The latest bomb blasts in Mumbai have stirred public outrage against the government, the police and the intelligence agencies – and deservedly so. I have no objections with people lambasting the government if they fail to implement reasonable measures to keep us safe.
My problem however is the difference in public reaction to another incident which took place just one day before the bomb blasts – the tragic derailing of the Kalka Mail in Uttar Pradesh which killed over 80 people and injured around 200. There was outrage over that as well, but it was muted – as if people were telling themselves “Well, this kind of shit keeps happening.” And this is what confuses me.
In both incidents, people lost their lives. In both incidents, the victims were random. There’s no telling where a train might go off the rails and there’s no telling where a terrorist might strike. If the number of casualties were equal, the Indian citizen has an equal chance of dying in a train accident or a terror attack. But the casualties aren’t equal. Not even close.
The number of casualties in train accidents in India far outstrips the number of people killed in terror attacks by a very long shot. So from a rational point of view, why are people more afraid of dying in a bomb blast than a train accident? It should actually be the other way around. Terrorism I’ve always said, is overhyped.
Put it another way, if you could get rid of either all train accidents in India or terrorism, which would you choose? Mind you this isn’t a real choice. I’m not presenting you with a false dichotomy which says either fix this or that. I’m just asking a hypothetical question – if you could eradicate one or the other, which choice would make you feel safer?
brilliant discussion.
i think a terror attack threatens the state, a railway accident does not.
i’m more scared of railway accidents of course.
People’s response toward blast is more intense than train accidents, but it’s not just because people fear more from dying in bomb blast than from dying in train accidents. Actually people’s response in both the cases is born out of the combination of fear, anger and frustration. Of course people feel more anger and frustration in case of terror attacks than that of train accidents because I and many others like me feel that terrorist attacks are more serious threat than train accidents.
Follow are the psychological, social and political reasons behind my analogy.
1) As rightly said by Sanjeev train accident doesn’t involve any motive or ideology whereas bomb blast definitely do. Therefore people feel more rage after terror attacks than after train accidents. This is the reason people show much intense response when incidents like Nithari killings or Gang rape (in their respective locality) comes out than towards train accidents even though more people die in later case. Because, in a civilized society we can’t tolerate people living and roaming freely with such heinous intents whether it be terror attacks or gang rape or serial killings.
2) Train accident doesn’t involve such social aftermaths which a terror attack follows. Bomb blast divides society on a communal basis, because in a society like India where we are already living with lot of mistrust and suspicion for each other, terror attacks done by someone with communal motives easily allows other community to blame the ‘particular’ community for communal disharmony. It also strengthens prejudices in the minds of both the communities. This is the reason terms like Hindu terrorism and Islamic terrorism are gaining popularity in India. And the most disheartening thing is that Greedy politicians are using these feelings of fear and suspicion for their vote bank gains.
3) Although communal riots are not considered as terror attacks but terror attacks plays a triggering role in sparking communal riots (1984 Anti Sikh riots). It works like a vicious circle people indulge in communal riots to revenge bomb blast and more terror attacks are done to avenge communal riots.
4) Terror attacks are more harmful for the society because many fundamentalist people associate ideological proximity with these terrorists and aspire to become like them and convert others in their ideology (Love Jihad). Even those who don’t actively participate in attacks can passively help them by supplying funds, sympathy and ideological support. Remember how people of Pakistan were crying and mourning during the death of Osama bin laden. This type of ideological proximity with a terrorist is thousand times more harmful to the society in long term than the death of a hundred or thousand people in train accidents.
5) Terrorist attacks are not just killings of innocent people they are also war against state (as this is also one charge against Kasab in 26/11 case). In a civilized and a democratic society no one can be deprived of his/her life and liberty except for the violation of law (through legally established procedure). Terrorists by killing people in this way are directly challenging the authority of state. In fact fundamental aim of every terrorist organisation is to replace the state in long term. Whether it is Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Naxalism in India or any other terrorist organisation, they all work with the sole aim of replacing the state and if they are taken casually they grow in strength and establish their parallel government.
