After war, peace: Judge says he knew Tolstoy book was classic

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 20:  Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Monday said that the government would revoke the order, which allowed the opening of barbershops and restaurants in the State.

The development comes after the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) objected to the move.
When asked about the letter issued by the MHA terming certain decisions as to the dilution of guidelines, Chief Minister Vijayan said: "There is no confrontation between the State government and the Centre."

"Kerala is following all directions issued by the Centre. Barbershops will not be opened and restaurants will only provide online delivery," he told the reporters, adding that public transport would not be allowed.

"There was a decision to open barbershops but many experts have pointed out against the decision. So the Kerala government is withdrawing the decision," he said.

Earlier, Chief Secretary Tom Jose said that if needed, then the State government will make necessary modifications to the lockdown guidelines in the wake of a communication received from the Central government.

The MHA had objected to the decision of Kerala government to allow services like barbershops, local workshops, restaurants, etc., and had urged the State government to revise its lockdown guidelines.

The Government of India had said that violation to lockdown measures reported posed a serious health hazard to the public and risk the spread of COVID-19.

Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla wrote to all Chief Secretaries and a separate letter had been sent to the Kerala Chief Secretary asking them not to dilute lockdown guidelines in any manner.

In his letter to the Kerala Chief Secretary, Bhalla had stated that the consolidated revised guidelines on the measures to be taken by the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India has been circulated on April 15 for containment of COVID-19.

Kerala Minister Kadakampally Surendran had said that relaxations have been given abiding by the direction issued by the Central government. He had added that the Centre may have asked for an explanation due to some misunderstanding.

India is under a nation-wide lockdown that came into force on March 25 to contain the spread of coronavirus, which has claimed 559 lives in the country. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the extension of lockdown till May 3.

Lucknow, May 9: The first patient to receive plasma therapy as an experimental treatment for coronavirus infection in Uttar Pradesh died following a heart attack on Saturday.

The patient, a 58-year-old doctor, was admitted at the King George’s Medical University (KGMU) here.

The doctor, who was on ventilator since the last 14 days, died on Saturday evening following a heart attack, KGMU Vice-Chancellor M L B Bhatt said.

Since he had high blood pressure and diabetes, he was under the continuous observation of doctors in the isolation ward, Bhatt said.

“The patient was in a stable condition. His lungs had improved, but he later developed urinary tract infection. Two reports of his samples came out as negative (for COVID-19) today,” the vice-chancellor said.

“He, however, suffered a heart attack around 5 pm. Despite all efforts, he could not be saved,” he said.

The doctor from Orai in Uttar Pradesh was administered plasma therapy at the state-run KGMU on April 26. He was administered the plasma donated by a doctor from Canada who was the first COVID-19 patient admitted at the hospital and later recovered.

Tulika Chandra of Blood Transfusion Department, KGMU said, "When the patient was given plasma therapy, his condition was very bad. His lungs, however, improved. But as he was an old patient with diabetes, he was kept on the ventilator.”

Convalescent Plasma Therapy is an experimental procedure for treating COVID-19 patients. In this treatment, plasma, a blood component, from a cured patient is transfused to a critically ill coronavirus patient.

The blood of a person who has recovered from COVID-19 develops antibodies to fight the virus. This therapy uses the antibodies from the blood of a cured patient to treat another critical patient.

The Union health ministry, however, had advised against considering the therapy to be a regular treatment for coronavirus, adding it should be used for research and trial purposes till there is a piece of robust scientific evidence to support its efficacy.

Jun 9: Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants all 1.3 billion Indians to be “vocal for local” — meaning, to not just use domestically made products but also to promote them. As an overseas citizen living in Hong Kong, I’m doing my bit by very vocally demanding Indian mangoes on every trip to the grocery. But half the summer is gone, and not a single slice so far.

My loss is due to India’s COVID-19 lockdown, which has severely pinched logistics, a perennial challenge in the huge, infrastructure-starved country. But more worrying than the disruption is the fruity political response to it. Rather than being a wake-up call for fixing supply chains, the pandemic seems to be putting India on an isolationist course. Why?

