The outbreak of a global pandemic stands as a true test of development. It highlights the effectiveness of our public institutions are in the event of a crisis, the flexibility of workplaces and businesses in shifting to remote work, and the strength of global institutions, such as the World Health Organization, in responding with effective leadership. As a global community, the COVID-19 pandemic is testing whether we can maintain social connectedness in spite of physical distance and fear of illness, or whether we let existing prejudices exacerbate the situation. It emphasizes the plight of the most vulnerable in our societies and the world: those who cannot afford to, or are physically unable to protect themselves and others by practicing social distancing. In an attempt to contain the spread of COVID-19, countries around the world have implemented an array of public health and quarantine measures with varying levels of legal enforcement. 

We have witnessed China seemingly curb the outbreak of the virus by implementing strict quarantine and travel restrictions, closing of public institutions, and rolling out mass testing. Singapore isolated symptomatic travelers and traced the whereabouts of the infected through interviews and CCTV footage. Although keeping schools and workplaces open, Singapore instituted daily checks and public health campaigns while compensating individuals and employers for lost workdays. By contrast, Taiwan implemented much stricter containment measures, enforcing home quarantining with fines of $33,200 USD for breach of an isolation order.

While many states focused on limiting transmission from international travelers, Hong Kong focused on minimizing community transmission, given its shared border with China. It expanded existing temperature testing facilities at entry ports, tasked local clinicians with reporting symptomatic patients, imposed travel restrictions, rapidly expanded quarantine facilities, closed schools, and encouraged working from home. Italy, the worst-struck country in Europe, has instituted a police monitored ban on leaving home except for work, health, and emergency reasons. Elsewhere in Europe, containment measures have taken a much softer tone. For example, the U.K. closed public spaces and recommended individuals to work from home and curb unnecessary travel, while issuing warnings for groups at risk of developing severe complications.

Now, the world anxiously watches as India, the second most populous country in the world, attempts to manage the COVID-19 outbreak. In many ways, India, with its high population density and stark levels of inequality, represents our worst fears in terms of the spread of the virus. However, India’s ability to protect its population will be a true testament to where it stands from the perspective of global development.

As a country with 49 per cent of the world’s diabetics, labour market dynamics that make working from home impossible for millions of people, and over 160 million people without access to clean water, the prospects are worrying. Moreover, the majority of the population lacks tertiary education and does not understand the severity of the health threat facing them. As a result, measures such as proper washing of hands and physical distancing are difficult to impose. This combined with an abundance of misinformation on social media only exacerbates the problem.

However, in the face of COVID-19, India has taken decisive measures under the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 and the Disaster Management Act of 2005. Public information campaigns on television and messages to over 900 million mobile phone users have been effective tools for communicating with such a large population. As of March 22, India has imposed self-isolation from 7:00am to 9:00pm. The Central and state governments have announced relief packages for daily-wage earners and temporary workers. In addition, India has banned international flights until March 31, and rail and intercity bus services have been suspended indefinitely. However, as individuals rush to return to their home states, it remains to be seen how well each state will fare in isolating suspected patients. At a state level, in Maharashtra, one of the first states to be affected by the pandemic, the health authorities are stamping people’s hands in indelible ink with the words “home quarantined” and an expiry date. 

With concerns about undertesting and the vulnerability of public health systems, one can only hope that India’s government will be able to appropriately estimate the spread of the virus and take action to protect such a large and vulnerable population.  In doing so, India must look to the best practice examples from countries that are effectively limiting the spread of the virus, and act as rapidly as possible. However, India lacks the ability to forcibly contain much of its population. Deployment of military and police forces could be a consideration, however, it is unclear how successful such measures will be. Meanwhile, self-isolation is an impossibility for many given the inability to work remotely, logistical difficulties complying with physical distancing, and insufficient access to sanitation and hygiene facilities. Thus, the Indian strategy will require the mobilizing of every resource available to curtail a pandemic amongst a particularly vulnerable population. How India responds to the COVID-19 crisis will shape the future of its development trajectory for decades to come.