Social suffocation

With AQI levels soaring, policies must prioritize the vulnerable, ensuring protection from smog and economic strain.

Listen to article

I honestly did not know that it was possible to hit 1000, or 2000, on AQI. I mean I knew that those numbers were possible, but I did not expect that we would see them - and that too in multiple cities, and with a frequency that is outright terrifying. It is not simply that the quantitative metrics paint a horrible picture, it is also the duration. A few years ago, the problem was seen in December and January. We are now witnessing the crisis starting as early as late October.

The science of smog, and the causes are well established. True, sometimes there are reinforcing factors and conditions (wind patterns, pre-existing conditions) that vary from day to day, and variations within a city can be difficult to predict. But the bigger picture and the major contributors (e.g. crop burning, vehicle emission and coal powered brick kilns) are well established and there is little debate about them.

What is less clear is what to do now? There are proposals and counter-proposals. Most of what we hear are short term fixes. There are ad hoc orders to regulate traffic, a "green lockdown" in selected parts of the city, abrupt decisions to suspend schools, and quickly crafted policies to close wedding halls and even barbecue grills. I get the haste and the anxiety in the face of an urgent crisis, but in that haste we are likely to make things harder for those who are already suffering from decades of economic injustice and our collective neglect.

When the schools are closed and students are told that all classes will be online, there are certain assumptions that we make - assumptions about access to devices and connectivity. There are also assumptions that young children in every home will have someone to take care of them during the day. Those aspects of access are not uniform across the city. When restaurants are closed, or businesses shut down, they impact the daily wagers far more than they affect the restaurant owners. Those who can only afford an old rickshaw or a motorcycle will be hit harder in lockdowns than those who are able to lease the latest model. The kids who do not have access to tuition centres will fall farther behind when the school is closed than those who have highly paid tutors coming to their home. All of this - at a time of deep economic and social anxiety - will only increase anxiety, frustration and deprivation.

The argument here is not that we should not craft policy that protects people, prioritises health, or buys a bit of time. Instead, the argument here is to prioritise the weakest members of society - those without much of a safety net, those who are struggling to make ends meet, those who are at the greatest risk of economic devastation and falling behind in school. The point here is to build from the bottom, not from the top.

So how should we go about doing that? Here, I would argue that we have two possible ways to navigate. The first is our recent experience during the pandemic. There is ample data showing that communities and countries that prioritised welfare of the weakest early on, in ensuring access, financial support and care did much better overall (and in the long run) than those who let the natural order of things to progress (which tends to prioritise the privileged). And then there is the broader principle about what a just society should do. These are based on ideas of many, including the 20th century philosopher John Rawls, who argued that if we were to build a society, or for that matter craft a policy, it should be designed to benefit the least advantaged members of the society.

The smog in Lahore, Multan and other parts of the province are one particular problem among the many that are going to keep coming up. A fundamental principle of caring, and caring deeply, about those who are most vulnerable is both the most humane way of saving a society from suffocation.