English, asked by aditishahapurkar1, 7 months ago

Essay on "our life after Covid-19".....pls answer fast.

Answers

Answered by itzbeautyangel
4

Answer:

Since the day India announced total Lockdown for 3 weeks to fight deadly virus SARS COV-2. I am at home in Chandigarh. ‘Stay at home’, ‘Don’t touch anything when going out’, ‘Don’t shake hands’, ‘Wash hands frequently’ etc. are some of the advisories prevailing on every TV channel round the clock. The situation is getting scary day by day as the world has so far lost thousands of lives however, it is believed India is still in stage 2 of the pandemic. A very difficult time for people like me to sit at home and watching the deadly scenario. It is like hiding from mass killing outside. Chanakya has rightly said ‘If the enemy is invisible, better hide’.

I am hopeful the pandemic shall finally be over one day as the previous pandemics did. So, I ask myself, once the pandemic is over, what will be the effect of it on our society and how will be our life after COVID 19? I have analyzed the pattern of progression of life after previous pandemics. In my opinion this time the pattern shall not be the same as the people are more educated and techno-savvy.

Answered by ujwalamali963
2

Explanation:

Well, before we talk of life after COVID-19, there is urgent need to talk about life after the lockdown. It is difficult to imagine that anyone of us can return to what was the old normal. Shops and offices will slowly limp back putting up a brave front and expending all their energy to ensure that they survive somehow. The government has yet to share a blueprint for revival and recovery of the stricken economy. Reassuring noises have failed to comfort the most distressed segment of the population—the daily wage earners and those employed in the unorganised sector, landless farmers and millions of migrants rendered refugees, helpless and ‘stateless’ overnight.

There is no clarity how the fragile supply chains will be maintained, restored and repaired in the absence of those who hew wood and fetch water to make the cities buzz. Will they return? Or, will hunger and unbearable discrimination drive the stigmatised poor back into a life of bondage in overcrowded cities? How will ‘social distancing’ unravel once school, colleges, universities, offices and factories restart—not with 50 per cent staff but in full steam? Transport will remain a major challenge. When will trains and interstate buses resume regular services? It’s great that some arrangements have been made by some governments to bring the migrant workers and students back home.

But, logically, all such persons will have to be put in quarantine. It appears that even if there is gradual relaxation in lockdown, the unfortunate interruption will last more than three months after the lockdown is lifted. Neither the central government, nor the state governments can be faulted for this. Minor and major glitches apart, they have done the best under the exceptional circumstances.

However, this doesn’t mean that all is well. Political partisanship and communal prejudice have eroded the credibility of many leaders and parties. Abject sycophancy of senior bureaucrats verging on servility is shameful. There is not a squeak of dissent, or pointing out a lapse that could result in mid-course correction. Plenty of back-slapping and chest-thumping; basking in the reflected glory of the prime minister’s radiant charisma, his cabinet colleagues are content with cameo appearances most of the time.

The greatest disappointment has been the judiciary. To be precise, the Supreme Court. There was a time—and how long ago it seems—when the public discourse was focused on judicial overreach. Nowadays, it is more apt to talk of masterly inactivity of the bench. It is in rarest of rare cases only, that their lordships are stirred into action. Those not well versed in ways of constantly evolving contingent jurisprudence are left puzzled by some recent decisions of the apex court.

The FIRs against Arnab Goswami of Republic TV were stayed in a blink and enough time was granted to him and the state governments to respond to courts’ notices as the honourable judges felt that they ‘were not inclined to interfere with media’s right to freedom of expression.’ Now, even a schoolboy knows that the media’s right to freedom of expression derives from the ordinary citizen’s right to freedom of expression. And, that this right is not unfettered. It can’t be abused.

Similar questions