Granted that the liberal view that trade is good and autarky bad isn’t exactly fashionable anywhere right now. What makes India’s lurch troublesome is that the pace and direction of economic nationalism may be set by domestic business interests. The Indian liberals, many of whom are Western-trained academics, authors and — at least until a few years ago — policy makers, want a more competitive economy. They will be powerless to prevent the slide.

Modi’s call for a self-reliant India has been echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah, the cabinet’s unofficial No. 2, in a television interview. If Indians don’t buy foreign-made goods, the economy will see a jump, he said. The strategy — although it’s too nebulous yet to call it that — has a geopolitical element. A military standoff with China is under way, apparently triggered by India’s completion of a road and bridge near the common border in the tense Himalayan region of Ladakh. It’s very expensive to fight even a limited war there. With India’s economy flattened by COVID, New Delhi may be looking for ways to restore the status quo and send Beijing a signal.

Economic boycotts, such as Chinese consumers’ rejection of Japanese goods over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, are well understood as statecraft. In these times, it’s not even necessary to name an enemy. An undercurrent of popular anger against China, the source of both the virus and India’s biggest bilateral trade deficit, is supposed to do the job. But is it ever that easy?

A hastily introduced policy to stock only local goods in police and paramilitary canteens became a farcical exercise after the list of banned items ended up including products by the local units of Colgate-Palmolive Co., Nestle SA, and Unilever NV, which have had significant Indian operations for between 60 and 90 years, as well as Dabur India Ltd., a New Delhi-based maker of Ayurveda brands. The since-withdrawn list demonstrates the practical difficulty of bureaucrats trying to find things in a globalized world that are 100% indigenous.

Free-trade champions fret that the prime minister, whom they saw as being on their side six years ago, is acting against their advice to dismantle statist controls on land, labor and capital to help make the country more competitive. Engage with the world more, not less, they caution. But Modi also has to satisfy the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the umbrella Hindu organisation that gets him votes. Its backbone of small traders, builders and businessmen — the RSS admits only men — was losing patience with the anemic economy even before the pandemic. Now, they’re in deep trouble, because India’s broken financial system won’t deliver even state-guaranteed loans to them.

The U.S.-China tensions — over trade, intellectual property, COVID responsibility and Hong Kong’s autonomy — offer a perfect backdrop. A dire domestic economy and trouble at the border provide the foreground. Big business will dial economic nationalism up and down to hit a trifecta of goals: Block competition from the People's Republic; make Western rivals fall in line and do joint ventures; and tap deep overseas capital markets. The first goal is being achieved with newly placed restrictions on investment from any country that shares a land border with India. The second aim is to be realized by corporate lobbying to influence India's whimsical economic policies. As for the third objective, with the regulatory environment becoming tougher for U.S.-listed Chinese companies like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., an opportunity may open up for Indian firms.

All this may bring India Shenzhen-style enclaves of manufacturing and trade, but it will concentrate economic power in fewer hands, something that worries liberals. They’re moved by the suffering of India’s low-wage workers, who have borne the brunt of the COVID shutdown. But when their vision of a more just society and fairer income distribution prompts them to make common cause with the ideological Left, they’re quickly repelled by the Marxist voodoo that all cash, property, bonds and real estate held by citizens or within the nation “must be treated as national resources available during this crisis.” Who will invest in a country that does that instead of just printing money?

At the same time, when liberals look to the business class, they see a sudden swelling of support for ideas like a universal basic income. They wonder if this isn’t a ploy by industry to outsource part of the cost of labor to the taxpayer. Slogans like Modi’s vocal-for-local stir the pot and thicken the confusion. The value-conscious Indian consumer couldn’t give two hoots for calls to buy Indian, but large firms will know how to exploit economic nationalism. One day soon, I’ll get my mangoes — from them.