In case you are looking for information on the Mumbai blasts of July 11, please see the following two resources:
And I am very angry. Not as much shocked or distressed, as angry! And this anger is caused by yet again being undermined by mindless acts of rotten souls.
And I hate it when people who-know-they-can’t-help-in-any-way try to show their ‘interest/involvement’ by giving verbal accolades like “…the resilient spirit of Mumbai…” et al.
What resilient spirit? Ask those for whom their social world is held hostage in those few minutes to hours till they hear about their near and dear ones. And ask those whose world collapses.
I have serious objections to the doling out of this phrase.
Contrary to the notion of ‘getting lost in the anonymity of crowds’ — I would rather Mumbai demonstrate the notion of ‘getting caught by the watchful eyes of the crowds’.
In a city of around 1.5 crores, with practically no isolated spaces, how can one get away with leaving bombs in crowded places? They say crowds are indifferent. I dispute that. Crowds are not indifferent, they are reassuring. An individual lets his guard down in the belief that the ‘crowd’ will provide safety. And it is this dropping of individual guard, that lets us down. If every person would take responsibilty of the few feet around him, there would not be an inch of space and a fraction of time vulnerable to such attacks.
Very angry. (And intolerably violated)
This story on Rediff pretty much summed up and put in better words (even though US analogy is a little weak), my thinking on the subject as well — including the headline.
And this piece of writing by Jeffery Rufus mocks the ‘resilient’ epithet so well. Exactly what I had wanted to say. He says it so well.