All his life, 15-year-old Rehan Shaikh was known as a quiet, respectful, promising boy. His teachers praised him, frequently telling his mother how bright his future was going to be. In his hometown of Anjangaon, in central India’s Wardha district, he threw himself into sport and local festivities.
Yet for the past two years, he has hardly been seen. Stuck at home during the pandemic and shackled by his family’s financial insecurity, Shaikh abandoned education in 2021. Since then, he has been working on haulage trucks, transporting goods to nearby cities as a “cleaner”, assisting the driver and maintaining the truck. Once an outgoing teenager, now Shaikh only visits home every few days, often for just a few hours between trips. His childhood, as he knew it, is over.
Shaikh’s story is far from unique. Three years on from the pandemic, the entire world is still reeling from its effects. But in India, the restrictions were particularly extreme: in March 2020, when the whole world was shutting down, the Modi government imposed what became one of the world’s harshest lockdowns. With just four hours’ notice, more than a billion people were confined to their homes — and 1.5 million schools were closed. The country’s 247 million children were then condemned to “online” learning, little more than a euphemism in a country where only a quarter of students had any internet access. The long-term social effects of lockdown are slowly becoming apparent across the world — but in India, where education was already stratified by savage disparities of wealth and resources, its crippling consequences are already devastatingly clear.
In the region where Shaikh lived, smartphones and the internet were even scarcer than the Indian average. Local activists say internet coverage stood at less than 5%. “That’s when we realised that it was futile to think that we could deliver education digitally in rural India,” says Rahul Bais, who set up Swarajya Mitra, a local not-for-profit that campaigns for children’s rights. But while those on the ground like him realised the futility of online education, the Indian government pushed ahead. In a statement in August 2021, the Modi government highlighted the steps it had taken to ensure “no loss of education” during the pandemic. Topping the list was a government website named “DIKSHA” which hosted material such as school textbooks, educational TV and radio programmes, and YouTube videos.
Except, in areas like Wardha, none of it could reach students. S.S. Athawale, the principal of a government-funded secondary school in the area, the Dr Devidas Karale Vidhyalaya, explains: “Of, say, 100 students, only 20-25% of the children’s families had mobile phones. But 10% had analogue phones, and the 10% who had smartphones had no money to top-up their data. So, we were really able to reach only 5% of the children, depriving the remaining 95% of even basic education.” And even when students had both smartphones and the money for a data plan, the patchy internet connectivity in their villages stymied their efforts. Many students, faced with the seemingly indefinite interruption of their education, simply lost interest in their studies or turned to work to support their struggling families. When schools finally reopened for offline education in 2022, students in Shaikh’s position never returned.
And the effects of this are already tangible. A countrywide study, the 2022 Annual Status of Education Report, which surveyed more than 700,000 Indian children, found that children’s basic reading abilities had deteriorated to levels last seen in 2012, while their basic arithmetic skills had also regressed sharply to levels lower than in 2018. In another survey of school teachers in Jharkhand, one of India’s poorest states, 53% admitted that most of their pupils had forgotten how to read and write.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
In South Africa and many other countries, many poor children were lost from the schooling system forever.
The Delta variant was quite devastating and I remember a high % of the population suffered from diabetes or pre diabetes, so deaths high.
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
In South Africa and many other countries, many poor children were lost from the schooling system forever.
The Delta variant was quite devastating and I remember a high % of the population suffered from diabetes or pre diabetes, so deaths high.
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
Thank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
Is this the same policy that most people think was a good idea, or a different one?
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
Oh I dunno, that crazy majority of stupid people and their misguided wrong think!
Oh I dunno, that crazy majority of stupid people and their misguided wrong think!
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
Is this the same policy that most people think was a good idea, or a different one?
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.