A kid shouted, "No school today!", just as I picked up the newspaper on 27-Nov. I wondered why, but only for a few seconds. The news of the terrorist attack was still sketchy, but no less alarming. I almost ran to my office to follow it on the internet. India was going through the greatest crisis in its recent history. It was sickening, made-for-TV act. No hostages, no demands, only the spectacle of a nihilistic ideology.A few hours later a colleague of mine said, "kill the terrorists first, worry about the hostages later!". I was furious, but could only mutter "You would say that, wouldn't you." While we receded into our plush offices and gated communities (most of which ask "Why go out?"), India was going to hell.
I contrast this with another incident of similar magnitude, The Parliament Attack in 2001. That was a time India bayed for blood, resulting in largest troop mobilization in our history. As Steve Coll later pointed out, the amount of evidence India produced would be sufficient for a country like the US to go to war. But India is not the US or Israel. Our border with Pakistan is a reality, geographically, politically and historically.
The lasting effect of Mumbai may not be the anger it generated, but restraint which typified our response. Whatever anger, was directed at our own complacent elites. The subsequent editorials contained some of the best opinion pieces in recent times. In a strange way almost every politician held responsible, was rehabilitated. The buck simply did not stop.
For a country surrounded by tar-pits of right and left wing extremism, this is a moment of self-evaluation. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta asked "how can a people who have much to be proud of, be endowed with a state that has much to be embarrassed about?" Mumbai maybe just another example of how the idea of India is constrained by the Indian state.
