List of top Questions asked in CLAT

In the domain of education, the current pandemic has made three things clear. It has proved beyond any doubt that we need schools. Irrespective of which country one talks about, students and parents want schools to open and function in full glory, with appropriate precautions. Secondly, it has shown that technology may prove to be useful in education if it is employed thoughtfully. Random surfing of the Internet may lead to a collection of pieces of information that do not add up to any meaning. As Noam Chomsky says, “You cannot pursue any kind of inquiry without a relatively clear framework that is directing your search and helping you choose what is significant and what is not.” Moreover, there cannot be any hegemonic technomanagerial solutions to the linguistic and cultural heterogeneity of students; technology must help us to respect individual, peer group and community needs and aspirations. Thirdly, a convergence of the efforts of the public, civil society and private enterprise will have to take place if we wish technology to meaningfully mediate between school and home, particularly among underprivileged groups.
The concept, structure and functioning of a school/college should not be trivialised in any way. This institution has survived since ancient times in spite of proposals for “de -schooling” of various kinds. It is true that schools to a great extent perpetuate the status quo and, as Ivan Illich observed, encourage “consumerism” and “obedience to authority”; but it is also true that those who produced some of the most revolutionary moments in history, including quantum jumps in knowledge, also went to school. The kind of web of learners Illich imagines may in fact have its roots in schools. There are also people who trivialise schools for the kind of investments they demand in terms of space, buildings, teachers, libraries and labs and other infrastructure. 
One thing you never forget is the school you went to, friends you made there and the kind of teachers who taught you; the kind of teachers you loved, the kind you mocked at with friends. You recollect nostalgically the sports and other co-curricular activities you took part in. Some of you may still have preserved your school blazer, trophies and photographs with a sense of joy. It is important to see school holistically; it is not a set of atomic items of rooms, library, assembly halls, canteen and playgrounds; it is all of these but in symbiotic relationship with each other, the contours of which are often far too obvious and often simply mysterious.
Following the transition to democracy, with the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as president in I994, South Africa was faced with the task of dealing with its past, as well as undertaking some action to deal with structural social injustice. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), heralded as the most ambitious and organised attempt to deal with crimes of a past regime through a concept of truth, came into force on 19th July I995 in South Africa. Emerging as a political strategy to acknowledge past suffering whilst promoting a future based on the concerns of social justice, the rule of law and reconciliation, the Commission has struggled to fulfil its objectives. Although the TRC incorporated these broader concerns into the mandate of its three sub-committees, they were disregarded in practice. These sub-committees, which reflected concerns for ‘human rights violations’, ‘amnesty’ and ‘reparation and rehabilitation’, were not ‘coupled with some form of social transformation’. The public transition from apartheid, established through a negotiated settlement rather than a revolutionary process, framed the Commission’s powers. Shaped by the historical context of this particular transition, the TRC was careful not to ‘rock the structural boat’. Rather than pursuing truth and justice, as an integrated feature of social transformation, the Commissioners and, to a greater extent, the government of South Africa, maintained an agenda that avoided a challenge to the status quo. A focus on restorative justice was taken by the Commission with an emphasis placed on mechanisms to restore victims and survivors, through reparations policy, state-led acknowledgement of suffering, and a condemnation, together with the transformation, of the system that implemented such widespread forms of abuse. The priority of changing the apartheid conditions of gross inequality and oppression provided a backdrop to the approval of the TRC by those who had suffered. More difficult to accept was the provision of amnesty to those who had undertaken violations of human rights. The process placed amnesty of violations as a carrot to perpetrators in exchange for a full story, with the stick of prosecutions for those who did not come forward.