6) Anger and frustration showed by people after bomb blast is not just a result of that particular event. In fact its an accumulated rage of many other incidents like harm done to our economy by injecting fake currency in our economy, or Kashmir issue or infiltration on the borders and many other illegal activities like smuggling, drug peddling done by these terrorists. Bomb blast plays a triggering role to this. Its similar to that of you feel anger on your boss because of various reasons but usually you don’t speak out, but one day your boss did something terrible enough to enrage you and you blow out all your anger on him than that event just proved to be a triggering event for you but anger which came out was accumulated since long time.
7) As said by bride Train accidents are preventable while terrorist attacks are harder to prevent – if people are willing to blow themselves up, then how do you prevent that? if we accept this argument than this makes it even more dangerous. Because we can control train accidents whenever we decide to do so (and it’s not that government is not doing anything to control the train accidents but accidents which occur due to human error are inevitable to control), but it is not as easy to control terrorist attacks and if we deal with them in casual manner then they can grow in strength and can be more dangerous. Just imagine the terrorists who can penetrate into highly secured Taj Mahal hotel or Parliament house with so many arms then can’t they penetrate into the security of BARC or India’s nuclear arsenal?
Although you can argue that people can die in disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl Nuclear plants but don’t forget that if after taking so much precautions(which we take now) disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima occurs than it’s a matter of chance, but if same thing happens because of terrorist attack than it’s a deliberate crime. Person can die because of cancer even if he doesn’t smoke cigarette, on the other hand one of my uncle who used to smoke 100 cigarettes in a day died naturally at the ripe old age of 95, but that’s purely a matter of chance now I can’t use it as a justification to smoke cigarette.
8) Finally even though it is harder to prevent terrorist attack it is not impossible to prevent it. World’s first suicide attack was carried on by LTTE but today it has been rooted from Sri Lankan land, Indonesia lost 300 people in Bali bombings but after that the way it strongly dealt with terrorists haven’t given any other chance to terrorist organisations to conduct further attacks. U.S is another example of it.
9) I think this is enough to convince why terror attacks are more serious than train accidents and why people’s response is justifiable. However the only thing which is wrong in people’s response is differing intensity in the response toward different terror attacks and terrorist activities. When terrorist attack occurs in Mumbai, Ahmadabad or Delhi we make lot of hue and cry, but when 75 soldiers of CRPF died in Naxal attack in Rampur (Chattisgarh) we didn’t even showed 10% anger of what we are showing presently. Why this discrimination? Because Naxals never attacks in metro cities? Or because we don’t care for the soldiers of military and para military forces who are giving their lives for our safety. When terrorist organisations of Nagaland blockaded Manipur national highway and thereby cutting Manipur with the whole nation nobody in India raised voice for them. Did we ever care to know to what pain they were passing? Because of this blockade petrol cost 200 rs per litter, grains cost 85 to 100 rs per Kg and perishable products like vegetables, fruits and milk wasn’t available at all. But how many of us cared for it in fact of most of us doesn’t even know about it. Sometimes I feel that India is not a nation because nation comes into existence through the feeling of togetherness felt by the people living in a land, but everyone pools in opposite direction just for his/her own selfish reasons. Urban class doesn’t consider Naxalism as big threat because it doesn’t directly affect them, leaders give irresponsible statements after every terrorist attack to appease their respective vote banks.
In reply to Bhavin
Well argued Bhavin :)
I’m not really going to contest what you’ve said. My question though was restricted to which is one more afraid of?
Personally, are you more scared of terrorist attacks or train accidents?
Frankly speaking I don’t fear death so it doesn’t matter whether I die because of train accident, bomb blast or heart attack. Its not that I am superman or God or something, although I have fear of some other things I don’t fear to die because everyone has to die one day so why fear about thing which is inevitable. By the way my comment was not just in response to your present article it was in response to your all the articles which you have written on this subject. In one of previous article you have argued that more people die because of lightening than terrorist attack, because of that I have written such a detailed analysis that why terrorism is more serious than any accident or natural calamity.
Neither. I fear being Maimed and alive, or being a vegetable more than being dead.
In reply to Mysoul
Agreed.
