Mumbai - resilient or passive

I made a brief three day trip back home, and was immediately overwhelmed with the media coverage of the Mumbai blasts and the aftermath. Mumbai was back to work as usual on the day following the blasts. Thankfully, none of the political parties called for a bandh (strike). And the demonstrations and marches were citizen-led and largely peaceful. The raging debates are whether it is really Mumbai's resilience or rather our immense passivity that resulted in not very visible reactions from civil society. That people came forward as everyday heroes during the time of the blasts to help each other out is undeniable. Senior police officials have been taken to task for hinting strongly that some high-level politicians might be involved. I wouldn't be surprised if that were true, though.

One of the news channels had a debate whether Mumbai had now changed, and whether its spirit was now broken. The most important statement I remember from that entire shrill debate came from Shabana Azmi (actress, social activist, and member of parliament), "It is not about one community against the other. It is about the fundamentalist forces in one community against the moderate voices in their own and the other communities".

What is decidedly different this time around is the seething anger of the common man at the bureaucratic and political apathy and greed with which Mumbai is treated. While the city contributes a third of the country's income tax, its infrastructure is crumbling, and the BMC (Mumbai Municipal Commission) Commissioner is a foolish, corrupt man leading us to further misery. There are mass emails and articles appearing suggesting that Mumbaikars should go on strike in a way that only we can - stop paying any taxes. Personally, I am not sure if that makes any sense. My take would be for Mumbai to secede from the larger land mass. Something along the lines of Hong Kong or Singapore, although we'll never probably reach the economic success levels of those cities.