Recent analyses of the impact of the pandemic in India, such as the blogpost in the 'Sidecar' blog of New Left Review, and the report by the Indian economist Jayati Ghosh in the 'International Politics and Society' newsletter, published by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, have shown that, while the functions and operations of the State, in the field of health care have been eviscerated, those of private corporations have undoubtedly increased. This could be seen as an example of Modi using the crisis of the pandemic to advance ideological aims which he already had in mind. This is the scenario which was outlined some years ago by Naomi Klein in 'The Shock Doctrine' (2007). A parallel process can perhaps be observed in Britain, particularly in the development of a privatised, unaxccountable contact tracing scheme, and the system of private 'Lighthouse Laboratories.' It is hard to discern much direction in the ideological fluidity of Alexander's government, veering as it does rightwards and leftwards, often at the same time.
Both Modi and Alexander have been labelled 'populists.' According to the political scientists Cas Mudde and Jan Werner Muller, who have established reputations a s commentators on this political phenomenon, populism travels light when it comes to ideological content, and projects a political leader as an incarnation of the general popular will. As Andrew Adonis has shown in a profile, published in 'Prospect' magazine, in the eyes of his supporters, Modi's deified status floats free of the many failures of his government, both during and before the pandemic. It is possible that the same phenomenon can be observed in Britain. Both Alexander's and Modi's reputations as populists depend, to some degree, on their divorcing themselves from the consequences of their neo-liberal policies.