I would eradicate Train Accidents and really Crack down on the Terrorists, not pay lip service. Both are doable only none have an Intent to get it done.
I am afraid or not but I will take every step to deter terrorism. Terror attacks are serious because of their intention to acheive their goal by targeting innocent people. It has no restriction…everywhere it can happen on plane, train ,bus, car, road, bridge, hotels, schools, diplomatic offices, government buildings, temples, mosques, churches. When terrorists strikes they clearly knows while implanting bombs who could be hurt and has an intention to hurt as many people as they can…to children, adults, elderly people, women, disable and still shows no mercy…is brutal. Train accidents are due to unsafe practices and negligience. Train accidents can be dealt with and can be reduced to as minimum as we can if we have will to do so but terror we cannot control. its political and religious ideology…cannot do anything about it, they are at their will.
If Bhagwad’s argument is more number of casualities in train than terrorists attack…my take we are safe because tight security measures, intelligence input and because terror threat is being taken seriously and real, and so far has averted many attacks.
In reply to Reality
But that’s an unprovable hypothesis isn’t it? We’ll never know if any attacks have been prevented. In fact, from all we’ve been hearing so far the “anti terror” mechanisms haven’t really prevented anything. They only annoy ordinary citizens!
So what do you feel? Given a choice to eradicate train accidents or terrorism, which will you choose?
I strongly believe like what others too are believeing, after sep11, strict measures, each and every threat been taken real and tight security, has helped. There are no major terror attacks after sep 11 because of these hard takes. Its still unfolding in India because govt is not serious about tackling anything. Today I was talking albout Another country Canada in my previous comments, security has averted many such attacks on its planning stage and all have been convicted, though attack has not been taken place and single person has not been injured.
In reply to Reality
But which would you prevent first – train accidents or terrorism?
Machines cannot be 100% safe, or trusted completely. When you are taking risk of going in train, airplane or bus, person knows accidents may happen and voluntarily accepts the risks. Even bullet trains which is considered very hi- tech is also not safe and recently got derailed. If he is afraid of going will definitely avoid going in train and can take other means. Why only train what about car accidents which we are driving and mishap happens. But any act of crime which is ntended to bring harm to others is not acceptable, forgiven or taken as granted just because we lose so many lives in train accidents. Terror and crime ploted in another country is more henious. we cannot tolerate single case of crime in which death occures we cannot accept terror. We are human and has certain obligation to maintain peace and order.
It is ridiculous to see the numbers of people died to decide which act is more dangerous than other. You might be well aware crime of drug trafficing is not tolerated in many countries…though there is no death involved. we have accepted the attitude…Its India, who cares, so what few people dies here and there.
In reply to Reality
Actually I seem to care more about lives than anyone else. If my wife dies, I give a damn whether it was a train accident or a terror attack. My loved one is dead. I don’t care how. Any logical person would easily say that train accidents are a bigger problem in India than Islamic terrorism and that even naxalism is a bigger issue.
Also, you didn’t answer the main question of the post and my response to you. If you had to choose which to remove – train accidents or terrorism, which would you choose?
@Bhagwad
I am here to post comment on your topic not on your questions. What ever I say, will go in waste. sometime you compare number of deaths sometime you start thinking about single life. be clear!! And we dont have much time to go with in step by step and I dont think u further need any explaination.
I think I got confused with your 2 post, in tis you have asked to choose. Ok than terrorism. Train accidents need good procedure of maintence and qualified staff. than and also connot be prevented100%. As long as ministers dont take any action, or just wait for nation wide agitation.
But terrorism is evrwhere it is in human head. Can bring major and vast destruction to civilization and threat to other peacful people. They only understand gun and other barbaric solution. See in Libya they are with big guns on roads, inhumane ways.
I dont want to see single terror act in my country that also supported by Islamic Nation. This is my last comment here, has no time to answer
In reply to Reality
I’m sure terrorism is a bigger problem in other parts of the world compared to India. But I’m not talking about other countries – just India.
If you had to choose to remove 99.99% of terrorism in India or 99.99% of train accidents in India, which would you choose?