Since the worldwide inoculation process is going strong, vaccine diplomacy has become a hot topic. In their quest for ensuring vaccine security, a report by The New York Times, based on the data on vaccine contracts compiled by Duke University, shows that the advance purchase contracts made by some advanced countries for potential vaccines would vaccinate their population many times: the European Union, two times, the United States and the United Kingdom, four times, and Canada, six times. The expectation that an early vaccination will bring back normalcy and a required push to economic growth fuelled many advanced countries to engage in vaccine battles. The arguments of public good and global cooperation have gone out of the window now. While advanced countries have turned their back on the need of poor countries to access COVID-19 vaccines, India has displayed empathy to their needs. India has taken a position that a significant percentage of the approved doses will be permitted for exports. While its exports to neighbouring countries will be under grant mode, initial shipment of vaccines to least developed countries will be free of cost. And, shipments of vaccines from India have already started reaching different parts of the developing world. While India is in its first phase of vaccination to cover health-care workers, exports from India are helping other countries also in initiating phase one of their vaccination programme, a gesture well appreciated globally. In a democracy, one can expect the backlash of sending vaccines abroad without vaccinating its population. Nevertheless, India’s approach only reinforces the need of having coordinated global efforts in bringing COVID-19 under control. This response manifests India’s unstinted commitment to global development and has consolidated its name as the world’s pharmacy. The attitude of India towards vaccinating the populations in the poorer countries has generated discussion in the richer countries about the necessity for more proactive measures to roll out vaccines to the developing nations.
Since long, we have witnessed unimaginable levels of success and failure of various projects, businesses, scientific missions and even wars. From such triumphs and defeats emerges the much debatable thought: Is planning and strategy more important than execution? Some project leaders and their teams are of the view that planning leads to clarity of objectives; it helps to set the timeline and the budget. Consequently, when the planning is haphazard and unstructured, the very aims of the projects become hazy. This further leads to unprecedented budget collapses and poor time-management. In some cases, teams have worked relentlessly to complete assignments, but poor planning has invariably led to customer dissatisfaction and at times a complete collapse of the entire project. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”
Numerous entrepreneurs have the faith that strategies help to enhance not only speed and quality of production, but also consumer satisfaction. If there are no strategies to tackle unplanned events or unexpected interruptions, there is a possibility of entire projects coming to a grinding halt. Some of the world’s best airports, bridges and astronomical missions are the result of careful planning and excellent strategies. However, there are some architects, artists and entrepreneurs who prefer to dive straight from the board of ideas into the pool of execution. They believe that suitable strategies are best shaped during the process of execution; great plans and strategies can fail while encountering unexpected situations. Steve Jobs says, “To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions.”
According to Bill Gates, unhappy customers are the greatest source of learning. Fickle-minded consumers and wavering market trends can mar projects that stand on fixed plans. It is the need-based, flexible and innovative strategies that help to withstand the impact of these vacillating desires and trends.
After rigorous planning and testing a new recipe on two lakh consumers, in 1985, the company Coke brought out the New Coke. Much to the company’s dismay, the product did not take off as expected and the financial loss was enormous. The company realized that during the process of data collection, it had not considered the product-loyalty and old-fashioned habits of the consumers. 
Hence, a balance of pragmatic planning, effective strategies and efficient execution is likely to ensure the accomplishment of tasks at each stage of a project. Successful execution is not an easy journey. The road is winding and bumpy. It may require tweaking or at times abandoning the original plan and re-designing it. Often, we turn to nature for inspiration. Think plans and strategies are the seed; execution is the nourishment; consumer is the capricious weather.
Read an extract from A Scandal in Bohemia by Arthur Conan Doyle:
“I rang the door-bell and was shown up to the chamber which had formerly been in part my own. With hardly a word spoken, Sherlock Holmes waved me to an armchair. Then he stood before the fire and looked me over in his singular introspective fashion. “Watson, you did not tell me that you intended to go into harness.” “Then, how do you know?” “I see it, I deduce it. How do I know that you have been getting yourself very wet lately, and that you have a most clumsy and careless servant girl?” “My dear Holmes,” said I, “this is too much. It is true that I had a country walk on Thursday and came home in a dreadful mess, but as I have changed my clothes, I can’t imagine how you deduce it. As to Mary Jane, she is incorrigible, but there, again, I fail to see how you work it out.” “It is simplicity itself,” said he; “my eyes tell me that on the inside of your left shoe, just where the firelight strikes it, the leather is scored by six almost parallel cuts. Obviously, they have been caused by someone who has very carelessly scared round the edges of the sole in order to remove crusted mud from it. Hence, you see, my double deduction that you had been out in vile weather, and that you had a particularly malignant boot-slitting specimen of the London slavey.” 
