Mumbai Terror Attack & Double Standards of the Indian Establishment | N.R.Mohanty

Published on 05-12-2008 In General

Viewed 605 times

Mumbai Terror Attack & Double Standards of the Indian Establishment

The Mumbai terror strike once again shows up how the big media, the big politics and the big business exist for each other and how the common man exists for them only for the public consumption. How else does one explain the resignation of the Home Minister Shivraj Patil the day after the tragic Mumbai showdown ended?

Only a few weeks ago, a series of bomb blasts in the crowded markets of the national capital claimed almost one hundred innocent lives. But they were the common men and women. So the big business made only perfunctory noises; the big media went to town over a Shivraj Patil, the serial dresser, but not the serial killer. The big politics did not deem it necessary to go for the jugular. Patil survived, despite his blemished record: he had overseen 17 terror attacks and 700 deaths during his tenure as the union home minister.

But this time it was different. Had the Mumbai attack been confined to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, then the reaction of all the three would have been markedly different, for the victims would have been the hoi polloi, whose life comes cheap. But the terrorists this time carried the battle to the upmarket establishments, frequented by the exclusive upper class. That is why the reaction of the chattering class was swift and strident.

Remember the series of bomb blasts in local trains in Mumbai in 2006 that had claimed more than 200 lives. At that time, the icons of India's big business gave interviews to television channels and newspapers to harp on what they called the Mumbaikar Spirit! And, pray, what did that mean? They exhorted that every Mumbaikar must go about his\her task normally, undaunted by the tragedies that befell the city and\or their near and dear ones. And what was their logic? That if they panicked or turned restless, then they would play into the hands of the terrorists who had a vested interest in spreading civic unrest in the financial capital of the country.

The big media dutifully played up the Mumbaikar Spirit campaign. It showed how life had returned to normal, how people were thronging the local trains as if nothing untoward had happened. The big politics also gave the fillip to this campaign, and gave an impression as if everything was honky-dory. No big heads rolled; nobody felt the need to talk about it.

But see the contrast now. The socialite spokesmen and women of the big business class are distraught and are demanding immediate action. Many of them have spoken to the big media emphasizing that the Mumbaikar Spirit will not work any more. Yes, Leopold Café has re-opened; yes, the Taj and the Oberoi would resume business sooner or later. But that is because they have no other option, as big business establishments. This time they ask the people not to go about their job as if normalcy had returned to their life. As a matter of fact, they are exhorting people to take to streets to demand greater accountability from the state. They themselves have spoken about their dwindling faith in the abilities of the powers-that-be and have demanded immediate corrective measures, if the latter hoped to survive an avalanche of anger.

In keeping with this new mood, the big media too has changed its tune. It made a dig at the big politics saying that the people this time would not take it lying down, unless the state appeared to be moving resolutely to meet this challenge. The big bosses of the big media have a special reason to feel a personal loss with the terrorist attacks on the Taj and the Oberoi.

As almost all of them talked rather passionately, one or the other of these two affected hotels had been their 'second homes'; as if to reinforce their point that they belong to the swish set, some of them talked about the tourism centuries that they had scored, the number of nights they had spent, in these plush hotels, which boast of a stiff tariff comparable to the best of the western world.

And this class-conscious big media have reasons to be worried about the security concerns in their second homes. That is why, the same media, which had hitherto determinedly highlighted the normal run of life in the terror-hit areas, the very next day of the terror attack, have taken recourse to just the opposite strategy: they are, in the aftermath of the Mumbai strike, resolutely focusing on the 'public unrest'. Not that such incidents of 'public unrest' did not take place earlier; but the big media had chosen to ignore them to keep up the façade of normality. But this time as the terrorists succeeded in sneaking into their backyard, they do not want any lullaby to lull the administration into inaction.

Earlier, they used to invariably soft-pedal the news on the terror strike after a couple of days of the incidents; now they want to keep up the pressure on the government and hence they are publicizing and in some cases promoting 'public protest campaign' as a media spectacle. As a matter of fact, they are even nudging the state to embrace the war option; may be that is a clever way of making big money by drawing huge audiences for their repertoire (because of the hysteria that a war situation would create) in these times of an economic downturn.

When the big business and the big media are distraught, how can big politics remain unaffected? The ruling class had ignored the public sentiment against the inept security administration but it could not afford to ignore the sentiment of the big business and the big media. That explains why, the heads rolled at once this time. After the terrorist attacks in Delhi, the flippant spokesman of the Congress, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, countered the demand for the resignation of the home minister saying that things would not improve if an individual demitted office. But last week, parrot-like, he echoed his party leader, Sonia Gandhi that individuals in high positions have to take responsibility for their failures.

Sonia Gandhi had stood by Patil, a loyal family retainer, through all the terrorist mayhems and the large-scale loss of innocent lives that it involved, because a few hundred poor people do not matter in the larger frame of politics. But when it came to the question of the life and property of the rich and the powerful, and that included the leading lights of the big business, big media and big politics, she had a crisis on hand she could not afford to ignore. That is why she did not bat an eyelid to show Patil the door. That also explains why Vilasrao Deshmukh, the Maharashtra strongman, who had weathered many a campaign for his ouster, had to fall by the wayside this time.

One hopes that this congruence of interest of the big business, big media and big politics has a beneficial side-effect for the small man. If the 26\11 tragedy actually forces the hands of the Indian leadership to mount serious anti-terror security measures, just as the US administration did in the aftermath of the 9\11, the common men and women who often bear the brunt of the terror attack will have reasons to thank the Big Establishment.

0 Comments

Blog

Print