Author: Ranjit Hoskote
Publication: The Hindu
Date: July 14, 2006
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/14/stories/2006071409191100.htm
Introduction: Mumbai has suffered seven major
terrorist strikes since 1993, but remains vulnerable and unprepared to defend
itself. Its mindset is part of the problem, while administrative and policing
slowness contribute too.
Tuesday evening's terrorist strike in Mumbai
is the seventh such attack that India's commercial capital has suffered in
13 years. And yet, churlish as it may seem to say so at this moment, Mumbai's
self-image as a courageous and resilient city - which can spring back after
any catastrophe - deflects attention from the fact that this global metropolis
is uniquely unprepared to defend itself against the depredations of terrorist
warfare.
The myth of Mumbai's resilience, expressed
in such catchphrases as "we're back to normal the morning after"
and "it's business as usual," is at least partly to blame for this
unfortunate situation. Which is not to deny the efforts of the civic and State
authorities, and the stoic heroism of thousands of citizens who worked round
the clock to get Mumbai, quite literally, back on track.
The Government deputed senior officials to
coordinate the effort at the city's hospitals. The railway authorities cleared
the debris of the explosions within 12 hours. Volunteers came forward spontaneously
to carry the wounded and dead, to assist traumatised survivors, to donate
blood, to provide food and water to millions of stranded commuters.
This demonstration of courage, empathy and
fellow feeling is all the more remarkable in a metropolis whose 18 million
residents must de-sensitise themselves to survive against failing infrastructure,
strained amenities, official indifference, and an unforgiving pace of life.
Unfortunately, the mythology of "it's
business as usual" is a reactive one, activated only in times of crisis,
after the event. When Mumbai's much-praised normality prevails, its citizens
are atomised, divided by class interest and ethnic allegiance, choice of symbolism,
and level of commitment to the city's future.
Worse, Mumbai's normality is founded on a
refusal to take steps, whether symbolic or material, to strengthen itself
against such violence.
Every terrorist strike is lamented briefly,
then forgotten until the next strike. Few Mumbai citizens will acknowledge
that their city is porous and fragile, and especially vulnerable to attack
at a time when India has aligned itself with the United States in the "war
against terror.".
The other side of Mumbai's distinctive resilience
is a fatal amnesia. Mumbai is like the frog in the parable, which sits in
a bucket of water that is being brought slowly to the boil. The temperature
rises so gradually that the frog does not realise something is amiss until
it is too late: it receives insight and death in the same moment.
In the last 13 years, Tokyo, New York, London,
and Madrid have each suffered one major terrorist strike, and raised these
to the level of an overwhelmingly defining myth. During the same period, Mumbai
has suffered seven major terrorist strikes: the 12 serial blasts on March
12, 1993; the December 2 blast at Ghatkopar and the December 6 blast at Mumbai
Central station in 2002; the January 27 blast at Vile Parle, the March 13
blast at Mulund railway station, and the twin blasts at the Gateway of India
and Zaveri Bazaar on August 25 in 2003; and Tuesday's synchronised bomb blasts.
Yet none of these has been commemorated either by a memorial plaque or a monument,
not so much as an annual moment of silence or memorial prayer.
Mumbai ought to take the important symbolic
step of enshrining the collective spirit that shines through in times of crisis,
by holding an architecture competition for a monument to those who have died
in the weave of riots, pogroms, and terrorist strikes since the early 1990s.
It would also help to establish a city museum that renders tribute to those
moments of collective suffering when Mumbai's spirit has been tested and its
people have shown themselves at their best.
Such cultural initiatives would go a long
way towards overcoming the sense of atomisation, divisiveness and apathy that
constitutes Mumbai's normality. They would also help exorcise the city's ghosts
through tactful gestures of atonement, the mutual acknowledgement of grief
by the city's various constituent groups, and a re-dedication to the shared
values that hold the city together.
Worrying complacency
At the level of practical security, it is
crucial to awaken Mumbai from the complacency that accompanies its persistent
inability to see itself as a key terrorist target in a time of permanent emergency.
Mumbai has been over-identified with popular Hindi cinema and with commerce:
the dazzling images of Bollywood and the Sensex eclipse the fact that Mumbai
is also home to a variety of significant and sensitive installations. To name
but a few: a naval base, a naval dockyard, an air force station, an international
airport, an inter-State railway hub, a telecommunications hub, and, in some
ways most terrifying, a nuclear reactor.
Mumbai's population and sprawl also make it
an ideal recipient of terrorist attention: the smallest attack could result
in casualties ranging between several hundred and several thousand, accompanied
by widespread chaos and the resulting visibility for a misguided cause.
Despite these obvious perils, Mumbai's authorities
and its citizens seem oblivious to the need for periodic security drills and
manuals of instruction in the event of emergencies such as Tuesday's. No clear
protocols are in place, to determine how the city's hospitals, already burdened
by routine, must act at such moments. And perhaps we ought to ask whether
the lumbering municipal corporation of the present, which appears incapable
even of tackling the annual monsoon flooding, can respond effectively to terrorist
strikes - which will only grow more sophisticated in the years to come. Since
Mumbai is far likelier to become the Tel Aviv rather than the Shanghai of
the future, it may be worthwhile to explore the possibility of a civilian
administration that can switch into quasi-military mode at short notice.
Similarly, and Orwellian as all this must
sound, Mumbai's current level and standard of policing do not inspire confidence.
If the city is to be secured against terrorist attack, the present police
force must be vastly upgraded in terms of scale and quality. A possible alternative
is the raising of a special force that is not compromised by entanglement
with the fabric of the city's criminal sections, as, alas, the present force
has repeatedly shown itself to be, especially during the last decade.
