After New York’s 9/11 and London’s 7/7, Mumbai has its 26/7. No, I have not made a mistake. I’m aware the bombs that killed over 200 commuters took place on July 11. The 26/7 that Mumbai’s headline writers have branded on the city’s memory was last year. More than 400 met painful deaths when an unusually heavy monsoon swept through one of the many slums in India’s most vibrant city.

Picking the tagline 26/7 for a disaster unrelated to terrorism reminded people that vast and sudden death can also come from natural disasters or man-made accidents such as plane crashes. Last year’s devastation was caused by nature and man combined: a freak storm hit people whose living conditions already cast them as victims of poverty, greedy developers and corrupt officials. It produced rare sympathy across Mumbai’s class divide. This was a more genuine example of “the spirit of Mumbai”.

What Mumbai needs is a spirit of common sense. This week’s attack was the sixth in 13 years, yet there have been no awareness campaigns or notices warning people to look out for unattended bags. Installing CCTV, as the authorities plan, is a hi-tech answer that cannot substitute for basic alertness.

Where terrorism differs from other disasters is on the question of cause. What motivates people to take lives in this brutal way? Some of the answers coming from India suggest a lack of common sense here too.

Tip O’Neill, a long-serving Irish-American speaker of the US House of Representatives, has gone down in history for his remark that “all politics is local”. He was not rejecting international issues but exaggerating the point that resolving daily concerns is what makes politicians, and societies, successful.

By the same token, “all terrorism is local”. An obscure caller has claimed an Al Qaeda hand in the Mumbai attack, but most analysts reject the notion that it was aimed at Western intrusions into the Muslim world, as were the attacks in New York, Madrid and London. The correct link is with the unresolved Kashmir dispute. The bombers’ purpose, it seems certain, was to provoke communal conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India or to affect the tentative peace process between India and Pakistan. The bombers, if that was their intention, have failed on the first point. Mumbai’s Muslims have come out in their thousands to donate blood for victims of the train explosions, and political leaders, starting with PM Manmohan Singh, have called for communal calm.

The second point is more problematic. Indian officials hesitated to blame Pakistan but have gradually sharpened their line. Calling on Pakistan to implement its promises to clamp down on terrorist cells, Singh last Sunday said the peace process could not advance until it did. He has not threatened to break it off.

In divided Kashmir the conflict remains frozen, in spite of some easing of the border closure. Pakistan seems to fear that human contacts are impressing people with the benefits of Indian rule. As for the tentative peace talks, Kashmiri leaders are not involved. The Pakistanis do not invite them, while Kashmiris talking to the Indian side are denounced as collaborators.

Terrorism cannot produce a solution. The two governments should join hands in combating terror while negotiating on Kashmir’s underlying issues far more seriously. — The Guardian