What was remarkable in the immediate hours and days of the deadly attacks was the absence of two groups. Political parties qua political parties were absent from the relief, rescue and healing efforts, and so were the organised NGOs. The people made it their tragedy. Doctors and medical students responded as citizens; so did the countless people who went on their own to donate blood and care for the injured and hold hands of the bereaved families. In its genuineness and authenticity this was reminiscent of the Gujarat of 2001. And it is important for Gujarat that we recognise this.

But this recognition should not blind us to our lack of preparedness to deal with terror. We should also remember that such attacks are not possible by ‘outsiders’ acting without significant support networks within Gujarati society. Gujarat remains an unequal society. It has come to celebrate and display its affluence. And this display is aggressive and hence somewhat uncaring. It was a different kind of crisis in 1917 that had been cataclysmic for the older Gandhian imagination of being a trustee. That imagination survived in post-independent India and gave Ahmedabad its social imagination around the PRL, the ATIRA, the IIM, the NID and the BM Institute of Mental Health. The challenge before Gujarat is to invent new and modern forms of trusteeship. Non-violence in face of terror, loss and grief is the first but significant step not only in healing the scars of 2002 but also towards a possible recovery of a compassionate society.

... contd.