In fiction, detectives like Holmes are usually portrayed as people with exceptionally brilliant minds. They possess the rare skill to see and analyze what ordinary people can’t. They have incredible abilities to infer, deduce, induce and conclude. 
Then, there is G.K. Chesterton’s fictional catholic priest, Father Brown who relies on his extraordinary power of sympathy and empathy that enable him to imagine and feel as criminals do. He explains, “I had thought out exactly how a thing like that could be done, and in what style or state of mind a man could really do it. And when I was quite sure that I felt exactly like the murderer myself, of course I knew who he was.” 
Sherlock finds the criminal by starting from the outside. He relies on science, experimental methods and deduction. On the contrary, Father Brown uses varied psychological experiences learned from those who make confessions of crime to him. He relies on introspection, intuition and empathy. 
There is yet another set of detectives like those created by writers like Agatha Christie. Her Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot is a story-teller who draws information from the stories that others tell. He patiently listens to numerous accounts of what happened, where it happened and how it happened. He listens for credibility and ambiguity; he identifies why and how the pieces of the jig-saws don’t fit together. Ultimately, he uncovers the truth.
Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable. This principle is embodied in the maxim volenti non fit injuria. A person cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed himself with his free consent and free will. The maxim volenti non fit injuria is founded on good sense and justice. A person who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong. The maxim presupposes a tortious act by the defendant. The maxim applies, in the first place, to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious. There are certain limitations to the application of this maxim:
(i) It is no answer to a claim made by a workman against his employer for injury caused through a breach by the employer of a duty imposed upon him by a statute. But where the negligence or breach of statutory duty is on the part of an employee of the plaintiff who knowingly accepts the risk flowing from such breach and the employer-defendant is not guilty of negligence or breach of statutory duty, the defence of volenti non fit injuria is available to the defendant. 
(ii) Under an exigency caused by the defendant’s wrongful misconduct, consciously and deliberately faced a risk, even of death, whether the person endangered is one to whom he owes a duty of protection, as a member of his family, or is a mere stranger to whom he owes no such special duty. The rescuer will not be deprived of his remedy merely because the risk which he runs is not the same as that run by the person whom he rescues. But where there is no need to take any risk, the person suffering harm in doing so cannot recover. 
(iii) To cover a case of negligence the defence on the basis of the maxim must be based on implied agreement whether amounting to contract or not. The defence is available only when the plaintiff freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk impliedly agreed to incur it and to waive any claim for injury. But when the plaintiff has no choice or when the notice is given at a stage when it is beyond the ability of the plaintiff to make a choice there can be no implied agreement and the defence on the basis of the maxim must fail. 
