1
Witoubou Newmai
It goes without saying that each moment of our today’s ‘coronavirus life’ poses distinct challenges, demanding appropriate responses to keep ourselves on the safe side. But the issue now is also the manner of the response prevalent today to the dire situation.
It definitely will take for humanity a while to process everything the virus is giving and taking away from us, but we cannot afford to respond inappropriately to what we already knew till date about the virus. With this, we may ask whether we are doing honestly what we should be doing.
As we noticed scenarios in Dimapur, and so are in almost all towns and cities of India, the problem is new and peculiar but the nerve of rushes, tendencies and chaos are not new. The question again is, can a new problem be resolved if we continue with our old tendencies and habits?
A peculiar issue requires an equally peculiar approach.
Coming to a discussion on some specific requirements and peculiar subtle, we may ask whether we are responding to the situation because we are being imposed with guidelines or rules attached with warnings of ‘exemplary punishment’ by the authorities. Or, are we just doing things to be acceptable in the society informed by social consciousness? Or, are we honestly fighting the virus with the latest updated knowledge on the issue?
What has been broached above appears to be a single premise and non-issue. However, once the premise is ripped open we will see subtleties. Once we are there and having recognized the subtle differences, it will be hard for us to blithely dismiss the challenges. To explain it in other words is, continuing to gloss over the nuances of the issue is not at all an honest way of fighting the virus pandemic but only doing it for the eyes of the police and the society. If this has been the case, we may pass from the screening eyes of the police and the society but we may want to know that the ‘microscopic monster,’ a new name many people have now started calling the virus, do not screen us the way the police and the society do. The precise point emphasized here is for the people to do more and beyond the eyes of the police and the society.
The above argument doesn’t mean we are giving sweeping conclusions to dismiss guidelines laid by the authorities. Everyone must go by the guidelines of the concerned authorities. However, the going must be more of the inside-out rather than hobbling over because of the weight down pressure of the imposition.
Now, for the inside-out tendency to prevail while grappling the virus issue, knowledge on the issue must be at the required level. If such situation is still in want of in our society, the society must take full responsibility to create a desired ambience where people can be all willing, with utmost honesty, to take part in engaging the virus issue.
Now, as the mobility of people has started, someone confining in ‘green zones’ is as vulnerable as in ‘red zones’. It is not anymore the ‘apocalypse’ from the mists of distant land. It is very much in the making here itself. Such is also the ‘knowledge about the virus’ that may go to someone’s consciousness only through concerted awareness campaigns.
So the issue again is, intense or concerted community awareness campaigns on the virus problems are one important measure, while in the same time, segregate things what are immediate requirements people should do, and then medium to long term measures. In short, unless one is armed with the required knowledge of the virus or its virulent potential and so on, we will only continue to conceal the danger with happy indifference.
The whole argument is about choosing 'knowledge determining life.’ Or else, one is only asking life to be imposed.
