The Mumbai Eye Opener-I

The terrorist attacks of November 26 are, above all, a scathing indictment of the Indian people, our attitude and our state. They are a slap on the face of everything that India stands for and everything, that we, as the citizens of of the same democratic nation must accept blame for. If the flames on the Mumbai skyline will not open our eyes, what will? It is time to deliberate on where we stand as a nation, ask the toughest questions and accept that many of those questions will have dark answers. In this first part, the Oracle speaks about the role of the people in the aftermath of this tragedy; in a later part, we will discuss what the state should do in response.

The attacks of 26/11 are distinct from any other terrorist attack in recent history; they are an attack not on the people per se, but on the glittering symbols of Indian success and pride.

1. Stop blaming the politicians: One of the knee jerk responses that the Indian people have come up with in wake of the tragedy and one that the usually partisan English language media has declared as "safe and civilized" is an all out anger against politicians. Our politicians are a reflection of our own people. The politicians don't think about the big issues because we don't.

Politicians are not trying to divide us, it is we the people who are divided. Politicians have their finger on the pulse of the people; they know the fissures in society that exist and they act accordingly. Take for instance the events of the last few months: The despicable Gujjar-Meena conflict kicked off again in the summer in Rajasthan, leading to mindless violence. Overnight, India had some new politicians and political formations: Col. Bhaisla, the two new factions of the Gujjar Mahasabha and so on, while other diminuitive characters such as Kirori Lal Meena assumed immense importance overnight. None of this would have ever come about if the Gujjars and Meenas had seen themselves as anything more than Gujjars and Meenas respectively. In Rajasthan, the Congress fears to name Ashok Gehlot as the formal CM candidate: why? Because the Jats do not like Gehlot!

On the flip side, take note of the recent row in Mumbai over the "influx" of "North Indians" (quotes intended to emphasize the dubious use of words such as "North Indian" and "influx"). This is not the first time this row has been raised and each time it has failed to evoke a real public response. That is the main reason the Shiv Sena, despite having covert sympathies with the Marathi Manoos line, by and large, kept out of the recent agitation. The anti-North Indian stance cannot be translated into votes, because the people of Mumbai, by and large, reject this proposition. Politicians cannot divide the people if they do not choose to be.

Or, consider the time when Ram Vilas Paswan, buoyed by a windfall in Bihar in early 2005, decided to approach the election that November with the issue of having a Muslim CM. His efforts came a cropper, because the people of Bihar are not sufficiently divided on communal lines to warm up to his cause. Similarly, when the BJP carried out a viciously divisive campaign in the interiors of Uttar Pradesh in 2007, they were roundly thrashed because the "Ram Lahar" that the party had ridden to power in the 90's was nowhere to be seen. Instead the sands had shifted and people wanted to be divided with Brahmin and Dalit on one side and Muslims and Yadavs on the other. It is noteworthy that in the same election, the incumbent Mulayam Singh suffered only a marginal drop in vote share, while the opposition BJP lost comprehensively. And again, when Sonia Gandhi tried to revive the KHAM (Kshatriya-Harijan-Adivasi-Muslim) in Gujarat in December 2002, the Congress was wiped out.

Lesson Number One: It is the people who are polarized and it is people who must take the blame.

2. Tough questions to ask:

Why did it take an attack of this magnitude to wake up the nation to the reality of terror?

Calling the Mumbai attack India's 9/11 is the most shameful indictment of India that is ever possible. The 9/11 attack on the USA has two distinct aspects (a) It was the first ever major terrorist attack on US soil (the WTC had been attacked before, but the magnitude was never big enough) (b) It pushed the American public to take vigorous steps to ensure that something like that would never happen again. The Mumbai terror attack does not fit under part (a) and whether it can be filed under part(b) remains to be seen.

The question is why the people of India did not read the threat when the streets of Jaipur, or Ahmedabad and even Delhi were bespattered with blood? Why did the threat have to be spelt out in fire on the Mumbai night sky? Despite the serial bomb blasts in Jaipur, caste was the number one issue in the Rajasthan polls until December, not terrorism.

Are we a nation that thinks only about the small issues?

The question of existence as a nation dwarfs the issues of daily life, the so called "Bijli-Pani-Sadak". It is true that India has a lot of poverty and that life is difficult for many Indians, but are we so caught up with these petty struggles that we cannot spare a moment to think about the nation? Two generations ago, the people of India lived in even greater poverty and despair; yet they had the zeal in them that got this country free. Today, when Indians can see for themselves that India can become a world power in this very generation, do we not have the courage, the strength to think beyond the bread and butter issues?

Do we need to rethink secularism?

The purpose of this question is to countenance the practice of "political secularism" that is stifling the country. Secularism, by definition, means that the state does not adopt the practice of any religion in public life, an ideal that is eminently laudable, a jewel of democracy. But can religion be used as an excuse for deviating from national interest?

It is interesting to reflect on the true underpinnings of the idea of secularism. Religion gives laws for people to live by and different religions give different laws; and yet the secular state stands apart from religion and enacts laws that are based on common sense and humanism rather than superstition. Secularism, therefore, does not mean "equal respect for all religions"; rather it means "equal contempt for all religions".

So, why is it that in India we have different standards for different religions? Why does the Indian state allow certain religions and Islam in particular to have special status? Why does India not have a common civil code? Does the Indian constitution still, consciously or unconsciously, promote Dr. Iqbals' "two nation theory"? Should the modern Indian state pander to the caprices of a desert religion that has not moved forward in thirteen hundred years? Should the Indian state, for instance, tolerate barbaric practices such as "triple talaq", discriminatory inheritance laws and even disgraces such as polygamy all in the name of respecting religion? Does it not make the Muslims feel like they are a law unto themselves and suggest to them that their fraternal bond with Muslims from Pakistan to Sudan is actually stronger than their roots in India?

In order to purge India of its weaknesses, we the people must confront our failings first. Our state, our police, our judiciary reflect badly on us. We have become all too used to paying our respects to martyrs and singing patriotic songs in their honour and of course, blaming the politicians for everything. People have the power to change even as they sit in their homes or go about their daily business; the change lies in the attitude, the desire to succeed and the aptitude for enterprise. For many, Narendrabhai Modi of Gujarat is a symbol of communal hatred, yet the same hawk of Hindutva turned comprehensively to development and economic growth in 2007. This change was brought about by the attitude of the people of Gujarat, who wanted progress in the long run, not riots.

But we need more change. We need to change attitude. The Mumbai terror attack has shown us that if we are divided, or too absorbed in just getting by our daily routine, we will soon have no nation left. We need to demand more of life, more of our democracy and more of ourselves. Do you have a friend, a relative, an uncle perhaps who ever said something that belittled a person based merely on his/her caste/religion/gender? Have you confronted him/her with the accusation that his/her remarks are anti-national? Have you ever been too absorbed in sounding like the nice guy? When someone makes a remark like "every religion teaches peace"; have you demanded that he/she prove his assertion? Let us never believe anything without proof, without reason or rationale. It would give us the moral courage and moral authority to see through the barbarism of crazy violent "religious activities" and the smokescreen of political correctness.