(iv) The maxim will also not apply when the act relied upon is done because of the psychological condition which the defendant’s breach of duty had induced
It is essential to the creation of a contract that both parties should agree to the same thing in the same sense. Mutual consent, which should also be a free consent, is the sine qua non of a valid agreement and one of its essential elements is that a thing is understood in the same sense by a party as is understood by the other. Not only consent, but free consent is provided in Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to be necessary to the complete validity of a contract. Consent is free when it works without obstacles to impede its exercise. Where there is no consent or no real and certain object of consent, there can be no contract at all. Where there is consent, but not free consent, there is generally a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was not free. A general averment that consent was not freely obtained is not enough, and it is necessary to set up one of the vitiating elements such as fraud which includes, false assertion, active concealment, promise without intention of performing it, any other deceptive act, or any act declared as fraudulent. In order to constitute fraud, the act should have been done by the party to the contract, or by any other person with his connivance, or by his agent and with intent to deceive the other party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract. There is no duty upon parties to speak about facts likely to affect the other party’s consent to the contract and mere silence does not amount to fraud, unless the circumstances of the case show that there is duty to speak, or silence is, in itself equivalent to speech. On the other hand, misrepresentation falls into three categories: (i) a statement of fact, which if false, would be misrepresentation if the maker believes it to be true, but which is not justified by the information he possesses; (ii) any breach of duty which gains an advantage to the person committing it by misleading another to his prejudice, there being no intention to deceive; and (iii) causing a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement, even though done innocently.
Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as follows:
Communication when complete - The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete, - as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. 
Thus, the provision makes no difference in the position of the offeror. The offeror becomes bound when a properly addressed and adequately stamped letter of acceptance is posted. The acceptor does not become bound by merely posting his acceptance. He becomes bound only when his acceptance comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The contract is concluded at the place from where the proposal is accepted and communication of acceptance is dispatched, i.e., the address at which the proposal was sent. The court at that place would have jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action under the contract. This rule, that the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the proposer when the letter is posted, is probably intended to apply only when the parties are at a distance and they communicate by post. “Where, however, the parties are in each other’s presence or, though separated in space”, they are in direct communication, as, for example, by telephone, no contract will arise until the offeror receives the notification of acceptance
The doctrine of res judicata requires that a party should not be allowed to file same matter repeatedly against the other party either in the same court or in other competent court and that the decision given by one court should be accepted as final subject to any appeal, revision or review. The doctrine is founded on the principle that it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should be attached to the binding decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. This apart, the object of the doctrine is to ensure that ultimately there should be an end to litigation. Doctrine of res judicata is embodied in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which governs the procedure to be followed in civil matters. Section 11 is inapplicable to writ jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has observed that though the rule is technical in nature yet the general doctrine of res judicata is based on public policy and therefore, it cannot be treated as irrelevant or inadmissible even in dealing with fundamental rights in petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is considered on merits as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution of India. It would not be open to a party to ignore the judgment of the High Court and move Supreme Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed but not on the merits, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, however if the petition is dismissed without passing a speaking order, then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata.
