R.  Satram  

WE have heard continuous grumblings and complaints against the safety precautions to be taken to protect ourselves against being infected by the COVID-19 virus, resulting in our being  victims of the pandemic.  These precautions include wearing of masks at all times, frequent washing of hands and sanitisation and social distancing,  whereby one must sit or stand no less than six feet away from  another person.

Social distancing precludes one from being part of any congregation of persons, except in a very restricted way.
One cannot attend weddings, funerals, sports events, church, restaurants, bars, social events and so on.  Many feel that “social distancing” is particularly burdensome and objectionable and imagine this was a prescription invented by the medical profession to harass and humiliate mankind.  The resentment against it is sharpened because of the belief in the  recency of its invention.

If, however, we were to reflect upon and research social distancing, we will find it everywhere permeates life and to remove it would make  existence difficult if not impossible and this characteristic has been mentioned in religious literature, at least 5,000 years ago.

For example, if one attended a court of law, one would find there is strict social distancing between the accused, the lawyers and the judges.  Or in parliament, the governing party and the opposition have  strict distance between them and the Speaker remains far away from them.  In the past centuries and millenia, in the times of slavery and feudalism, social distancing was very rigid.  And even in religious writings, Hell and Heaven have strict distancing between the inhabitants.

Social distancing is based on class, race, family, power, wealth and so on.  The pandemic social distancing is the first time in history that the poor and powerless could positively distance themselves from the rich and powerful, when in past times it was the other way around.

Accordingly, when social distancing is placed in its social and historic contexts, it could never be perceived as a burden or imposition, but rather as a useful and acceptable norm.