Endpoint Mumbai: Resignation or Resilience?

It's been hours since the last gunshots rang out, the last explosions went off, and the thick, smoky flames that were licking the Mumbai sky died. Indian television stations, domestic and international news media, and bloggers are struggling to get beyond reporting the horrifying events; it is now time to mine for new heroic and tragic narratives; for "rational" explanations; for intellectual postmortems on the devastating failure of the security apparatus in India. It is time for a search for new directions, new understandings of the old and familiar face of terror in the Indian financial capital.

As I watch multiple live video news feeds from Indian television channels (see here), and scan Indian and international newspapers, blogs, and news sites, I am struck by the focus on Mumbaikars' (that is how local Mumbai residents are referred to in Marathi) "resilience" in face of terrorism.

Several major personalities, mostly Mumbaikars, have been making rounds of major 24-hour Indian television channels such as NDTV, Times Now, and CNN IBN, among others. Local voices seem to be asserting repeatedly that Mumbaikars should NOT get back to work as normal; businesses and other establishments should NOT open up as if nothing-or just a little something-happened; Mumbaikars, they suggest, should be angry, they should be defiant, they should grieve: they should NOT forget. Several commentators specifically said that Mumbaikars should NOT show the much-vaunted Mumbai "spirit of resilience," for this "spirit" would only signal resignation, or fatalism, instead. One columnist says angrily, "to hell with those who keep on harping about the `great spirit' of Mumbai." If Mumbaikars appear to be dispirited, commentators say, the Central government would be forced to sit up and take notice. If they go back to business as usual, the Central government would move on to the next order of business: the wounded, bleeding city forgotten until the next tragic moment in history. The citizenry, implies a columnist for the Times of India, needs to use the anger to fuel a war.

Simultaneously, there are those who praise the "stoicism" of Indians in face of terror; others who suggest:

"People will get on with their normal lives...This is the way to defeat terrorism. If you sit at home, this would be victory on a plate for the terrorists."

Another says:

"Mumbai and India will survive” is perhaps a cliché but it is an apposite phrase for a city of great strength. Its people have learnt over the course of many tragedies to survive and to move on. Gun-wielding terrorists will not destroy it because bombs and bullets cannot defeat the spirit of its people

Having grown up in the Indian capital, New Delhi, through years of terrorist strife, I am not sure how to situate myself in this debate. The comparisons between post-9/11 New York and post-attacks Mumbai are inevitable. However, the difference lies in the fact that Mumbaikars-and Indians on the whole-have been battling terrorism on the home front for decades. The attack was not unprecedented in Mumbai, as one could argue it was for New York (to some degree); it was unprecedented in terms of scale. I do not find terror attacks unusual on Indian soil; after all,

The [U.S.] State Department said this year in its annual assessment of terrorist threats that 2,300 people died in 2007 in attacks by various groups in India, making it perhaps the country most affected by terrorism in the world.

What are the people to do? There are no easy answers...

Please check out my diary from yesterday for more here.

This post was first published in the Daily Kos, here.