Marriage is necessarily the basis of social organisation and the foundation of important legal rights and obligations. The importance and imperative character of the institution of marriage needs no comment. In Hindu law, marriage is treated as a Samskara or a sacrament. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 introduced monogamy as a law of marriage among Hindus by virtue of Section 5 clause (i) which is essentially the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others. It enacts, “neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage”. The expression ‘spouse’ here used, means a lawfully married husband or wife. Before a valid marriage can be solemnised, both parties to such marriage must be either single or divorced or a widow or a widower and only then they are competent to enter into a valid marriage. If at the time of performance of the marriage rites and ceremonies, one or other of the parties had a spouse living and the earlier marriage had not already been set aside, the later marriage is no marriage at all. The Supreme Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1965 SC 1564] held, “Prima facie, the expression ‘whoever marries’ in Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (which defines the offence of bigamy) must mean ‘whoever marries validly’ or ‘whoever marries and whose marriage is a valid one’. If marriage is not valid according to the law applicable to the parties, no question arises of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying. One of the conditions of a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is that it must be ‘solemnised’. Further, Section 13 (2) of the Act provides for grounds of divorce to wife and states, “A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that in the case of any marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act, that the husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner: Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition”.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not define ‘consent’ in positive terms, but what cannot be regarded as ‘consent’ under the Code is explained by Section 90. Section 90 reads as follows: “90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception - A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception;…” Consent given firstly under fear of injury and secondly under a misconception of fact is not ‘consent’ at all. That is what is enjoined by the first part of Section 90. These two grounds specified in Section 90 are analogous to coercion and mistake of fact which are the familiar grounds that can vitiate a transaction under the jurisprudence of our country as well as other countries. The factors set out in the first part of Section 90 are from the point of view of the victim. The second part of Section 90 enacts the corresponding provision from the point of view of the accused. It envisages that the accused too has knowledge or has reason to believe that the consent was given by the victim in consequence of fear of injury or misconception of fact. Thus, the second part lays emphasis on the knowledge or reasonable belief of the person who obtains the tainted consent. The requirements of both the parts should be cumulatively satisfied. In other words, the court has to see whether the person giving the consent had given it under fear of injury or misconception of fact and the court should also be satisfied that the person doing the act i.e. the alleged offender, is conscious of the fact or should have reason to think that but for the fear or misconception, the consent would not have been given. This is the scheme of Section 90 which is couched in negative terminology. Section 90 cannot, however, be construed as an exhaustive definition of consent for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The normal connotation and concept of ‘consent’is not intended to be excluded. Various decisions of the High Court and of Supreme Court have not merely gone by the language of Section 90, but travelled a wider field, guided by the etymology of the word ‘consent’.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the unmatched mental health challenges have made it more crucial than ever that we continue to make strides towards understanding the concept of mental health stigma and how we might tackle it around the world. Graham Thornicroft, a practising psychiatrist, who is extensively and deeply involved in mental health stigma research at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences at King’s College London has divided stigma into three components-knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The last behaviour emerges from social isolation, such as what we are experiencing during the pandemic, as well as exclusion from mainstream activities and citizenship. In higher-income countries, stigma rates may be greater than other countries, perhaps because of the pressure to excel. In low-income countries, one can be unwell and still play an active social and productive role somewhere as there are many such roles to play within the family and in society. Enhancing contact with people who have experienced mental health problems is the best way to reduce stigma. To date, most people with mental illness remain silent about their condition, avoiding discussing their problems for fear of losing face, damaging their reputation or jeopardising their family status. Having a space where they may be welcomed and listened to, rather than judged, will go a long way towards enabling them to share their experiences. In a small part of rural Andhra Pradesh, researchers used posters, pictures, drums, and a short street play, as an intervention technique to reduce mental health stigma. An actor portrayed a person’s journey through mental health crises and setbacks before receiving support and showing hope, improvement and recovery. People assembled around the stage, willing to talk about and discuss what they saw, even two to three years after the event.
