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.

印度政府的新冠疫情管理为何水平低劣？一个“社会中的国家”的方法

关键词：纳伦德拉·莫迪, 强人, 政治决断论, 印度教民族主义, 联邦主义, 国家-社会协同作用, 基础性权力。

鉴于标准和数据的双重不确定性，新冠疫情期间的管理是“成功”还是“失败”很难定论。但毋庸置疑的是印度政府在疫情的关节点上的错误处置，或者说总理纳伦德拉·莫迪本人对此应负的责任。然而他与当代世界政治中的其他“强人”具有某些共同之处——他在利用疫情的事件强化自己的主宰地位上取得了非同寻常的成功。最直接影响到印度的疫情应对措施的政治因素当属政治领导力和代表了莫迪行动特点的“政治决断论“——不过是在追求印度教民族主义目标的背景之下。本论文利用了以鲍姆和她的合作者进行的比较分析为基础的一个框架，解释了印度政府对疫情所做的应对。它根据米格代尔、曼以及埃文斯等人互相交织的论点提出的一种”社会中的国家“的方法，展示出疫情中的事件怎样反映了印度政治和印度国家的特点。这凸显出并解释了印度主要州应对疫情时各种非常不同的反应。

Translated by Li Guo