INTRODUCTION-COVID-19 in Asia: Governance and the Politics of the Pandemic

In this introduction to studies of the politics of the COVID-19 pandemic in four Asian states-India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and South Korea-we first discuss the difficulties in evaluating the performances of different countries, given the varying reliability of data and the different possible criteria that may be applied. In our studies we aim rather to illuminate the process of different state responses, and we go on to summarize evidence on different patterns of response across Asia, situating the four country studies in a comparative context. We then review arguments in the literature about the determinants of different responses, before presenting our framework for the analysis of the politics that underlie these differences. Political leadership has undoubtedly exercised a powerful influence, but in the structural context of the relationships of state and citizens. We argue that understanding of these relationships is advanced by an analytical framework that draws on state-in-society approaches developed in the work of Joel Migdal, Michael Mann, and Peter Evans.

Why Was the Pandemic Poorly Managed by the Government of India? A State-in-Society Approach

Administrative "success" or "failure" during the pandemic are hard to assess given uncertainties both of criteria and of data. But there can be no doubt about the mishandling of the pandemic at crucial junctures by the Indian government, or about the culpability of prime minister Narendra Modi himself. He has this in common with other "strongmen" of contemporary world politics, but Modi was unusually successful in turning the events of the pandemic to reinforce his dominance. The immediate political factors that influenced the Indian response had to do with political leadership and with the "decisionism" that characterised Modi's actions, but in the context of the pursuit of the goals of Hindu nationalism. This article explains the responses of the Indian government drawing on a framework based on the comparative analysis of Baum and her co-authors. It shows how the events of the pandemic reflect on India's politics and on the character of the Indian state, using a state-in-society approach suggested by the interlocking arguments of Migdal, Mann and Evans. This highlights and explains the very different responses of the major states of the country.

"Responding to an Epidemic Requires a Compassionate State": How Has the Indian State Been Doing in the Time of COVID-19?

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian government, led by Narendra Modi, imposed a stringent lockdown with only four hours notice. It paid no attention to the millions of migrants who work on a temporary basis in Indian cities. Most lost their livelihoods as a result of the lockdown, and millions sought to return to their native villages. At the same time, the rural economy confronted its own difficulties caused by the lockdown. The relief that the Modi government offered to the large numbers of poor people who had been adversely affected by its response to COVID-19 was limited and poorly delivered. The episode showed the lack of responsiveness of Indian democracy to the needs of working people and the failures of development. Yet Modi's particular brand of authoritarian populism worked so well that a government displaying very little compassion retained strong popular support.