One of the most important challenges for Indian diplomacy in the subcontinent is to persuade its neighbours that India is an opportunity, not a threat. Far from feeling in any way besieged by India, they should be able to see it as offering access to a vast market and to a dynamic, growing economy which would provide their own economies with far greater opportunities than more distant partners (or even their own domestic markets) could provide. This would go beyond economic benefits: as David Malone argues, “Economic cooperation represents the easiest ‘sell’ to various constituencies within the countries of the region. Were this to prove successful, cooperation on more divisive and sensitive issues, such as terrorism, separatism, insurgency, religious fundamentalism, and ethnic strife, could be attempted with greater chances of success.” Winds of change are blowing in South Asia. There is a definite consolidation of democracy in all the countries of the region, every one of which has held elections within the last three years. Some of our neighbours have made significant strides in surmounting internal conflict and others are in the process of doing so. If India has to fulfil its potential in the world, we have no choice but to live in peace with our neighbours, in mutual security, harmony and cooperation. Just as Nehru left Robert Frost’s immortal lines “Miles to go before I sleep” on his bedside table when he died, Shastri kept some lines of the founder of the Sikh faith, Guru Nanak, on his desk. When translated into English they read: “O Nanak! Be tiny like the grass, for other plants will wither away, but grass will remain ever green.” Shastri was seen by many Indians of exalted ambition as a tiny man, but he had the mind and heart of a giant. His vision of peaceful coexistence with our neighbours, through adopting the demeanour, the modesty and the freshness of grass, may well be the best way for India to ensure that its dreams remain evergreen in its own backyard
The critique of school as an institution has developed and grown in the past half a century. Education theorist Everett Reimer wrote School is Dead in the 1960s. Most schools are caged jails, where an alien curriculum designed by some ‘experts’ is thrust down a child’s gullet. Today, many schools are gargantuan corporate enterprises with thousands of children on their rolls, and for all practical purposes they are run like factories, or better still like mini-armies. The website of a private school in Lucknow boasts of 56,000 students, for instance. But progressive thinkers have always envisioned ‘free schools’ for children. The great Russian novelist, Leo Tolstoy, founded a school for the children of poor peasants at his home, Yasnaya Polyana, without any strict schedule, homework or physical punishment. Maria Montessori was the first Italian woman to become a doctor; she went on to work out the ‘stages of development’ in children which became the basis for her educational philosophy, which too emphasised children’s freedom and choice. Tagore’s critique of rote learning is articulated in the classic tale ‘The Parrot’s Training’ (Totaakahini). Perhaps, the longest lasting libertarian school in the world is Summerhill. It was founded in 1921, a hundred years ago in England, by A.S. Neill with the belief that school should be made to fit the child rather than the other way round. The 1966 Kothari Education Commission’s recommendation for a common school system was never implemented. Today, which school a child goes to depends on her socioeconomic status. The pandemic has furthered and exacerbated this divide. COVID-19 hit parents economically. The digital divide between the rich and poor has also widened. The poor do not have access to mobiles, laptops and internet connectivity. In such a scenario, one can try and conceive of neighbourhood learning spaces.
Asia is at the front line of climate change. Extreme heat in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, wildfires in Australia, typhoons in Japan, are real and present dangers and likely to become more frequent as climate change intensifies. McKinsey’s report on ‘Climate risk and response in Asia’, finds that, without adaptation and mitigation, Asia is expected to experience more severe socioeconomic impacts of climate change than other parts of the world. Large cities in the Indian Subcontinent could be among the first places in the world to experience heat waves that exceed the survivability threshold. Just as information systems and cybersecurity have become integrated into corporate and public-sector decision making, climate change will also need to feature as a major factor in decisions. Climate science tells us that some amount of warming over the next decade is already locked in due to past emissions, and temperatures will continue to rise. India anticipates a significant infrastructure build out over the next decades with projects worth $1.77 trillion across 34 sub sectors, according to the National Infrastructure Pipeline. Robust regulations around outdoor work could significantly reduce the economic risk of lost hours as well as the toll on life from heat waves. The good news is that we have started to see some Indian states and cities pursuing such policies. Ahmedabad City Corporation introduced a heat action plan- the first of its kind in India in response to the 2010 heat wave that killed 300 people in a single day. The city now has a heat-wave early warning system, a citywide programme of roof reflectivity to keep buildings cool, and teams to distribute cool water and rehydration tablets during heat waves. Renewable energy has grown rapidly in India and can contribute 30 per cent of gross electricity generation by 2030, according to the Central Electricity Authority.
