Several sketches and names have been released of possible suspects and plenty has also been said on the home minister’s sartorial sense. All of this converges to give an impression that, somehow, the opposition is all about “tough” stuff and that this government (like the Saatchi & Saatchi line for the opposition Labour party in the days of the coal miners’ strike in the UK) “ain’t working”.

This is not about the absence of a committee or commission, but of leadership. It may be banal but nevertheless relevant to hark back to some examples of leadership. Like the other Congress home minister, Sardar Patel, who negotiated with about 500 princely states (in about 500 ways) to stitch together the idea of India, at the time the developed world was laughing at us. Then there was the first prime minister, who is said to have stood at the gates of Birla House, with car floodlights, to try and calm the crowds in the crisis that the Mahatma’s assassination had threatened to usher in. Or even the heroic act of Indira Gandhi refusing to take off two Sikh security officers guarding her on grounds of a “threat” to her life, just months before her assassination.

Leadership can come in the form of long sentences, speeches and even pithy phrases. Remember the time when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was asked in Srinagar as to within what framework talks would be conducted in Kashmir. He had in one quicksilver moment said “insaaniyat ke aadhaar pe”. Kashmiris still recall that.

Cut to now, to an India that is wondering when and where the next blasts will be, and increasingly vocal public opinion incensed at the government for not showing any purpose or plan. Then there are Muslim leaders (the same set of people, who were the first in the entire Islamic world to issue a fatwa against terrorism in February this year) fuming at what they perceive to be the way in which investigations appear to be going. It’s a tough act to be labelled as incompetent by both these points of view, but this government seems to have managed it.

It is inexplicable that a coalition supposedly founded on the principles of inclusion and economic growth (a modern approach, jobs and security to minorities) is speechless at a time like this, and unable to politically respond to new challenges.

In fact, what the UPA is failing to utilise is the immediate context the blasts have come in — Jammu is quiet after a very low phase, two NDA states are reporting attacks on Christians virtually every day. It should have stood up and made its political case for peace, and cogently argued that none of the goodies of Rising India would be around if a basic premise — that of the right to life — is violated.

For a dispensation that is hoping to turn genuinely big-ticket and transformative ideas like the NREGA, the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission and the nuclear deal into a New Deal for the excluded so far, it is puzzling why no one is in a position to exert the moral authority to make a serious and human case for handling law and order, and tie it in with their politics.

As the BJP bays for the UPA’s blood and talks of incompetence, is it not good politics for the government to denounce all types of terror haunting Indian citizens? Whether it is ball-bearings planted by the criminal Indian Mujahideen that kills, or murderous Bajrang Dal crowds, must not both be unequivocally and simply denounced and gone after? Why is even getting a statement about preserving Indian lives as a priority so difficult to come by?

If the UPA was planning to sell dreams of a grand India, a more equitable and prosperous India, it is a good idea; but it would be hopelessly incomplete if Indian citizens don’t think they will even be alive to catch the flight to sit at the global high table, or cannot commute to work or shop for vegetables without having limbs blown off.

It would not have taken much to understand the importance of denouncing hate politics and acts of terror and demonstrate that this position flowed seamlessly from the politics of peace dividend that this government claims as its foundation.

The irony is that with its “secular” credentials not in doubt (the UPA chairperson, the PM, Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh and Paswan on board), the UPA could strongly assert the necessity of keeping the peace, insist on fair and competent investigations, and go for all who threaten peace and order, irrespective of what “type” of terror.

Cities limping back to normal after having their peace destroyed may lull leaders into thinking it’s okay, but perhaps that would be the difference between a government that wants to come back and one that does not. Peace is considered a boring, unexciting slogan, but it is the only one the Congress has at the moment.

It is amazing that a party that had MP Rahul Gandhi hold forth on Kalawati in the Lok Sabha, that wanted to build cross-party alliances on peace, growth and modernity (aka nuclear deal) has allowed someone like Narendra Modi to articulate an assertive I-will-keep-you-safe discourse. If it has to be relevant, the UPA must challenge that discourse and tie in the peace agenda with other things. It should try listening in to discussions in Muslim groups or homes — all livid at a kid-glove (read pusillanimous) approach that is ostensibly justified so as to not ruffle “Muslim” feathers, and the inference that they are all implicated as a community. If only there was tough-peace on display, one that loudly says that the cycle of hate, terror, shoddy, prejudiced investigations and then again hate and terror, will be snapped. If there was a just and meticulous overview of what happens after, justice and zero-tolerance towards killers of all sorts, wardrobes and ministerial tailors wouldn’t get discussed in the media.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com