Pandemics, Labor Relations, and Political Regimes: The Bubonic Plague and COVID-19 Crises in India

IF 0.3 Q4 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1215/15476715-10329806
Aditya Sarkar
{"title":"Pandemics, Labor Relations, and Political Regimes: The Bubonic Plague and COVID-19 Crises in India","authors":"Aditya Sarkar","doi":"10.1215/15476715-10329806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the possibility of comparisons between the COVID-19 crisis in India and an earlier episode of pandemic crisis: bubonic plague in Bombay at the end of the nineteenth century. There are numerous apparent parallels. In both cases, Indians experienced an unprecedented and sweeping use of state authority to enforce minute regulations of everyday life. These regulations, on both occasions, were nominally universal in their scope but in practice bore most heavily on the working classes and specifically the urban poor. During both pandemic crises, the immediate consequence of the strategy of state control chosen was a massive flight of the urban poor: from Bombay between 1896 and 1898, and from many of India's major urban centers in the summer of 2020. The parallels and convergences mentioned above provide a basis for comparison. But they do no more than that: the emphasis of the analysis that follows is on the contrasts between the two pandemic crises. It is these contrasts between the two episodes, rather than the superficially more striking similarities, which offer a basis for reflection on the character of the respective crises. These reflections focus, at their core, on the mode of authoritarian state policy deployed in the two cases, and on the predicament of laboring classes during the two cycles of pandemic crisis.","PeriodicalId":43329,"journal":{"name":"Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor-Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-10329806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article investigates the possibility of comparisons between the COVID-19 crisis in India and an earlier episode of pandemic crisis: bubonic plague in Bombay at the end of the nineteenth century. There are numerous apparent parallels. In both cases, Indians experienced an unprecedented and sweeping use of state authority to enforce minute regulations of everyday life. These regulations, on both occasions, were nominally universal in their scope but in practice bore most heavily on the working classes and specifically the urban poor. During both pandemic crises, the immediate consequence of the strategy of state control chosen was a massive flight of the urban poor: from Bombay between 1896 and 1898, and from many of India's major urban centers in the summer of 2020. The parallels and convergences mentioned above provide a basis for comparison. But they do no more than that: the emphasis of the analysis that follows is on the contrasts between the two pandemic crises. It is these contrasts between the two episodes, rather than the superficially more striking similarities, which offer a basis for reflection on the character of the respective crises. These reflections focus, at their core, on the mode of authoritarian state policy deployed in the two cases, and on the predicament of laboring classes during the two cycles of pandemic crisis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流行病、劳资关系和政治制度:印度的黑死病和COVID-19危机
本文探讨了将印度的COVID-19危机与更早的大流行危机——19世纪末孟买的黑死病——进行比较的可能性。有许多明显的相似之处。在这两种情况下,印度人都经历了前所未有的广泛使用国家权力来执行日常生活中的细微规定。在这两种情况下,这些规定在名义上是普遍适用的,但实际上对工人阶级,特别是城市穷人的影响最大。在两次大流行危机期间,国家选择的控制战略的直接后果是城市贫困人口大规模外逃:1896年至1898年期间逃离孟买,2020年夏天逃离印度许多主要城市中心。上面提到的相似之处和趋同之处为比较提供了基础。但他们所做的也仅此而已:接下来的分析重点是两场大流行危机之间的对比。正是这两个事件之间的这些对比,而不是表面上更惊人的相似之处,为反思各自危机的特征提供了基础。这些反思的核心是在这两个案例中采用的专制国家政策模式,以及在两次大流行危机周期中劳动阶级的困境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
期刊最新文献
London's Working-Class Youth and the Making of Post-Victorian Britain, 1958–1971 On Account of Sex: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Making of Gender Equality Law The Shadow of El Centro: A History of Migrant Incarceration and Solidarity Editor's Introduction Tending the Fire
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1