The day after the blasts, a young woman in London claimed she went to work because her grandfather who had served in the war told her it was the right thing to do. A television commentator while expressing his horror at the recent blasts recalled the nightly bombings during the Blitz, the devastation and the casualties running into hundreds. In bad times, it seems, history can be a comforting thing.The Brits have been widely commended for the dignified manner in which they have faced their recent trauma. It is a moot point whether the response would have been so muted had London been hit before New York, yet the cultural differences brought to the fore by last week’s blasts between the two chief allies in the so-called War Against Terror are noteworthy.9/11 was a dramatic event. The unprecedented nature of the attack, the operation itself with its elaborate planning, its visual and symbolic impact, created a certain atmosphere. And America’s response: Bush’s assumption of the mantle of Good Protector fighting Evil, the graphic tales of human tragedy, the much reported debate over what would constitute a fitting memorial at ‘‘Ground Zero’’ and so on added to the heightened environment of the event. America suffered, but it also used its status and myth-making powers to focus attention on its suffering.Much has happened since then. Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded with unproven results on the terrorist front. Much touted efforts at re-engineering the politics of these nations have proved difficult. Bush and Blair have had to face censure for their claims over Weapons of Mass Destruction. Madrid was attacked. So was Bali. All these factors cannot but have affected the UK’s more resigned response to an attack on its territory.But this latest attack is significant in more ways. The lack of surprise for one. The very ordinariness of the target: the bus, the tube, both of which were reminders of other past attacks — Mumbai, Tokyo. The familiarity of the images: mangled vehicles, bleeding victims, shattered glass and the feeling of disruption brought about in the lives of common men and women. The early findings that revealed the bombers to be local boys. All these have served to reduce, to some extent, the dramatic perception of terrorism that came out of 9 The parallel to London during World War II serves as a further reminder that we have always lived with violence, the difference being that the violence has spilled out of the battlefield, making soldiers of us all.The question is, what exactly are we fighting against?Till now we have been presented with two ways of perceiving the terrorist situation. One is from the point of view of the civilised world at risk from religious fanatics. Two is from the point of view of those complaining of extreme injustice at the hands of the powerful. If one accepts the former definition then measures such as military action, tighter controls, co-operation between nations on means of combating terrorism etc. would be the answer to the problem. If one looks at it from the latter perspective then there is no escape from political solutions.But in the long run, will these be enough, when the act of terrorism itself has become a given form of protest in society? With the means of destruction so easily available, and the targets so many and so impossible to protect, will the solving of specific situations alone be enough to end it? Or will we have to look at other factors as well?Till now various theories have been put forward to explain what makes a person inclined towards terrorism ranging from the physiological, to the psychological to a multiple factor theory. It is tempting to add another element to the list, which is the cultural environment. And as the dominant exporter of culture in the world one can perhaps look to America for a clue.In a brilliant essay called The Fraying of America for Time magazine Robert Hughes wrote about the culture of perceived deprivation. ‘‘Americans’’ he wrote, ‘‘are obsessed with the recognition, praise and, when necessary, the manufacture of victims, whose one common feature is that they have been denied parity with the Blond Beast of the sentimental imagination, the heterosexual, middle-class white male. Since this new-found sensitivity decrees that only the victim shall be the hero, the white American male starts bawling for victim status too. Hence the rise of cult therapies teaching that we are all the victims of our parents, that whatever our folly, venality or outright thuggishness we are not to be blamed for it.’’Extend the thesis to the world at large and we can perhaps find a new description for the war against terror as a battle against a mindset of grievances.
