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?
Train accidents are preventable, but once they happen they are largely attributable to (a) human neglect, (b) human error. No deliberate malice underpins them.
Terrorist attacks (or even any murder) have malicious intent.
In the theory of crime and justice, INTENT is everything.
We will all die in the end, and that is well known. If it happens due to natural causes or even due to negligence, we can live with it. If we are **deliberately** killed, even if it was just one day before our natural death would have occurred, then there is serious crime committed.
I trust this clarifies why this is NOT about the numbers killed but about the INTENT to kill.
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
I’ve never denied that terrorism is a serious crime. My question is which does one fear more?
In reply to bhagwad
In addition to what the previous commenter said, I’d point out that there are known people that can directly be held responsible for train accidents: the driver, guards, signalling staff etc. and action can be taken.
1. Terror attacks are by faceless people and there is no sense of justice or that somebody will be brought to account. Mostly they seem to just get away. This multiplies the effect, one would die in vain and the killer can just be back a while later to pick on the next bunch of unlucky victims.
This is somewhat comparable to a train driver who deliberately runs over anybody he can instead of stopping his train even if it were possible to. Actually no, since the driver is known and this gets on his record.
2. Except for suicide attacks, the terrorist is safe while those who cause train accidents are as likely to be hurt as the innocent (I’m ruling out sabotage here… if sabotaged like the assam train that same day, train smashes are terrorism)
3. As terror attacks succeed without payback or justice, terrorists are emboldened to cause more attacks. Accidents dont self-multiply due to the above mentioned safety valve of self-harm.
Your closest analogy would be not train accidents but car accidents involving rich and powerful people who literally get away with running over homeless people and even these guys wouldnt try doing it again.
thanks
Jai
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
railway accidents which take place are not the natural calamity..they our due our own negilgence..not doing ur work is a type of intension ,so that such calamites would take place…where on one side terriorist intent to take life of innocent people for there benefits in the same manner we by not performing our duties do the same sin of taking our own life…terriorism is not in our hand but such calamities can be controlled..if each one of us try to do our duties toward our job faithfully..
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? So if I had to choose a focus area for action, I’d say train accidents first since more can be done. And the fact that you pointed out that more people die in train accidents makes it more convincing. I’ve lost an aunt and a close friend to train derailments, and my cousin just barely survived, so it’s personal for me. I guess people fear bomb blasts more because they are unpredictable and uncontrollable, while there is a sense of (false) security on trains in India because you assume they can be and are safe.
PS: “why are people more afraid of dying in a bomb blast than a terror attack? ” Shouldn’t it be “train accident”?
In reply to The Bride
Thanks for pointing that out Bride – I just changed it :)
Having people close to you affected by a tragedy definitely makes it personal. But for those who have a blank slate, I agree with you that train accidents should be dealt with first. Again this isn’t a real choice, but just a mind experiment.
To quote you: “why are people more afraid of dying in a bomb blast than a terror attack? ”
Isn’t bomb blast a terror attack? Or am I missing something? Puzzled.
In reply to shail
To your question I’d say ‘terror attack’ . I travel so frequently by train and even the news of train derailments hasn’t put fear into me. Now that you ask, yeah, that is indeed surprising. Especially in the light of my son calling me up soon after reading about the Mumbai bomb blasts and asking me if I really had to go on that trip. I don’t think he worries about the many train trips I take even if he reads about train derailments!
In reply to shail
It is surprising isn’t it? I guess terror attacks are really good at creating terror even though they’re not very good at competing with other tragedies in the sheer number of lives lost.
In reply to shail
That was a typo – changed it…sorry!
Question is not only about number of casualties…. The severity of strike is not 100 % corelated to the casualities…The easiness with which extremists enter our country & carry out deadly attacks on frequent basis is worrying..
One analogy: 1st scenario: In your home, you mistakedly break a vase, which was worth 10000..
2nd scenario: You are driving carelessly & break a headlight worth 5000..Now is, breaking a vase at home is more dangerous than dangerous than careless driving , just because the number (in this case monetary loss) is more ??
In reply to Shekhar Lele
The analogy isn’t apt. You’re comparing a mere monitory loss (vase) with the chance of losing your life. But in terrorism/train accidents, both are equally deadly to life.
And then both of them can be a result of political vendetta. Who knows politicians and parties might be behind the conspiracy theory for shifting the focus from ongoing political activism?
If I am not mistaken, politicians in the past have claimed that train accidents were caused to make those responsible (the political party, the concerned minister etc) look bad. Wish we had the internet all those years ago.
And I find train accidents more scary, no idea why. Maybe because a terrorist is someone who hurts and hates, so one expects no better from a terrorist, also the hatred and attacks are generally random, and hence difficult to prevent.
Train accidents can and should be prevented. Those responsible for ensuring this are not enemies.
In reply to indianhomemaker
True – many politicians have claimed that train accidents were staged to make the rail minister looks bad. Indians generally take very happily to conspiracy theories. Everything is a conspiracy – the media, train accidents etc…
Hmmm…I guess for me I would probably work on trying to eradicate train accidents, I guess in the case of living in the US it would be car accidents. But that’s because accidents are just easier to prevent, though you could prevent terrorist attacks from happening (in theory at least) but that would involve a lot soci0-political issues, and as IHM said they’re random so that makes them a lot more difficult to prevent.
It is interesting how people are more afraid of dying in terrorists attacks then they are of train and car accidents, even though you’re more likely to die in the latter.
In reply to RenKiss
That’s a good point Renkiss. Terrorism prevention will probably include a lot of offensive and intrusive measures which tramps down on civil liberties.
But when people are scared, they’ll happily give up their privacy and liberties for the illusion of a little more safety. And governments are all too willing to take them up on their offer!
Exactly what purpose is this discussion meant to serve? Pray, what is this ‘more afraid, less afraid, more safe, less safe’ business?
In reply to Formerly Anon
Discussions need not serve any purpose other than analysis.
I guess poor people in India are more scared of railway accidents than terrorist attacks. Richer people usually do not care about railway accidents. Politicians are usually rich, they travel by helicopter. I don’t blame them. If I could afford to travel by helicopter, I would do too.
I guess the threat perception depends upon what a person does for a living and how far above[or below] he is of the poverty line.
Me, I am scared of both: incompetent people in the railways and the frustrated ones in the terror ranks. They are both just as deadly. Does it really matter that they carry a spanner/signal lamp or a AK-47/pipe bombs/IEDs ?
I am guessing that the dead do not care either.
In reply to ramakant
A very good point Ramakant! A person fears threats that have a chance of happening to them and not to someone else.
However, not just poor people use the railways. Many of us do and so do I. Train derailments don’t care about AC compartments or first class!
Most life insurance policies do not cover terrorist attacks and war. So the average middle person is probably more scared by terrorist attacks. Their family would be stuck with financial problems in the terror attack scenario.
In the train accident scenario, the insurance company would pay upon proof of death.
From a purely financial perspective, one should be more scared of terrorist attacks. Of course, both cause death to the person involved, however the people left behind have a better chance in the train wreck scenario.
I like to live, so I am scared of both. Insurance or no insurance.