Recently, orders have been issued by the Deputy Commissioners of various districts in Meghalaya directing the government officers and staff, specific categories of public servants and even those engaged in trade and services to get themselves vaccinated. The orders seem to infer a direct correlation between the Covid vaccination and public health. They also hold a threat of action against those who do not comply with this direction. The terms and conditions laid down in the orders seem almost draconian especially in light of the reality of dwindling incomes and uncertainty which hover menacingly in the air along with the virus and pose a greater threat to the physical and mental health and welfare of the people of the State.
Those in power are convinced that Covid vaccination is the key to beating the virus. If this is so, then those who have been vaccinated have no need to fear further infections. The insistence that those who have not been vaccinated can still infect those who are vaccinated and are therefore a threat to the public health, can only stem from complete or partial knowledge that the vaccine is in fact not the ultimate remedy against the virus. If this is the case, forcing people to get the vaccination against their will is not only illegal but also immoral. Is it the mandate of any democratically elected government to govern illegally and immorally?
The essence of a democracy is freedom and liberty, while also respecting others’ rights and freedoms. As long as the choices of the citizens of a democratic state do not imperil the other citizens, the right to exercise this freedom and liberty cannot be taken away from them. If it is taken away from them, it implies that the threat of endangering others exists. If this threat exists, in this case the threat to those who have been vaccinated from those who have not, it means that the vaccinations cannot really protect those who have been vaccinated. In this context, people have every right to reject the vaccination.
There is no study or paper showing the possible effects of the vaccine on those who already have physical ailments such as diabetes, heart problems, rheumatism, pregnancy, etc. with suitable advisories for such cases. The vaccination is indiscriminately given. It is highly unlikely that a vaccination will have zero negative effect on persons with pre-existing medical conditions. Who then will take responsibility for the negative effects that arise post vaccination? And the consequences that follow? Will the government be ready to bear this risk?
The factor of risk exists everywhere, in all activities. This is why financial investments carry a statutory warning of the risk involved, as do tobacco products and even medicines. In fact, even surgical procedures are not carried out by surgeons unless the consent of the immediate family members is obtained.
The pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccines in the Western world seek the cover of indemnity for this same reason. If there are no attending risks from the vaccines that they manufacture, they would not be seeking indemnity. These facts belie the phrase “in the interest of ensuring health and safety” which is the cloak used to lend legitimacy to the orders.
Another order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District has directed a door-to-door survey to determine the number of people left out of the vaccination programme in order that there is zero wastage of vaccine doses. The tenor of the order suggests that there is an imperative to the universal coverage of the vaccination drive. Yet, from various reports on the matter, it appears that the quantity of vaccines currently available is insufficient to cover all the citizens. If this is a fact, the limited doses can be administered to those who have already received previous doses of the vaccine in order that they may complete their dosage and rest assured that they have full protection. This will be a judicious way of addressing both the issues of informed consent which is a fundamental human right and the shortage of vaccines, to the satisfaction of all the citizens of the State. So what is the real purpose of the door-to-door survey? What will it achieve?
There are more than sufficient legal grounds for the exercise of choice by the citizens of the State in this matter. If the government will not acknowledge this, the other question that will arise is – why? Why would the government force this agenda using veiled threats? What are the considerations that would compel it to ruthlessly discard all these facts and disregard the fundamental rights of the citizens granted by the Constitution, the same Constitution that gave the government its power to govern? Can a government pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution it is to uphold and which it is to ignore? Is it not bound by the whole of it? We would do well to keep in mind that it is a Government of the people, by the people and for the people.