COVID-19 infections are once again on the rise with daily infections crossing 60,000 per day last week. This is considerably higher compared to the reported infections during the same period last year when the numbers were less than 500 per day. What is obvious is that the pandemic is far from over despite the availability of vaccines. However, unlike last year, the response this time has been muted with no nationwide lockdown. One of the reasons for the differing responses is the lesson from the unintended consequences on the economy of the strict lockdown last year. While aggregate estimates on the growth rate of GDP showed a sharp contraction in economic activity (the economy shrunk by 24 per cent in the April-June quarter of 2020) the impact on lives and livelihoods is still unfolding even though the sharp contractionary phase seems behind us. The extent of the loss of lives and livelihoods is becoming clear only now, with detailed data from the Periodic Labour Force Surveys (PLFS) - the latest round of which is for the April-June quarter of 2020. This is the first official report on the estimates for the quarter, which witnessed the worst impact with the lockdown in force until the middle of May. Visuals of thousands of migrants walking back to their villages are still fresh in the mind. While many have returned to urban areas in the absence of jobs in rural areas, many did not. The PLFS, which captures the employment-unemployment situation in urban areas, provides some clues to what happened. The estimates from PLFS are broadly in line with estimates available from other privately conducted surveys, notably the unemployment surveys of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). According to the PLFS April-June 2020 round, the urban unemployment rate for the population above the age of 15 was 20.8 per cent, which is close to the monthly average for the same quarter from CMIE at 19.9 per cent. The CMIE data, however, does suggest a sharp decline in June compared to April and May. Similar to the CMIE data, the PLFS data also shows a sharp rise in the unemployment rate which more than doubled compared to the unemployment rate in the preceding quarter of January-March 2020 at 9.1 per cent and 8.8 per cent in the same quarter (April-June) of 2019. While one in five persons above the age of 15 was unemployed during April-June 2020, the unemployment rate among the 15-29-year-olds was 34.7 per cent - every third person in the 15-29 age group was unemployed during the same period. These are staggering numbers, but not surprising. While the lockdown certainly contributed to the worsening of the employment situation, particularly in urban areas, the fact that the economy was already going through severe distress as far as jobs are concerned is no longer surprising. Between 2016-17 and 2019-20, growth decelerated to 4 per cent, less than half the 8.3 per cent rate in 2016-17. The fact that the economy has not been creating jobs predates the economic shocks of demonetisation and the hasty roll-out of GST. The PLFS data from earlier rounds have already shown the extent of the rise in unemployment compared to the employment unemployment surveys of 2011-12. The unemployment rates in urban areas for all categories increased by almost three times between 2011-12 and 2017-18. On an internationally comparable basis, the unemployment rate among the 15-24-year-olds in 2017-18 was 28.5 per cent, which makes the youth unemployment rate in India amongst the highest in the world, excluding small countries and conflict-ridden countries. Since then, it has only worsened or remained at that level.
On the day of writing this, India had reported 116 deaths from COVID-19. In contrast, the US, with around one-fourth the population of India, reported 1,897 deaths, or 16 times the daily deaths as India. The UK, which has one-twentieth the population of India, reported 592 deaths, or 5 times the daily deaths as India. On other metrics too-new cases, active cases-the Indian curve has flattened. If and when the UK and the US achieve what we have, there will be major celebrations. Such low death rates would be seen as a victory of the government, citizens and science over the dreaded coronavirus. However, because we are India, we don’t get as much credit. We are considered poor, third-world and untrustworthy, incapable of achieving something like this on our own. Instead of learning from India’s experience, the first instinct is to doubt Indian data. We aren’t counting the cases right, we aren’t doing enough tests, we don’t classify the deaths properly-the list of doubts goes on and on. This, even as the tests have only increased, positivity rate has dropped and almost all Indian hospitals are seeing a drop in COVID-19 admissions and fatalities. To think that the Deep Indian State is capable of fudging data at the level of every district and every state, and sustaining this façade for months is giving it way too much credit. Conspiracies require enormous co-ordination and effort and it isn’t quite how things work in India. Given that you can check corona data at every ward level, it is also impossible to fudge data, not to mention create a downwards curve that is moving in the same direction in virtually every corner of India. In terms of testing, while a case might be made for a lot of Indians not getting tested, it is also true that random testing has increased in the last few months. Domestic flyers into Maharashtra from many states for instance, have to get a COVID-19 test done irrespective of symptoms. If there was rampant corona, we would see a spike in cases from just these flyers. It may be hard for people to accept this reality but almost all evidence points to the fact India has flattened the corona curve, while the US, UK and most of Europe still haven’t. What is even more remarkable about India’s achievement is that it has managed to do this without draconian lockdowns (apart from the two months in April-May 2020). In fact, cases have dropped even as India opened up more.