The swiftness with which we went from the PM 'asking' for a few weeks of our time to full national lockdown surprised many, but maybe the decision had been delayed to a point where there were few remaining options. It is apparent that irrespective of the policy choice made, there will be many fires that will need to be put out in the weeks and the months to come. This monumental task, if it has to be accomplished without moving to a decidedly authoritarian form of governance, can only be carried out if the government and its people trust each other.

Only clear and honest communication from the government can form the basis of this trust. Information about the state of the country; its finances, capabilities of its health infrastructures, and the expectations from individual citizens will form the bulwark against panic and recklessness. Platitudes and promises that reveal themselves to be hollow, create a trust deficit which foments rumor mills. If the objective of credible governance is to limit opportunistic behavior, the lack of clarity about the world resulting from rumors make this objective ever more elusive.

Many of us will be forced to make very difficult decisions in the times to come. Whether these decisions will back the government's efforts or obstruct them, will in large part, be determined by the information we have about the government's plans. There will still be those for whom the threat of punishment must be maintained, but for most being informed of what we should and should not do, along with the assurance that our near and dear will be taken care of, will suffice. The Indian republic has survived for 7 decades, allegations of weak governance and opportunistic citizens notwithstanding. It is time that the government of India gives reposes faith in its citizens and tells us exactly what they plan to do, and how we can help.